Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
N W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
1505 Sand Bluff Road - Ripley, TN 38063 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chickasaw
National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS Photo
Randy Cook
Refuge Complex Manager
Chickasaw NWR
1505 Sand Bluff Road
Ripley, TN 38063
Phone: 731/635-7621
Fax: 731/635-0178
Email: Chickasaw@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
April 2006
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
April, 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Lauderdale County, Tennessee
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
April 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4
Relationship with State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................4
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................7
Overview .............................................................................................................................7
Threats and Problems.......................................................................................................10
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................11
II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15
Overview....................................................................................................................................15
Issues ........................................................................................................................................16
Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................17
Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18
Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................20
Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20
Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................21
III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25
Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................25
Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................27
Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................28
Topography and Climate...................................................................................................28
Demography.....................................................................................................................29
Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................29
Avian Species ...................................................................................................................29
Mammals..........................................................................................................................31
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................31
Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................32
Mussels............................................................................................................................32
Noxious Invasive Species .................................................................................................32
Habitats .............................................................................................................................33
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................35
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................37
Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................38
Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................38
Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................39
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................40
Wilderness Review............................................................................................................41
ii Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................43
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................43
Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................43
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................43
Comprehensive Conservation Plan – Summary Statement .......................................................44
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................45
Goal 1 – Waterfowl ...........................................................................................................45
Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species................................................................46
Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds ..........................................................................................47
Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds.................................................................................48
Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................48
Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................49
Goal 7 – Public Use ..........................................................................................................49
Goal 8 – Administration and Operation.............................................................................50
Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................51
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................53
Background ...............................................................................................................................53
Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................53
Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................................54
Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management..................54
Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education ................................59
Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation..............................................61
Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation...................................................61
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................63
Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................65
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................67
Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................67
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................68
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................69
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................75
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................79
APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................83
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS................................................................................105
APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................141
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................151
Public Scoping of Issues ..........................................................................................................151
Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................152
APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................159
APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................161
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................163
List of Figures
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................2
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................6
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.......................................................................................8
Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley .................................................9
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas .................................................................12
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................22
Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map ................................................................26
Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge ............................................34
Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................................36
Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...............66
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. ....................................................................................63
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
guide the management actions and direction of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15
years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives of
the refuge. The plan’s overriding considerations are that fish and wildlife conservation is the first
priority in refuge management, and that wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed and
encouraged as long as they are compatible with, or do not detract from, the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established.
In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative
planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. The area for this joint
planning study includes all of west Tennessee from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee River, and
from border to border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi. This area encompasses
approximately six million acres of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge
lands (Figure 1). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of
this chapter, and in Chapter II, The Planning Process.
During the planning process, four management alternatives were developed for Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge in an effort to determine how best to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. The
alternatives covered a broad spectrum of comments from the refuge staff, the general public, and
others during the public scoping process. After reviewing the refuge’s management needs, the
priorities of regional and national resource management plans, and comments from the staff and
public, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred
action is described in Chapter V, Plan Implementation.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge would play in support of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities. The plan is needed to
• provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge;
• ensure that management of the refuge is in keeping with the purposes for which the refuge
was established;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and in partnerships around the refuge;
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
• ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and
• provide a basis for the refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
2 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort
Gilt Edge
LOWER HATCHIE
NWR
FORT PILLOW
STATE PARK
JIM TULLEY
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AREA
STATE OF
TENNESSEE
(TDOC)
FORT PILLOW
SUNK LAKE PUNA
CHICKASAW
NWR
LAKE ISOM
NWR
I−155
I−40 51
64
45
45
70
79
Eva
Lucy
Eads
Cuba
Troy
Guys
Como
Dyer
Yuma
Atoka Mason
Locke
Rives
Obion
Medon
Bemis
Ramer
Halls
Gates
Paris
Henry
Luray
Huron
Crump
Toone
Milan
Eaton
Macon
Lenox
Bells
Alamo
Leach
Sharon
Martin
Tipton
Kenton
Mercer Pinson
Selmer
Michie
Finger
Ripley
Sardis
Reagan
Darden
Shiloh
Counce
Medina
Gibson
Moscow
Braden
Miston
Finley
Bogota
Atwood
Camden
Gleason
Dukedom
Dresden
Clifton
Munford
Memphis
Cordova
Samburg
Jackson
Denmark
Henning
Ridgely
Puryear
Stanton
Hornsby
Bolivar
Trenton
Oakland
Laconia
Trimble
Tigrett
Newbern
Parsons
Gadsden
Enville
Lavinia
Randolph
Burlison
Brighton
Rosemark
Lakeland
Bartlett
Hornbeak
Elbridge
Oakfield
Chewalla
Wynnburg
Savannah
Saltillo
Silerton
Idlewild
Humboldt
Bradford
Gallaway
Westport
Bruceton
Holladay
Drummonds
Covington
Woodstock
Kerrville
Ellendale
Brunswick
Arlington
Mansfield
Lexington
Olivehill
Saulsbury
Middleton
Yorkville
Williston
Rossville La Grange
Dyersburg
Fruitvale
Henderson
Trezevant
Big Sandy
Greenfield
Millington
Germantown
Union City
Adamsville
Whiteville
Pocahontas
Rutherford
Somerville
Maury City Sugar Tree
Friendship
Huntingdon
Clarksburg
Fisherville
Barretville
Beech Bluff
Tiptonville
Springville
Scotts Hill
Brownsville
Jacks Creek
Hollow Rock
Cedar Grove
Buena Vista
Palmersville
Collierville
South Fulton
Spring Creek
Stantonville
Wildersville
Decaturville
Bath Springs
Milledgeville
Cottage Grove
Morris Chapel
Hickory Withe
Woodland Mills
Bethel Springs
Hickory Valley
Grand Junction
Essary Springs
Crockett
Mills
McLemoresville
Parker Crossroads
CHICKASAW
STATE
FOREST
NATCHEZ TRACE
STATE PARK &
FOREST WMA
HATCHIE NWR
REELFOOT LAKE WMA
TIGRETT WMA
MOSS ISLAND
MEEMAN SHELBY
STATE PARK WMA
BIG HILL POND
STATE PARK
ERNEST RICE WMA
HARTS MILL
REFUGE
HORNS BLUFF
REGUGE
LAKE
GRAHAM
WHITE LAKE REFUGE
BEAN SWITCH
REFUGE
MUSTARD BOTTOMS
WILDLIFE REFUGE
BLACK BAYOU REFUGE
PINSON MOUNDS
STATE PARK
FORT RIDGE
T.O. FULLER
STATE PARK
CHICKASAW STATE PARK
GARRETT LAKE
LAKE
LAUDERDALE
REFUGE
TIGRETT REFUGE
SPRING CREEK
JARRELL
SWITCH
PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT
MANESS
SWAMP
REFUGE
REELFOOT NWR
CARROLL LAKE
OAK DRAIN
WETLAND
WHITEVILLE
LAKE
OBION RIVER WMA
WEST BANK−REELFOOT
GOOCH WMA
West Tennessee Focus Area
0 25 50
Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley
T e n n e s s e e R i v e r
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
To better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues to
seek cooperative working relationships with numerous agencies, organizations, and businesses. In
keeping with this partnering concept, this comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant
regional, national, and international resource management plans. These include the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Project; the Lower
Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetlands Conservation Initiative; the National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan; the Partners in Flight Initiative; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network; the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan; the Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan
(2004-2008); the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency(TWRA)–Scientific Ecology Group Plan; and
the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service
also has specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the
Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding
migratory birds, see the Service website at http://birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some
conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages 550 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more than 96
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of
lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation. About 77 million acres are in Alaska; the
remaining 19 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were
initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are prepared with extensive
public involvement, help guide the future management of the refuges by establishing natural
resources and recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to
• fulfill the individual purpose for which it was established;
• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• consider the needs of wildlife first;
• fulfill the requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses.
4 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Approximately 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As this visitation grows, the economic benefits to local communities will
continue to increase. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related
pursuits in 1996, according to Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of
National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997a). An updated version of this
1997 report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003) found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to
national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging,
transportation, and other expenditures. In addition, volunteers continue to be a major contributor to
the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on
the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy; that the growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a
model for habitat management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by National Wildlife Refuge System policy,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for refuge
management 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. The
refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104 (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the legal and policy guidance for the
operation of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix III.
Guidance and direction can also be found in the following:
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to the refuge’s 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, environmental education, and interpretation); and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges
together provide the foundation for the protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to
the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (http://www.state.tn.us/twra) is charged with game
enforcement responsibilities and management of the state’s natural resources. The TWRA manages
approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges;
coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program; and provides public recreation opportunities,
including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management areas.
An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common
mission objectives where appropriate. The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the
management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee.
As previously mentioned, a joint interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the
TWRA, in collaboration with the Service’s comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee.
This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private,
state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this
cooperative planning effort would develop comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands.
In order to perform this joint planning effort, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in
their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all significant management
actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including
opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), state agencies are
not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that dictate federal planning
requirements do not apply to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. So the two agencies sought
to combine their planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within
the process for each agency to accomplish its desired objectives.
A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2) to allow both agencies to accomplish their
planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. This process will produce joint objectives for west
Tennessee lands, and will allow the Service to plan according to its NEPA requirements, while
providing the TWRA the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without NEPA provisions.
A core group was formed to oversee the planning process. This group consists of TWRA and Service
project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership
of the core group, nine resource working groups were recruited and developed to study specific
resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of experts from
various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals with expertise
in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species, critical habitats, and
opportunities, and developed management strategies for the west Tennessee resource groups.
The nine resource working groups developed a set of focus area-wide goals and objectives, which
were then translated into a series of map overlays that rank the areas of specific interest and provide
a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In
addition, each working group developed a text describing the goals, objectives, and strategies for
implementing the desired goals and objectives for each specific resource category.
6 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process
Focus Area-Wide
Goals/Objectives
CCP Process
NEPA Process
Comprehensive
Conservation Plans
Resource Working Groups
State Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Private Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Federal Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
West Tennessee Master Plan
Core Group
West Tennessee
Wildlife Resources
Conservation
Plan
Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation Plans
Land
Acquisition
Proposals
Habitat
Enhancement
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies
for private, state, and federal lands, and then incorporated into the draft West Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The goals, objectives, and strategies
developed for federal lands were used by the Service as the biological foundation for its refuge
comprehensive conservation planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west
Tennessee lands, the planning process will produce a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP)
for each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot; Lake Isom; Chickasaw;
Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie.
Once finalized, the refuge CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west
Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is
expected to be compiled in 2006. It will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal
managers alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative, interagency management, and
administration of west Tennessee resources.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and
has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located
within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3).
The Service’s resource priorities for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are as follows:
• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened,
and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Plan 2000b).
The Lower Mississippi Valley (which is a geographic subset of the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem) once supported a vast complex of bottomland hardwood forests that extended along the
Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this bottomland hardwood
forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or remains in scattered patches throughout the region
(Figure 4). Flood waters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic
systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower
Mississippi Valley is fragmented by levees, and its water flows are restricted by flood control projects
and agricultural diversions. Its water quality is heavily impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff.
The rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid and laden with pesticides, and they support
a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources.
8 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Baton Rouge
Vicksburg
Monroe
Little Rock
Dyersburg
Memphis
Poplar Bluff
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
LOUISIANA
ARKANSAS
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
Reelfoot NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lower Hatchie NWR
0 30 60 120 180 240
Miles
Legend
National Wildlife Refuges
State Wildlife Management Areas
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
!
" !
##
" !
##
!
$ $ %
10 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners,
local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus its efforts on
adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife
populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common
threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The biological objectives targeted
in this plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally,
nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United
States, and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern
physiographic areas (Twedt et al., 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in
irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. The national wildlife refuges
in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the
remaining wildlife resources.
Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include:
• The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
• The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, i.e., fragmentation;
• The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of
agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• The homogenization of remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem; and
the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have
become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in
the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to
occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct.
Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alterations in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) have
resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et al.,
2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have also decreased in the past several decades, and the
availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance,
distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al., 1994).
The species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are those that are area-sensitive
or dependent on special habitat requirements, such as large, mature blocks of forest
that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 species of birds nest
regularly in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting waterbirds,
with at least 70 species occurring in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat (Twedt et al.,
1999). Less than one percent of the remaining forest patches are large enough to support source
populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and
swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000).
Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic resource
productivity. Despite efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other aquatic resources,
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
a growing number are declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost 400 aquatic species
either have needed or presently need special protection in some part of their natural or historic range
(Williams et al., 1989; Moyle and Leidy, 1992). The number of aquatic species listed in 2002
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has increased to 19 amphibian
species, 21 crustacean species, 70 mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these
declines are linked largely to habitat loss or alteration, including flow changes, watershed
modifications, sedimentation, pollution, and the impacts of harmful exotic or transplanted species
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002).
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. By working with
others, the Service is more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals.
Bottomland hardwood forests are ranked as a high priority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other
agencies on which to focus conservation and management efforts. A combination of land protection
and habitat management methods is used by the Service and others to compensate for bottomland
hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared or common long-term goals established for this area.
The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its associated Lower Mississippi
Valley Joint Venture Plan have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive
conservation plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering habitat for
midcontinental waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between
private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental
waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of wetland habitats in North America. In
addition, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan encompasses a regional approach with the
same objectives: to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The
joint venture has initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore
lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds, and has identified
conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts.
One of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for
migratory bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than
100,000 acres. In addition, Partners in Flight has developed a Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation Plan
that establishes habitat objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al., 1998). In order to meet
population objectives for migratory land birds, this plan has identified 87 bird conservation areas (BCAs),
broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000
acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases, which serve as priority areas for forest
restoration, will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity.
In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and protection of one each of the
following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres. Three
Tennessee bird conservation areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley were identified by Ford (1998) and
are delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the Upper, Middle, and
Lower Implementation Zones. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is included within the Middle
Implementation Zone, which totals approximately 165,472 acres (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The
refuge’s current approved land acquisition program would contribute toward achieving these BCA goals.
Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners in Flight
Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land bird
12 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas
Shelby
Dyer
Fayette
Tipton
Haywoo
Lauderdale
Lake
BCA 3 − Lower
Implementation Zone
BCA 1− Upper
Implementation Zone
Legend
Bird Conservation Areas
USFWS Lands
USFWS Expansion Boundaries
State Lands
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
Miles
Lower Hatchie NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Reelfoot NWR
BCA 2− Middle
Implementation Zone
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of
species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species
(Bonney et al., 1999). Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat type from
which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This list of focal
species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b) has
established five resource ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of
this comprehensive conservation plan. These goals involve the protection, enhancement, and
management of migratory bird populations and habitats; wetlands; habitats and populations of
endangered, threatened, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife
refuges and national fish hatcheries.
Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish
and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands in conjunction with public
lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that
the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce redundancy and
overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations.
14 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. The Planning Process
OVERVIEW
The west Tennessee planning effort includes the preparation of four comprehensive conservation
plans (CCPs) for five national wildlife refuges: Reelfoot/Lake Isom; Lower Hatchie; Chickasaw; and
Hatchie. It also includes the cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Conservation Plan, which identifies the resources and management goals for approximately 10,000
square miles of federal, state, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory
birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the
state, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources (WTWR) Conservation Plan provides the main
biological foundation for the four national wildlife refuge CCPs.
In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in which four of the five west Tennessee national wildlife refuges are
located, migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the
comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen, 2001; TWRA and USFWS, 2002;
Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the
comprehensive planning effort that sufficient habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be
provided on the national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that
had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective
national wildlife refuge boundaries and incorporated any public and private lands that might be
available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs
for west Tennessee, and incorporated over 6 million acres of land.
The final product of this west Tennessee planning effort will be a West Tennessee Master Plan that
will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the
four refuge CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively
protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the
requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats
in the western third of the State of Tennessee.
The planning process began in January, 2000, with initial core group meetings in which the Service
and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The core group selected nine
resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and
strategies for specific resource categories on federal, state, and private lands within the west
Tennessee planning area (Figure 1).
Preplanning for the Chickasaw Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental
assessment also began during early 2000. The identification of issues is a major factor in
determining the management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans. To ensure
that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series of
meetings and interviews was conducted to guide the identification of issues for the planning effort.
In September 2000, the Chickasaw CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Chickasaw
National Wildlife Refuge and the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex) began meeting
to discuss the refuge’s issues and management opportunities. The scoping meeting was advertised
locally and by mailings, with additional comments received by mail, telephone, and e-mail. On
November 2, 2000, a public scoping meeting was held in Ripley, Tennessee. At the meeting, the
public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding their perceived issues and
16 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
opportunities for management of the refuge. The planning staff of the West Tennessee National
Wildlife Refuges Complex then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the
development of management alternatives in the draft environmental assessment.
Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations
and the surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and the projects
identified for the refuge. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Chickasaw Planning
Review Group, in which refuge neighbors, organizations, educators, government agencies, and
local officials were invited to attend and share their thoughts in a focus group meeting. The
Chickasaw Planning Review Group included representatives from the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency; Anderson-Tully Company; Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife
Refuges; Ducks Unlimited; Dyersburg State Community College; and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, well as local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businessmen, and county officials.
This group provided oversight during the planning process, and solicited suggestions from
professional counterparts as well as local individuals and private interests. Draft versions of the
comprehensive conservation plan were routed to the Planning Review Group members
periodically for review, and their comments were considered in plan revisions.
The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January, 2002, the WTWR
Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for
much of the Chickasaw CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, as well as other
relevant documents, the input received from the public, and the refuge staff’s professional judgment,
the Chickasaw Technical Team evaluated the refuge’s issues and resource needs and developed
various management alternatives which were then considered in the draft environmental assessment.
The alternatives addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and
concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The environmental
assessment constituted the documentation and process by which the preferred action was selected.
Once the preferred action was selected, the Chickasaw Technical Team developed a set of goals,
objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15
years. The goals, objectives, and strategies are described in Chapter IV, Management Direction.
A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. The public will be notified when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is available.
ISSUES
The identification of issues provided the basis for initiating the development of management
objectives and strategies. The identified issues play a role in determining the refuge’s future
conditions and will be considered in the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues and
concerns described in the following pages were generated by the public, the Planning Review Group,
and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 31 issues was consolidated into a list of 19 issue
categories concerning Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The 19 issues were grouped according
to five broad management categories: (1) fish and wildlife population issues; (2) habitat issues; (3)
visitor services and environmental education issues; (4) refuge administration and operation issues;
and (5) land protection and conservation issues. Appendix VII provides a summary of the comments
received during the public scoping process.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES
Waterfowl Populations
Because the refuge was established specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” (see
the “Refuge Purpose” section in Chapter III), all operations and management are considered in light
of their impact on migratory birds, of which waterfowl are the most numerous. The refuge staff
monitors the refuge’s waterfowl populations, and works to provide sufficient high quality habitat to
fulfill the population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as established in Ford and
Wathen (2001) and the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). Portions of the
refuge are dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and
forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident
waterfowl (please refer to the following “Habitat Issues” section). In order to meet its waterfowl
objectives, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet the habitat needs
of waterfowl and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Populations
Nearly every study examining the population trends of North America’s neotropical migratory birds
has reported declines in at least some species (Askins et al., 1990). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley
has been identified as experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel
et al., 1994). Partners in Flight has developed conservation plans for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
(Twedt et al., 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey et al., 1998) to address priority species
and bird conservation issues. Since 1994, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has cooperated with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Southern Hardwoods Research Station to assess and monitor
the populations, habitats, and status of cerulean warblers on the refuge. The refuge continues to
monitor its migratory and resident songbirds, and works to address the habitat issues that affect
resident and neotropical migrant populations, in keeping with its goals and establishing purposes.
Threatened and Endangered Species
A key function of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is to enhance the survival of threatened and
endangered species. Three federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to use or
populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuge: the bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, and interior
least tern. As many as 16 bald eagles are known to winter annually on the Chickasaw Refuge, and
three known active nests are documented on refuge lands. The refuge’s habitat restoration and
protection activities continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles.
The pallid sturgeon is not known to inhabit refuge waters. However, it is present in the Mississippi
River, which is immediately adjacent to the refuge. The refuge can support pallid sturgeon recovery
efforts by providing technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management
agencies, and by supporting efforts to restore riverine habitats.
Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars in close proximity to the refuge, and are
regularly observed feeding on refuge lands. The refuge’s protection of lands immediately adjacent to
the Mississippi River provides protection to the sandbars, which are used by least tern nesting
colonies during the summer months.
18 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Resident Species Populations
The refuge’s resident wildlife include game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels,
rabbits, and furbearers, as well as numerous species of nongame mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. The refuge monitors some resident wildlife populations through surveys such as the
turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. Species groups that lend themselves to management (e.g.
deer, turkey, etc.) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management
goals, and refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored for potential management
issues. The benefits to resident wildlife are one of the factors considered when opportunities arise for
land acquisitions within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary.
Shorebird Populations
Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent
inundation of fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for
providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). The refuge’s waterfowl management
activities offer concurrent opportunities to provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with the
management of impoundments and moist soil units. The staff monitors shorebird use on the refuge
and looks for opportunities to support the priorities of the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and
USFWS, 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird populations.
HABITAT ISSUES
Waterfowl Habitat
Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the purpose for
which the refuge was established. Thus, the refuge’s management priorities must be directed toward
providing quality wetland areas that are attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving
ducks, and geese. Each management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for
each group to complete its life cycle. A portion of the refuge is dedicated to providing seasonally
flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and
breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order to meet the refuge’s objectives for
waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl habitat
needs, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Habitat
As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, the refuge’s priorities include
providing quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migrant songbirds. The refuge’s
land and forest management practices will continue to take into account the value of such practices to
songbirds. The songbird research being conducted on the refuge by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture since 1994 continues to provide valuable information in regard to habitat suitability for
cerulean warblers. The refuge will continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to
address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant bird populations.
Forest Habitat Management
The refuge protects more than 20,293 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and over 503 acres of
upland forests. These bottomland hardwood and upland forests provide invaluable habitat for a wide
range of wildlife species and are critical to their preservation and perpetuation. The bottomland
hardwood forests, in particular, are important to migratory and wintering waterfowl, especially
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
mallards and wood ducks. The forested tracts provide crucial food resources such as hard mast, soft
mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events in the fall and early spring. The refuge will
complete its forest habitat and other habitat management plans, and management decisions will be
made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge purposes, with
due consideration for all other environmental factors.
Cooperative Farming
Agricultural crops play an important role in the overall scheme of migratory bird management, as they
provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the
refuge grows corn and soybean crops that are rotated with moist soil units or are produced on the
higher elevations to ensure a readily available source of food for wildlife, and to meet refuge
objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The Chickasaw Refuge’s cropland operation
includes an impoundment system and occupies approximately 1,186 acres. Under a cooperative
farming agreement, this acreage is divided by a 75 percent farmer to 25 percent refuge ratio, with the
refuge usually receiving its portion of the crops on the lower and wetter fields.
Another farming option being used on the refuge is force-account farming, in which refuge personnel
and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component in the overall
management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a portion of the
refuge. Force-account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that the Service must
bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer, and chemicals.
Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the cooperative farmer to bear the cost of
production and leave a designated share of crops in the field as payment for renting the property.
Thus, force-account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense but the advantage of greater
flexibility and retains one hundred percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no
expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of
agricultural products left in the field for use by wildlife.
Most crop fields that are planted for the refuge can be flooded for waterfowl use. This, coupled with
subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuge to make substantial contributions to the
migratory bird objectives of the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s farming program will continue to
address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations.
Moist Soil Habitat
Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl, as these food
resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. Chickasaw National Wildlife
Refuge and the associated river floodplain are capable of supplying moist soil foods such as barnyard
grass, sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous plants.
The refuge provides 835 acres of these early successional habitats and plays a key role in the
migration patterns of midcontinental waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge’s present and
future resource management will in large part be influenced by practices that actively benefit
waterfowl, including moist soil habitats. The management of the refuge’s moist soil units will continue
to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations.
20 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES
Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that hunting and fishing are two
consumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In addition, hunting and fishing are integral
parts of the lifestyle and culture of west Tennessee. Due to this fact and the limited amount of public land,
it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding the refuge’s hunting and fishing
opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality
experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. However, the refuge’s hunting opportunities could
be expanded through additional land acquisitions from willing sellers within the current approved
acquisition boundary. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance its hunting and
fishing opportunities, in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes.
Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation are four nonconsumptive priority public
uses on national wildlife refuges. In accordance with this legislation, the refuge will seek to increase
opportunities for these priority public uses. Currently, hunting and fishing are the major public uses on
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge currently does not have the staff or facilities needed to
provide programming for important environmental education, interpretive, or nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent
activities. More exposure resulting from expanded nonconsumptive recreational uses and
programs would increase public awareness and have a positive effect on other refuge programs. The
refuge is located in Lauderdale County (population 27,101) within 10 miles of Ripley, Tennessee
(population 7,844), and approximately 60 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population 873,000) (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2000). Better-developed visitor facilities in association with a Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge visitor center annex would provide a level of wildlife-dependent environmental education,
interpretation, and recreational opportunities currently not available in Lauderdale County. The refuge will
examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuge,
in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes.
Public Access
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with a high degree of public interest
in the opportunities it offers for the enjoyment of natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the refuges to provide, when compatible with refuge
purposes, opportunities for the “big six” wildlife-dependent types of public recreation. The “big six”
are hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography.
Therefore, attention must be given to providing the appropriate amount and forms of visitor access on
the refuge. Issues regarding the increasing or limiting of public access should be considered with
respect to the refuge’s overall resource management goals and purposes.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION ISSUES
Maintenance and Operations
The budget for national wildlife refuges is prioritized and divided among the 550 individual refuges
that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. Operating within a fixed budget requires the
prioritizing of programs and projects. The Service’s Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) and
Maintenance Management System (MMS) are the processes used for the refuges to submit their
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
budgetary requests. The Chickasaw Refuge’s management priorities include managing aquatic and
forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species; cultural resources; public use; and
law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance. Funds are assigned to the refuge’s maintenance
needs, in light of its priority resource needs and budget constraints. Consideration should be given to
providing comprehensive maintenance of the refuge’s facilities, within the constraints of available
resources and management priorities. Management decisions would continue to address the
refuge’s priority operational needs, and budgetary requests would be made in keeping with goals and
purposes for which the refuge was established.
Law Enforcement
Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use, and unfortunately in
some cases, misuse; so the continual involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in
order to protect the resources as well as the public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive law
enforcement on refuge lands. As with other issues, refuge priorities must be established which
compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should be considered and ways to improve law
enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuge’s goals and purposes.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES
Land Acquisition
The refuge’s land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources as well as additional
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has a
current approved acquisition boundary of approximately 60,240 acres. As of July 1, 2004, the Service
had acquired a total of 25,006 acres within this approved acquisition boundary (Figure 6).
Public perception of federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which eminent
domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. It is the Service’s
policy to acquire land only from willing sellers, and every effort should be made to provide effective
information to the public in order to promote full understanding of the refuge acquisition process.
Management decisions must include acquisition priorities as well as future management of acquired
tracts in light of the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
Water Level Management
Water level management has the potential to affect the resources on the refuge and its immediate
vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and
natural flooding induced by the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi river systems. Impacts from
refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. The
comprehensive planning process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a
case-by-case basis, while keeping management decisions in line with the refuge’s management
goals and purposes, as well as potential water level impacts on neighboring lands.
Protection of Unique Areas
At least ten cultural resource sites are documented on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. These
sites were discovered during an archaeological investigation conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the
site of proposed waterfowl impoundments (Anderson, 1995). Numerous other archaeological
investigations have been conducted throughout the nearby portions of west Tennessee. These west
22 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
To Ripley −−>
Mississippi River
Open Lake
Chisholm Lake
Obion River
S.Fork Forked Deer
Dry Arm
Wardlows Chute
Wardlows Pocket
Gar Pond
Coker Slough
Right Hand Arm
Gum Pond
Jennings Pond
19
88
Barr Rd
Dee Webb Rd
Chisholm Lake Rd
Watkins Rd
Great River Rd
Hales Point Barr Rd
Morris Rd.
Knob Creek Rd
Key Corner Rd
Suggs Rd
Porter Gap Rd
Brushy Ridge Rd
Sand Bluff Rd
Barr Rd
Legend
Current Refuge Boundary
Acquisition Boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Tennessee archaeological surveys document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural
resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. While only one archaeological survey has been
conducted on the refuge, past history indicates that many more cultural sites are likely to exist on
refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas,
in keeping with the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
Protection from Excessive Siltation
Excessive silt enters the refuge from Cold Creek and has changed the hydrology on certain refuge
lands. Refuge management should consider alternatives for protecting refuge lands from this
siltation. Efforts of partnering agencies such as Natural Resources Conservation Service and
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to monitor and reduce siltation in the Cold
Creek watershed should be supported, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
24 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
III. Refuge Description
LAND ACQUISITION
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in rural western Tennessee, approximately 15 miles
southwest of the city of Dyersburg (Figure 7). The refuge gets its name from the Chickasaw Indians,
who historically occupied portions of west Tennessee, including Lauderdale County in which the
refuge is located. Prior to federal acquisition, most of the lands that make up the Chickasaw Refuge
were owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company of Memphis, Tennessee. In 1956, the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency leased the tract and managed it as a wildlife management
area. The refuge was approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on May 14, 1985, to
protect approximately 37,500 acres of bottomland hardwoods and adjacent habitats for migratory
waterfowl. This approval included two acquisition areas: a 23,600-acre upper area that is now
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and a 13,900-acre lower area that today is owned and managed
by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
From 1985 to 1990, 14,934 acres of the upper unit were purchased by The Nature Conservancy for
resale to the Service. In addition to these lands, a 190-acre tract at the west end of Chisholm Lake
and a 1,428-acre block comprised of three contiguous tracts lying several miles east of the main body
of the refuge were purchased by the Service from landowners in 1987. This latter area is primarily
agricultural and is being developed as feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and shorebirds. In
1997, a 437-acre tract known as the Marley Lease was purchased from the Trust for Public Land,
with funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Account. These purchases comprised the entirety of
the 16,989 acres originally under Service fee title ownership at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.
In addition to the fee title lands, the Chickasaw Refuge includes 4,847 acres of contiguous and 540
acres of noncontiguous lands managed under a no-fee lease from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, bringing the total refuge acreage to 22,376 acres as of 1998.
In addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion of the refuge acquisition
boundary was approved in 1999. This expanded boundary covers approximately 35,221 additional
acres in Lauderdale County, adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2000a). The Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative
agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The project lands involve about 127
ownerships that vary in size from less than one acre to 6,000 acres. The proposed acquisitions,
when complete, would increase the refuge’s total size to approximately 60,240 acres. Since the
approval of the current acquisition boundary in 1999, several tracts have been acquired from willing
sellers, bringing the refuge to a current total of 25,006 acres (as of April 1, 2004).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation,
other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and where
appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for
compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands
include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other
areas. The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title,
easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.
Funding for land acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees
to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001).
26 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions will be provided through the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these
funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the
Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1).
REFUGE PURPOSE
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
(16 U.S.C. 715d) for “... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 established additional refuge purposes to be “...
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 or servitude ...” (16 U.S.C. 742 (b) (1)). Later, the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) declared the refuge to be “suitable for (1) incidental fish
and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, and (3) the
conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....”
The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4) (5)), is the specific law that
grants authority for acquiring lands for national wildlife refuges. Under this Act, the Secretary of the
Interior is authorized to take steps as may be required for the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources, including but not limited to
research, development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and
water or interests therein. The Act also authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept gifts of real
or personal property for its benefit and use in performing its activities and services.
The Land Acquisition Planning Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985b) that proposed the initial
land acquisitions for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge stated the purpose of the acquisition
proposal: “to protect habitat of significant value to migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, with special
emphasis on migrating Canada goose populations.”
Expanding on these purposes, the refuge’s objectives were further defined in the Service’s Final
Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a).
The following management objectives were identified for the proposed expansion at Chickasaw
National Wildlife Refuge:
• Preserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated fish and
wildlife values.
• Preserve, protect, reestablish, and manage habitat for endangered and threatened species.
• Manage for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for wintering
waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks.
• Manage for native wildlife species and their associated habitats.
• Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent
recreation.
The proposed project would also help support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower Mississippi
River Valley Ecosystem Team. These priorities involve migratory bird populations and their habitats;
wetlands; threatened and endangered species and their habitats; fisheries and aquatic resources; and
national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b).
28 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lies in the Lower Mississippi River floodplain with eight miles of
the refuge’s western boundary adjoining the Mississippi River. The refuge extends east two to six
miles to the edge of the heavily dissected Chickasaw Bluff. The dominant land forms of the Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its
confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created
by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
Due to the lack of a mainline Mississippi River levee in Lauderdale County, the entire refuge is
subject to inundation from high river stages, typically in late winter and early spring. During high river
stages, water depths can reach 30 feet in the lower-lying portions of the refuge. In addition,
headwater flooding from the Mississippi River has been virtually eliminated by upstream levees
adjacent to the river. As a result, the frequency and duration of backwater flooding have increased in
all non-leveed areas, including the Chickasaw Refuge and adjacent lands. The natural patterns of
erosion and sedimentation have been altered due to channelization and other human disturbances.
Erosion rates have increased on both upland and alluvial soils. Sedimentation has increased in the
swamps, brakes, oxbow lakes, and other low-lying areas. Sediment loading in streams and rivers
has also increased, disrupting the natural patterns of aggradation and degradation.
The altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and
lake formation associated with Mississippi River meandering is no longer occurring or is occurring on
a very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs.
Topographically, the refuge is slightly undulating due to past influences of the Forked Deer and
Mississippi rivers, with most drainage to the west along the Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River.
The topography of these bottomlands is characteristically flat, but slight variations in elevation are
associated with considerable differences in soils, drainage conditions, and forest species composition
(Barrett 1980). A number of small open-water areas are present within the floodplain, some within old
sloughs. Two of these, Open Lake and Chisholm Lake, were reportedly formed by the New Madrid
earthquake, the latter apparently within an old oxbow channel of the Mississippi.
The main portion of the refuge has elevations ranging from 220 to 260 feet above mean sea level
(msl), with the highest elevations occurring along existing or old channels of the Mississippi and its
larger tributaries. The elevations along the eastern portion of the refuge, adjacent to the eroded
lower slopes of the loess bluffs, range from 250 to 300 msl.
The eastern two-thirds of Lauderdale County consist of nearly level to steep, well drained to poorly
drained, silty soils on loess uplands. The western one-third of the county consists of nearly level, well
drained to poorly drained, clayey to sandy soils on the Mississippi River floodplain (Monteith 1990). The
soils on the refuge consist of deep loess on the eastern margin and alluvial sediments in the floodplain.
Within the floodplain, loamy soils are more common along the present or former natural levees. The soils
in the flats or depressions of the lower-lying areas within the floodplain are dominated by clays. As a
result of the extensive drainage efforts that have occurred from the early twentieth century to the present
day, the drainage patterns have been altered appreciably in some areas. In addition, the ongoing
sedimentation is gradually filling in many aquatic features on the refuge.
The refuge climate is characterized by mild winters; hot, humid summers; and abundant rainfall. For
the period from 1962 to 1980, the average annual temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, with
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
average daily temperatures ranging from 35.2 degrees in January to 79.9 degrees in July. The total
annual precipitation during the period of observation has averaged 51.2 inches, with the highest
average rainfall occurring during the months of March through May. Summer and early fall are the
driest periods, with the lowest rainfall occurring from July through October. In the summer, most rain
falls in brief yet intense thunderstorms, which occur on about 53 days each year. The average
annual snowfall is nine inches. The freeze-free period, or growing season, ranges from 203 to 233
days, from late March to early November (Monteith, 1990).
DEMOGRAPHY
The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west Tennessee.
The immediate area surrounding the refuge is even less populated than most of west Tennessee,
due to its location adjacent to the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers and their floodplains.
According to the 2000 census, Lauderdale County had a population of 27,101 people, which is an
increase of 15.4 percent since the 1990 census (Tennessee County Profiles: Lauderdale County,
http://cls.coe.utk.edu/counties/lauderdale.html).
The per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2000 was $19,339. Lauderdale County’s per
capita income was $13,682. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic
bases. Several small to medium manufacturing companies are located in the county, with some of
the major private employers including Wal-Mart, Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Tennessee
Electroplating, and S & R of Tennessee. Other major employers include the Lauderdale County
Schools, Forked Deer Electric Cooperative, and Baptist Memorial Hospital.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitats for threatened and
endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Three
federally listed species, including the endangered interior least tern, the endangered pallid sturgeon,
and the threatened bald eagle, are all found on or near Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.
The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars adjacent to the refuge and to
feed on refuge lands. The pallid sturgeon is known to occur within the Mississippi River. It is
possible that pallid sturgeons could enter the refuge’s lakes during high river stages; however, this
has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers.
As many as 16 bald eagles winter annually on the refuge, with at least three known active nests
documented on refuge lands. No federally listed flora are known on the refuge. A Section 7 Intra-
Service Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V.
AVIAN SPECIES
Birds are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on nearby
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Appendix IV contains a
list of the avian species known to occur on the refuge and their residence status. The bottomland
hardwood forests serve as important habitat for breeding birds and migrants in the spring and fall,
and migratory birds occur in substantial numbers seasonally. For migratory forest-breeding
songbirds and shorebirds, the ecological and biological significance is transcontinental, with the
refuge providing breeding and migration habitat for Gulf of Mexico migrants returning from their
wintering grounds in Central and South America.
30 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Recent studies indicate significant population declines in some species of neotropical migrant birds
(Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most neotropical
migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the
cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring on the refuge during 1985-87 and 1991. Additional
research began in 1992 and is ongoing to assess the habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in
the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel et al., 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on
the Chickasaw Refuge include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Approximately 32 species of shorebirds (TWRA and USFWS 2002) are commonly found in west
Tennessee, with the highest populations occurring during migration periods that typically peak from
August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). Shorebird species
common to west Tennessee include the killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater
yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge lands that provide
shorebird habitat include riverine mudbars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, the margins of
reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, the Chickasaw Refuge manages approximately
1,186 acres of impoundments as shorebird habitat. Shorebird habitat is provided within the
impoundments each spring (target 100 acres) and fall (target 30 acres).
The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl
populations that breed in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. Chickasaw
National Wildlife Refuge and its adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover
area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population
numbers may exceed 150,000. The value of the Chickasaw Refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is
enhanced by its proximity to other refuges. It lies within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife
refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to the west; White River and Lower Hatchie to the south;
Hatchie and Tennessee to the east; and Reelfoot, Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek, and Mingo to the
north. Other species of waterfowl known to use the areas include the black duck; gadwall; pintail;
green-winged teal; blue-winged teal; widgeon; wood duck; ring-necked duck; and hooded merganser.
Wood ducks are year-round residents and depend on refuge habitats for nesting and brood-rearing.
Approximately 1,186 total acres are currently managed on the refuge as a waterfowl sanctuary.
These are moist soil or agricultural habitats. The fields are managed at an average ratio of 50
percent moist soil to 50 percent agricultural; the ratio varies year to year due to river stages and other
environmental factors. Approximately 30 to 100 acres of the sanctuary are managed for shorebird
habitat depending on the time of year. Agricultural crops are raised by a cooperative farming
agreement; the refuge’s share of the crops is 25 percent (unharvested), with 75 percent (harvested)
going to the farmer. The waterfowl objectives for the refuge are 500,000 goose-use days and 13.5
million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, impoundments,
flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation
during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of the refuge
expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Wild turkeys are also present on the refuge, although spring flooding impacts nesting success on a
regular basis. Flocks consisting of up to 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, in which
the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves and bobwhite quail are common on the open
lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered
hawk, northern harrier, barred owl, and turkey and black vultures. Kestrels and broad-winged hawks
are also present but occur less frequently.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
MAMMALS
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge contains a diversity of mammals representing seven taxonomic
orders, including pouched mammals (opossums), insect-eaters (shrews and moles), bats, flesh-eaters
(raccoons), gnawing mammals (squirrels and mice), rabbits, and even-toed hoofed mammals
(white-tailed deer).
The diverse habitat types on the refuge are very productive for a wide variety of game and nongame
mammals. Mammalian game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray
and fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbits. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver,
opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink.
Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats,
chipmunks, and flying squirrels.
Providing a diversity of habitats on the refuge contributes to healthy populations of numerous
mammalian species, as well as other resident animals. Habitat management practices that focus on
providing habitat for migratory birds would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and
regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a
greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diversity of forest habitats
would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats.
Appendix IV provides a list of the mammalian species known to occur on the refuge.
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
A diverse group of amphibians is found on the refuge, including salamanders, toads, and frogs. Most
are well adapted to the refuge’s aquatic and terrestrial environments, with moisture being typically
important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and
skinks, are common as well.
Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most of the refuge’s freshwater
and terrestrial habitats, and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many
species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the
environmental health of an ecosystem. Comprehensive inventories will be performed to establish
baseline information on the occurrence and habitat use of amphibian and reptilian species on the
refuge, as resources become available. Knowledge of which species occur on Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area.
A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are
declining. Loss and degradation of habitat are the main known causes of declines in reptile and
amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests
having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alterations,
and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee which
negatively affect populations. The refuge’s land protection and management efforts serve these
populations by protecting their existing habitats, as well as by restoring degraded habitats.
The reptiles and amphibians known to exist on the refuge and their status in west Tennessee
are listed in Appendix IV.
32 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
AQUATIC SPECIES
The sloughs, rivers, and lakes within Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge support a diversity of game
fish, including largemouth bass; black crappie; white crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill,
and channel catfish. Nongame species such as carp, buffalo, and drum are also present. Appendix
IV provides a comprehensive listing of fish likely to occur in the Mississippi River proper and the
directly westward-flowing tributaries in western Tennessee, including the rivers on the Chickasaw
Refuge (TWRA and USFWS, 2002).
The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes between the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers
and their associated wetland habitats on the refuge provide a constant and renewable fishery. When
flooding occurs in the spring, these areas provide good nurseries for juvenile fish. Although decades
of hydrologic alteration and sedimentation have impacted the aquatic resources of the refuge and
surrounding vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic
habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of
channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife; the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Cropland Reserve Program, Forest Legacy, and The
Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Plan for the Hatchie River (2000).
MUSSELS
A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuge, and few published
surveys are available on the mussels of the Mississippi River and its major tributaries in west
Tennessee. However, a survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported seven species of mussels from
Reelfoot Lake and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in
Ortmann 1926) listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and five species from the Wolf
River in Shelby County. Don Manning (1989) later reported 33 species of mussels in the nearby
Hatchie River. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels are likely to exist in
the vicinity of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Mussel species known to exist in the Obion
and Forked Deer rivers are listed in Appendix IV.
As stated in the above Aquatic Resources section, hydrologic alterations and sedimentation
have impacted the area’s aquatic resources, including mussels. Similarly, the refuge’s land
protection and habitat restoration efforts result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and
mussel species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of
channelization and poor land use practices. In addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel
populations should be conducted on the waters of the refuge and surrounding vicinity, when
resources become available.
NOXIOUS INVASIVE SPECIES
Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuge include a hybrid cocklebur,
hemp sesbania, and the kudzu vine. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that
is resistant to flooding and wet soil conditions. The species is prolific and will outcompete native
moist soil vegetation in moist soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will also
outcompete the preferred moist soil plants.
Kudzu occurs along field and forest edges and forest openings where direct sunlight can penetrate
the forest floor. This exotic vine is a native of Asia and was introduced into the United States at the
Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. By 1900, kudzu was being sold through mail order
suppliers as an inexpensive livestock forage. The Soil Erosion Service distributed approximately 85
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
million seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture removed kudzu from its list of cover plants and listed it as a common weed in 1970
(Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977; Miller and Boyd, 1983).
Kudzu is an aggressive vine that can grow up to 60 feet per year, forming a continuous blanket of
foliage. The dense foliage often chokes out native plants and trees, alters native biotic communities,
and drastically decreases biodiversity. Today, an estimated seven million acres in the southeast are
covered in kudzu. While kudzu is not known to currently exist on the refuge, heavy infestations on
adjacent lands require continual monitoring.
The Chickasaw Refuge’s Habitat Management Plan includes plans and preferred methods for control
and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species, which presently occur on or in close
proximity to the refuge.
HABITATS
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife
species. The habitats on the refuge consist of approximately 94 acres of open administrative land;
1,186 acres of agriculture and moist soil open lands (the agricultural/moist soil breakdown varies from
year to year); 1,874 acres of bald cypress/tupelo forest; 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood
forest; 966 acres of open water; 1,018 acres of sandbars; 515 acres of osage orange savanna; 431
acres of scrub-shrub; and 503 acres of upland forest. The total current deeded acreage being
managed as Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is 25,006 acres (July 1, 2004). Figure 8 shows the
existing habitat types on the refuge.
The refuge���s 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods consist of black willow, eastern cottonwood,
overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, bald cypress, sweet pecan,
bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. Forest management practices are used in these areas to
maintain an optimal diversity of forest habitat for wildlife. Mast production in the bottomland hardwood
habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl,
deer, squirrel, and turkey. During the winter and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of
acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat.
There are approximately 1,186 acres of agriculture/moist soil open lands on the refuge. In any given
year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for agricultural production and 50 percent
are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year to year due to river flooding and other
factors. The croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers, who grow
corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is usually planted in corn,
which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption.
The refuge currently contains approximately 1,874 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is
dominated by bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory and buttonbush in the understory.
Buttonbush is also abundant in the 431 acres of scrub-shrub habitat found on the refuge. In the 966
acres of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged aquatics
such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail, as well as emergents such as
American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily.
Approximately 1,018 acres of sandbar habitat are found on the refuge, primarily adjacent to the
Mississippi River along the refuge’s western boundary. Vegetation is essentially lacking as these
sandbars are intermittently submerged. Adjacent to the sandbar habitat is a unique savanna habitat
34 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
State Highway 88
Hobe Webb Road
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Barr Road
State Highway 19
Dee Webb Road
Chisholm Lake Road
Watkins Road
Hales Point Barr Road
Morris Road
Out Bounds Road
Sand Bluff Road
Turkey Hill Road
J. D. Smith Road
Acres
94
1,186
1,874
18,419
966
1,018
515
431
503
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Types
Habitat Types
Administrative
Agriculture Moist Soils
Baldcypress−Tupelo
Bottomland Forest
Open Water
Sand Bar
Savanna
Scrub Shrub
Upland Forest
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
dominated by osage orange, which comprises about 515 acres. The approximately 503 acres
of upland hardwood forest habitat is found primarily along the Chickasaw bluff on the eastern
edge of the refuge and in a large tract in the western portion of the refuge. These upland
forests consist primarily of southern red oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, post oak, white oak,
various hickories, and American beech.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge has
adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are management’s primary
focuses for public use, and over time programs will be developed to increase visitor awareness and
appreciation of the refuge’s fish and wildlife resources.
Wildlife-dependent recreation activities currently available on the refuge include wildlife observation
(by hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), hunting, fishing, and photography. Hunting and
fishing have been the primary uses on the refuge since its inception, and encompass the majority of
public use. The refuge staff also provides environmental education and interpretative programs when
requested by local civic and school groups. Currently, there are no interpretive facilities on the
refuge. In many years, prolonged seasonal flooding from the high stages of the Mississippi River,
especially during the spring months, poses a unique challenge in providing visitor services. The
seasonal floodwaters can reach as much as 30 feet deep in some areas of the refuge.
In fiscal year 2000, the refuge received about 115,764 visitors, although visitor use data is limited.
The refuge is open during most of the state hunting seasons, with some exceptions and certain
restrictions which apply to certain hunts. Fishing is permitted all year according to state regulations,
but certain restrictions apply. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities
unless expressly permitted. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography are permitted
on most areas of the refuge. All public access is prohibited on the 1,186-acre Waterfowl Rest Area
from November 15 through March 15. About eleven miles of trails, primarily old logging roads, are
maintained for foot hunting access, wildlife observation, photography, and hiking. Figure 9 shows the
existing public use facilities on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.
Numerous other public lands within commuting distance offer wildlife-dependent recreation
experiences. Five other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 acres); Lake Isom
(1,850 acres); Lower Hatchie (9,451 acres); Sunk Lake (1,873 acres); and Hatchie (11,556 acres)
are located within a two-hour drive of the Chickasaw Refuge. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge
offers a diverse interpretive and environmental education program, including tours to observe
concentrations of up to 200 bald eagles, as well as concentrations of ducks and geese that winter
in the Reelfoot Lake area. Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge provides excellent birding
opportunities within the scenic Hatchie River bottoms. The Hatchie River, which traverses
through both the Hatchie and Lower Hatchie refuges, is a state-designated scenic river and is the
only unchannelized river remaining in west Tennessee.
Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge, with facilities including fishing
piers, boat ramps, and bank fishing areas. Reelfoot and Hatchie offer universally accessible
fishing areas. Waterfowl hunting, as well as big and small game hunting, is offered on each
west Tennessee national wildlife refuge.
36 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
To Ripley−−>
Barr Rd
Dee Webb Rd
Chisholm Lake Rd
Great River Rd
Watkins Rd
Hobe Webb Rd
Hales Point Barr Rd
Morris Rd.
Knob Creek Rd
Key Corner Rd
Suggs Rd
Porter Gap Rd
Brushy Ridge Rd
Sand Bluff Rd
19
88
Mississippi River
Open Lake
Chisholm Lake
Obion River
S.Fork Forked Deer
Right Hand Arm
Camp Slough
Dry Arm
Coker Slough
Wardlows Chute
Wardlows Pocket
Gar Pond
Gum Pond
Legend
Office
Observation Tower
Boat Ramps
Camping
Hiking Trails
Chickasaw NWR Boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages approximately 250,000 acres of state wildlife
management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee. All of these TWRA lands offer some
fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby state wildlife management areas
include Anderson-Tully (12,000 acres); Moss Island (3,400 acres); and Tigrett (7,000 acres). The
State of Tennessee allows the use of both modern and primitive weapons for deer hunting. During
the 2002–3 season, the state offered in west Tennessee a total of 43 days of modern gun deer
hunting; 53 days of muzzleloader deer hunting; and 105 days of archery deer hunting. Most of west
Tennessee’s wildlife management areas are also open to waterfowl and small game hunting.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities,
including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of five permanent employees. The
staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially
bottomland hardwood forests, through land acquisition and forest management. The refuge’s Habitat
Management Plan provides an inventory of existing forest resources and long-term plans for
management of these resources to maximize their value as habitat for a diversity of wildlife. Of
particular concern under management activities is providing quality habitats for migratory birds.
The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies,
and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The
staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on land acquisition efforts and keeping the public
informed regarding public use opportunities and refuge activities.
The staff maintains one administrative site, the main headquarters located on Sand Bluff
Road. The administrative site contains an office in a trailer, a large enclosed shop and
storage barn, and two open pole barns.
Much of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is accessible through a county-maintained road system
(Figure 9). The refuge can be accessed from the north via State Highway 88 and from the south via
State Highway 19. Barr Road and Watkins Road are the main refuge arteries.
In addition to the road system, other refuge facilities include two boat ramps and one seasonal
campground used primarily by hunters. The Ed Jones boat ramp on the northwest end of the refuge
provides direct access to the Mississippi River. This boat ramp consists of a large concrete ramp and
large gravel parking area, which was developed in partnership with the State of Tennessee. The second
ramp, which can be used by visitors with smaller boats, is located off of Barr Road at Wardlows Pocket, a
permanent backwater area that connects to the Mississippi River during high flow periods.
In addition to the refuge’s normal road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the
Federal Lands Highway program. The Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge staff is coordinating with
Federal Highway Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or
improvements with TEA-21 funding. Congress requires that the projects must be compatible with
comprehensive management plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal
Highway Administration is available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract
administration. Projects proposed for immediate work (2005 to 2010) under the TEA-21 grant funding
process include the rehabilitation of Wardlows Pocket Parking Area; Camp Slough Road north; Rush
Slough Road east; River Road; Rush Slough Road west; Loop Road; and Dry Arm Road. In addition,
the refuge staff is working with the county to secure possible additional TEA-21 funding for county
roads that pass through the refuge, including Dee Webb Road.
38 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
Before the area was colonized by Europeans, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of western
Tennessee that now includes Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Initial European explorations
included visits by the Spanish explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made
contact with the Chickasaw Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson
1995). After the American Revolution, the lands occupied by the Chickasaw were ceded to the new
United States government, which made peace with the Chickasaw in 1786. In 1818, the Chickasaw
Nation ceded all claim to lands in Tennessee, and in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw east of the
Mississippi were removed to the West.
Archaeological investigations that have been conducted on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lands
consist of survey activities conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the site of proposed waterfowl
impoundments (Anderson 1995). These investigations discovered ten archaeological sites, indicating
Woodland period use. Mississippian pottery was observed at one site, and archaic projectile points
were observed at several locations. The survey recommended that certain sites be tested and
evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The locations of
all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it was determined that these sites and areas
should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment.
Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted in nearby portions of west
Tennessee. Significant surveys performed in west Tennessee include Mainfort (1994), in which
archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River drainage; and Dickson and
Campbell (1979), which surveyed cultural resources on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom national wildlife
refuges. These reports document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating
back as far as 12,000 B.C. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been
conducted in west Tennessee in conjunction with various federal development projects.
Prior to refuge ownership, levee and road construction, as well as agricultural activities, may have adversely
impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuge. However, it is likely that
numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuge, because the refuge was formerly owned by a timber
company (Anderson-Tully Company), and was in private ownership prior to that time. Recommendations
resulting from the surveys included that the Service develop a cultural resource management plan for the
entire refuge to assist in future project management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary
research could provide a wealth of information regarding the refuge and the county.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Of the total area of 60,240 acres within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary, the
Service had acquired 25,006 acres as of April 1, 2004, leaving a balance of 35,234 acres in private
ownership. The refuge staff is focusing on land acquisition within the refuge’s approved acquisition
boundary. The land protection goals set for the refuge would support strategic growth in areas where
there is greatest concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and songbirds.
All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls because federal
government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service makes
annual payments to Lauderdale County in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge
Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payments for acquired land are computed on whichever
of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market
value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75
cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Of the 324,570 acres in Lauderdale County, 192,010 acres consist of cultivated crop lands, and
92,600 acres are forests. There are approximately 505 farms in Lauderdale County with an average
size of 380 acres (U.S. Department of Agriculture website: www.usda.gov.nass/). The lands
immediately adjacent to the refuge are privately owned and managed as farmlands and hunting
clubs. The surrounding farmlands are cultivated primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn, and
milo. Farm commodity prices, in general, have decreased since the mid-1980s, and more
dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Poor farm production, droughts, and low
commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many producers to sell their farms or enroll them
in some kind of conservation program.
Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. In
2000–2001, Lauderdale County claimed 11,593.4 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program
(Donna Neal, pers. comm., Lauderdale County Farm Service Administration, Ripley, Tennessee). As
of 2003, Lauderdale County claimed 239.9 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program (Dwayne
Johnston, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ripley, Tennessee). The Fish and
Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private
lands in these programs. Private land enrollment in conservation programs would continue to be
encouraged to augment the Service’s program and mission requirements.
A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al., 2001). Samples of water,
sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic
chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex,
endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge. However, on
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, the total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below
published levels for the protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species.
Mixtures of multiple pesticides were often detected in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem refuges, and
their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were
well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in
sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas production facilities,
which do not occur on or near the Chickasaw Refuge. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and
benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use
pesticides (CUPs) (including the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides
diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the
frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On the Chickasaw Refuge, water samples indicated
the presence of five CUPs. On nearby lands outside the refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that
exceeded the aquatic life criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are
uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a
quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al., 2001). In summary, the tests at Chickasaw indicated no likely
hazard in regard to OCPs, PCBs, or PAHs, but further testing is needed to accurately determine the
possible risks associated with current-use pesticides.
REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS
Bottomland hardwood forests within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) provide habitat for a rich
diversity of wildlife species. Of 24 million acres of forested wetlands originally in the MAV, only about
5 million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al., 1979). Today, over 80 percent of the
MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al., 1999). The remaining forested lands are
typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the
40 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi Alluvial Valley; of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than one
percent are greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the vicinity of Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood
forests, which equates to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat.
Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was formerly owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company,
and the forest was logged on a reserve harvest basis (logging continued for five years after purchase)
as part of the purchase agreement with the Service. This logging was completed in 1995. As a result
of this harvest, approximately one-half of the existing sawtimber volume was removed, and a third of
the sawtimber stems were removed, resulting in fewer, smaller trees. These timber practices by the
former owner resulted in an overstory dominated by species that are less productive for wildlife, such
as elm and sugarberry. It also produced a significant reduction in the proportion of red oaks, which
produce valuable mast for waterfowl and numerous other wildlife species.
A forest habitat inventory is being compiled in a Habitat Management Plan, and inventories of
vertebrate species for the refuge are provided in Appendix IV. The relative newness of the refuge, as
well as the limited operation and maintenance resources available to date, have played a role in the
lack of inventory information thus far. More comprehensive surveys of refuge fauna should be
completed as resources and opportunities become available.
Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the
rivers within and adjacent to the refuge. As a result, the physical and biological interaction between
the rivers and floodplain has been impeded, and much of the natural hydrologic functioning of the
system has been hindered significantly. Lauderdale County is one of the few remaining areas along
the Mississippi River where the main line levee is incomplete, which allows high river stages to
inundate much of the refuge lands on a regular basis. While this seasonal inundation is beneficial,
the hydrology has been altered by agricultural and flood control interests, and so the natural
hydrology is severely impacted nonetheless.
Two heavily impacted systems that affect the refuge include Cold Creek and the Old Bed of the
Forked Deer River. Cold Creek, which flows from the Chickasaw bluffs into the southeastern portion
of the refuge, historically flowed directly into Chisholm Lake. The creation of levees and an
agricultural field at the mouth of Cold Creek in recent history has changed the natural course of Cold
Creek and caused it to flow across refuge woodlands and eventually into the Middle Fork of the
Forked Deer River. As a result, tons of silt and sand are deposited just south of Chisholm Lake and
onto refuge lands, and the area’s natural hydrology has been significantly impacted.
The Old Bed of the Forked Deer River formerly connected the Obion River to Chisholm Lake. The
construction of a dirt and concrete dam north of Chisholm Lake by private interests now restricts the
low-water flows within the system, and has further disrupted its natural hydrology.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The conservation priorities identified for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge include continued
emphasis on habitat for migratory waterfowl and bottomland hardwood forests, and an increased
emphasis on habitat for migratory songbirds.
The importance of the Lower Mississippi Valley as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental
waterfowl populations serves to reinforce the value of the refuge for migrating waterfowl. The refuge
and adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover area for mallards using the
Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s value as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
other refuges. The Chickasaw Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of
1929 for “...use as an inviolate sanctuary or for other management purposes, for migratory birds.”
Management of impoundments, agricultural lands, moist soil units, and bottomland hardwood forests
would be carried out with an emphasis on providing habitat for migrating waterfowl.
The vast amount of clearing and forest fragmentation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley underscores the
importance of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge as the largest contiguous block of bottomland
hardwood forest remaining in west Tennessee. A priority is placed on protection and maintenance of the
refuge’s bottomland hardwood forests, as well as the reforestation of most of the newly acquired open
lands. Refuge management is working to maintain and increase the red oak component of the forest and
develop a forest structure that provides a diversity of habitats for numerous species of wildlife.
Significant declines in populations of many neotropical migratory songbirds serve to emphasize the
importance of forest habitats for species that migrate through the Lower Mississippi Valley. Emphasis
would continue to be placed on the study and management of the refuge’s forests for these species.
Management efforts to enhance existing forests for songbirds would continue to be a refuge priority.
The refuge’s focal species include the swallow-tailed kite, cerulean warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Focal wildlife species would continue to be managed in support of the goals and objectives
developed for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b). The
resource goals and objectives developed cooperatively with the State of Tennessee (TWRA and
USFWS, 2002) would continue to be a priority in the future planning and management of refuge
lands. The Service would continue to work with partners and landowners to achieve common goals
and form conservation partnerships. One such partnership involves the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Landowner participation in the Wetlands Reserve Program and Cropland
Reserve Program would assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting its wildlife objectives through
the
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge |
| Description | Chickasaw_final.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject |
Document Wildlife refuges Planning |
| Location |
Region 4 Tennessee |
| FWS Site |
CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | April 2006 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source | NCTC Conservation Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 9792837 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Length | 177 |
| Full Resolution File Size | 9792837 Bytes |
| Transcript | N W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1505 Sand Bluff Road - Ripley, TN 38063 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov Photo provided by Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge USFWS Photo Randy Cook Refuge Complex Manager Chickasaw NWR 1505 Sand Bluff Road Ripley, TN 38063 Phone: 731/635-7621 Fax: 731/635-0178 Email: Chickasaw@fws.gov U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov April 2006 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region April, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Lauderdale County, Tennessee U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Office 1875 Century Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30345 April 2006 Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3 National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3 Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4 Relationship with State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................4 Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................7 Overview .............................................................................................................................7 Threats and Problems.......................................................................................................10 Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................11 II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15 Overview....................................................................................................................................15 Issues ........................................................................................................................................16 Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................17 Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18 Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................20 Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20 Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................21 III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25 Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................25 Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................27 Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................28 Topography and Climate...................................................................................................28 Demography.....................................................................................................................29 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................29 Avian Species ...................................................................................................................29 Mammals..........................................................................................................................31 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................31 Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................32 Mussels............................................................................................................................32 Noxious Invasive Species .................................................................................................32 Habitats .............................................................................................................................33 Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................35 Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................37 Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................38 Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................38 Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................39 Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................40 Wilderness Review............................................................................................................41 ii Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................43 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................43 Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................43 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................43 Comprehensive Conservation Plan – Summary Statement .......................................................44 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................45 Goal 1 – Waterfowl ...........................................................................................................45 Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species................................................................46 Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds ..........................................................................................47 Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds.................................................................................48 Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................48 Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................49 Goal 7 – Public Use ..........................................................................................................49 Goal 8 – Administration and Operation.............................................................................50 Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................51 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................53 Background ...............................................................................................................................53 Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................53 Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................................54 Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management..................54 Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education ................................59 Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation..............................................61 Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation...................................................61 Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................63 Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................65 Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................67 Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................67 Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................68 SECTION B. APPENDICES APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................69 APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................75 APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................79 APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................83 APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS................................................................................105 APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................141 Table of Contents iii APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................151 Public Scoping of Issues ..........................................................................................................151 Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................152 APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................159 APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................161 APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................163 List of Figures Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................2 Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................6 Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.......................................................................................8 Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley .................................................9 Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas .................................................................12 Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................22 Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map ................................................................26 Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge ............................................34 Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................................36 Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...............66 List of Tables Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. ....................................................................................63 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. Background INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the management actions and direction of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives of the refuge. The plan’s overriding considerations are that fish and wildlife conservation is the first priority in refuge management, and that wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with, or do not detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established. In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. The area for this joint planning study includes all of west Tennessee from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee River, and from border to border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi. This area encompasses approximately six million acres of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of this chapter, and in Chapter II, The Planning Process. During the planning process, four management alternatives were developed for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to determine how best to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. The alternatives covered a broad spectrum of comments from the refuge staff, the general public, and others during the public scoping process. After reviewing the refuge’s management needs, the priorities of regional and national resource management plans, and comments from the staff and public, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred action is described in Chapter V, Plan Implementation. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge would play in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities. The plan is needed to • provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge; • ensure that management of the refuge is in keeping with the purposes for which the refuge was established; • provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on and in partnerships around the refuge; • ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; • ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and • provide a basis for the refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 2 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort Gilt Edge LOWER HATCHIE NWR FORT PILLOW STATE PARK JIM TULLEY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA STATE OF TENNESSEE (TDOC) FORT PILLOW SUNK LAKE PUNA CHICKASAW NWR LAKE ISOM NWR I−155 I−40 51 64 45 45 70 79 Eva Lucy Eads Cuba Troy Guys Como Dyer Yuma Atoka Mason Locke Rives Obion Medon Bemis Ramer Halls Gates Paris Henry Luray Huron Crump Toone Milan Eaton Macon Lenox Bells Alamo Leach Sharon Martin Tipton Kenton Mercer Pinson Selmer Michie Finger Ripley Sardis Reagan Darden Shiloh Counce Medina Gibson Moscow Braden Miston Finley Bogota Atwood Camden Gleason Dukedom Dresden Clifton Munford Memphis Cordova Samburg Jackson Denmark Henning Ridgely Puryear Stanton Hornsby Bolivar Trenton Oakland Laconia Trimble Tigrett Newbern Parsons Gadsden Enville Lavinia Randolph Burlison Brighton Rosemark Lakeland Bartlett Hornbeak Elbridge Oakfield Chewalla Wynnburg Savannah Saltillo Silerton Idlewild Humboldt Bradford Gallaway Westport Bruceton Holladay Drummonds Covington Woodstock Kerrville Ellendale Brunswick Arlington Mansfield Lexington Olivehill Saulsbury Middleton Yorkville Williston Rossville La Grange Dyersburg Fruitvale Henderson Trezevant Big Sandy Greenfield Millington Germantown Union City Adamsville Whiteville Pocahontas Rutherford Somerville Maury City Sugar Tree Friendship Huntingdon Clarksburg Fisherville Barretville Beech Bluff Tiptonville Springville Scotts Hill Brownsville Jacks Creek Hollow Rock Cedar Grove Buena Vista Palmersville Collierville South Fulton Spring Creek Stantonville Wildersville Decaturville Bath Springs Milledgeville Cottage Grove Morris Chapel Hickory Withe Woodland Mills Bethel Springs Hickory Valley Grand Junction Essary Springs Crockett Mills McLemoresville Parker Crossroads CHICKASAW STATE FOREST NATCHEZ TRACE STATE PARK & FOREST WMA HATCHIE NWR REELFOOT LAKE WMA TIGRETT WMA MOSS ISLAND MEEMAN SHELBY STATE PARK WMA BIG HILL POND STATE PARK ERNEST RICE WMA HARTS MILL REFUGE HORNS BLUFF REGUGE LAKE GRAHAM WHITE LAKE REFUGE BEAN SWITCH REFUGE MUSTARD BOTTOMS WILDLIFE REFUGE BLACK BAYOU REFUGE PINSON MOUNDS STATE PARK FORT RIDGE T.O. FULLER STATE PARK CHICKASAW STATE PARK GARRETT LAKE LAKE LAUDERDALE REFUGE TIGRETT REFUGE SPRING CREEK JARRELL SWITCH PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT MANESS SWAMP REFUGE REELFOOT NWR CARROLL LAKE OAK DRAIN WETLAND WHITEVILLE LAKE OBION RIVER WMA WEST BANK−REELFOOT GOOCH WMA West Tennessee Focus Area 0 25 50 Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley T e n n e s s e e R i v e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 To better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues to seek cooperative working relationships with numerous agencies, organizations, and businesses. In keeping with this partnering concept, this comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant regional, national, and international resource management plans. These include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Project; the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetlands Conservation Initiative; the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan; the Partners in Flight Initiative; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan; the Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008); the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency(TWRA)–Scientific Ecology Group Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service also has specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding migratory birds, see the Service website at http://birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities. As part of its mission, the Service manages 550 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more than 96 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation. About 77 million acres are in Alaska; the remaining 19 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and several island territories. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are prepared with extensive public involvement, help guide the future management of the refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to • fulfill the individual purpose for which it was established; • fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • consider the needs of wildlife first; • fulfill the requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the Refuge System; • maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are legitimate and priority public uses; and • allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses. 4 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Approximately 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation grows, the economic benefits to local communities will continue to increase. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 1996, according to Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997a). An updated version of this 1997 report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003) found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging, transportation, and other expenditures. In addition, volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million. The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy; that the growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by National Wildlife Refuge System policy, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for refuge management 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. The refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104 (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix III. Guidance and direction can also be found in the following: • National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 • Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 • Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations • Fish and Wildlife Service Manual • National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to • contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to the refuge’s 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, environmental education, and interpretation); and • ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for the protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in Tennessee. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (http://www.state.tn.us/twra) is charged with game enforcement responsibilities and management of the state’s natural resources. The TWRA manages approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges; coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program; and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management areas. An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives where appropriate. The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee. As previously mentioned, a joint interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the TWRA, in collaboration with the Service’s comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee. This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this cooperative planning effort would develop comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands. In order to perform this joint planning effort, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all significant management actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), state agencies are not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that dictate federal planning requirements do not apply to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. So the two agencies sought to combine their planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within the process for each agency to accomplish its desired objectives. A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2) to allow both agencies to accomplish their planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. This process will produce joint objectives for west Tennessee lands, and will allow the Service to plan according to its NEPA requirements, while providing the TWRA the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without NEPA provisions. A core group was formed to oversee the planning process. This group consists of TWRA and Service project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership of the core group, nine resource working groups were recruited and developed to study specific resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of experts from various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals with expertise in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species, critical habitats, and opportunities, and developed management strategies for the west Tennessee resource groups. The nine resource working groups developed a set of focus area-wide goals and objectives, which were then translated into a series of map overlays that rank the areas of specific interest and provide a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In addition, each working group developed a text describing the goals, objectives, and strategies for implementing the desired goals and objectives for each specific resource category. 6 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process Focus Area-Wide Goals/Objectives CCP Process NEPA Process Comprehensive Conservation Plans Resource Working Groups State Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Private Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Federal Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies West Tennessee Master Plan Core Group West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans Land Acquisition Proposals Habitat Enhancement Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies for private, state, and federal lands, and then incorporated into the draft West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The goals, objectives, and strategies developed for federal lands were used by the Service as the biological foundation for its refuge comprehensive conservation planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee lands, the planning process will produce a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot; Lake Isom; Chickasaw; Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie. Once finalized, the refuge CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is expected to be compiled in 2006. It will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal managers alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative, interagency management, and administration of west Tennessee resources. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT OVERVIEW On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3). The Service’s resource priorities for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are as follows: • Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened, and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Plan 2000b). The Lower Mississippi Valley (which is a geographic subset of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem) once supported a vast complex of bottomland hardwood forests that extended along the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this bottomland hardwood forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or remains in scattered patches throughout the region (Figure 4). Flood waters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower Mississippi Valley is fragmented by levees, and its water flows are restricted by flood control projects and agricultural diversions. Its water quality is heavily impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. The rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid and laden with pesticides, and they support a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. 8 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Baton Rouge Vicksburg Monroe Little Rock Dyersburg Memphis Poplar Bluff TENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA ARKANSAS MISSOURI KENTUCKY Reelfoot NWR Lake Isom NWR Chickasaw NWR Lower Hatchie NWR 0 30 60 120 180 240 Miles Legend National Wildlife Refuges State Wildlife Management Areas Mississippi Alluvial Valley Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley ! " ! ## " ! ## ! $ $ % 10 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners, local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus its efforts on adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The biological objectives targeted in this plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally, nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously. THREATS AND PROBLEMS The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United States, and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern physiographic areas (Twedt et al., 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. The national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the remaining wildlife resources. Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include: • The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland hardwood forests; • The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, i.e., fragmentation; • The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices; • The homogenization of remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem; and the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct. Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alterations in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) have resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et al., 2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have also decreased in the past several decades, and the availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance, distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al., 1994). The species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are those that are area-sensitive or dependent on special habitat requirements, such as large, mature blocks of forest that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 species of birds nest regularly in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting waterbirds, with at least 70 species occurring in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat (Twedt et al., 1999). Less than one percent of the remaining forest patches are large enough to support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000). Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic resource productivity. Despite efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other aquatic resources, Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 a growing number are declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost 400 aquatic species either have needed or presently need special protection in some part of their natural or historic range (Williams et al., 1989; Moyle and Leidy, 1992). The number of aquatic species listed in 2002 as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has increased to 19 amphibian species, 21 crustacean species, 70 mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these declines are linked largely to habitat loss or alteration, including flow changes, watershed modifications, sedimentation, pollution, and the impacts of harmful exotic or transplanted species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. By working with others, the Service is more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. Bottomland hardwood forests are ranked as a high priority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies on which to focus conservation and management efforts. A combination of land protection and habitat management methods is used by the Service and others to compensate for bottomland hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared or common long-term goals established for this area. The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its associated Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive conservation plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering habitat for midcontinental waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of wetland habitats in North America. In addition, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan encompasses a regional approach with the same objectives: to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The joint venture has initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds, and has identified conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts. One of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for migratory bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than 100,000 acres. In addition, Partners in Flight has developed a Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation Plan that establishes habitat objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al., 1998). In order to meet population objectives for migratory land birds, this plan has identified 87 bird conservation areas (BCAs), broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases, which serve as priority areas for forest restoration, will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity. In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and protection of one each of the following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres. Three Tennessee bird conservation areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley were identified by Ford (1998) and are delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the Upper, Middle, and Lower Implementation Zones. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is included within the Middle Implementation Zone, which totals approximately 165,472 acres (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The refuge’s current approved land acquisition program would contribute toward achieving these BCA goals. Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land bird 12 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas Shelby Dyer Fayette Tipton Haywoo Lauderdale Lake BCA 3 − Lower Implementation Zone BCA 1− Upper Implementation Zone Legend Bird Conservation Areas USFWS Lands USFWS Expansion Boundaries State Lands Mississippi Alluvial Valley 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 Miles Lower Hatchie NWR Chickasaw NWR Lake Isom NWR Reelfoot NWR BCA 2− Middle Implementation Zone Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species (Bonney et al., 1999). Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This list of focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. The Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b) has established five resource ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive conservation plan. These goals involve the protection, enhancement, and management of migratory bird populations and habitats; wetlands; habitats and populations of endangered, threatened, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands in conjunction with public lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce redundancy and overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations. 14 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 II. The Planning Process OVERVIEW The west Tennessee planning effort includes the preparation of four comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for five national wildlife refuges: Reelfoot/Lake Isom; Lower Hatchie; Chickasaw; and Hatchie. It also includes the cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan, which identifies the resources and management goals for approximately 10,000 square miles of federal, state, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the state, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources (WTWR) Conservation Plan provides the main biological foundation for the four national wildlife refuge CCPs. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in which four of the five west Tennessee national wildlife refuges are located, migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen, 2001; TWRA and USFWS, 2002; Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the comprehensive planning effort that sufficient habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be provided on the national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective national wildlife refuge boundaries and incorporated any public and private lands that might be available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs for west Tennessee, and incorporated over 6 million acres of land. The final product of this west Tennessee planning effort will be a West Tennessee Master Plan that will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the four refuge CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats in the western third of the State of Tennessee. The planning process began in January, 2000, with initial core group meetings in which the Service and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The core group selected nine resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for specific resource categories on federal, state, and private lands within the west Tennessee planning area (Figure 1). Preplanning for the Chickasaw Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment also began during early 2000. The identification of issues is a major factor in determining the management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans. To ensure that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series of meetings and interviews was conducted to guide the identification of issues for the planning effort. In September 2000, the Chickasaw CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex) began meeting to discuss the refuge’s issues and management opportunities. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by mailings, with additional comments received by mail, telephone, and e-mail. On November 2, 2000, a public scoping meeting was held in Ripley, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding their perceived issues and 16 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge opportunities for management of the refuge. The planning staff of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of management alternatives in the draft environmental assessment. Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and the projects identified for the refuge. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Chickasaw Planning Review Group, in which refuge neighbors, organizations, educators, government agencies, and local officials were invited to attend and share their thoughts in a focus group meeting. The Chickasaw Planning Review Group included representatives from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Anderson-Tully Company; Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges; Ducks Unlimited; Dyersburg State Community College; and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, well as local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businessmen, and county officials. This group provided oversight during the planning process, and solicited suggestions from professional counterparts as well as local individuals and private interests. Draft versions of the comprehensive conservation plan were routed to the Planning Review Group members periodically for review, and their comments were considered in plan revisions. The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January, 2002, the WTWR Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for much of the Chickasaw CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, as well as other relevant documents, the input received from the public, and the refuge staff’s professional judgment, the Chickasaw Technical Team evaluated the refuge’s issues and resource needs and developed various management alternatives which were then considered in the draft environmental assessment. The alternatives addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The environmental assessment constituted the documentation and process by which the preferred action was selected. Once the preferred action was selected, the Chickasaw Technical Team developed a set of goals, objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15 years. The goals, objectives, and strategies are described in Chapter IV, Management Direction. A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will be notified when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is available. ISSUES The identification of issues provided the basis for initiating the development of management objectives and strategies. The identified issues play a role in determining the refuge’s future conditions and will be considered in the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues and concerns described in the following pages were generated by the public, the Planning Review Group, and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 31 issues was consolidated into a list of 19 issue categories concerning Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The 19 issues were grouped according to five broad management categories: (1) fish and wildlife population issues; (2) habitat issues; (3) visitor services and environmental education issues; (4) refuge administration and operation issues; and (5) land protection and conservation issues. Appendix VII provides a summary of the comments received during the public scoping process. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES Waterfowl Populations Because the refuge was established specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” (see the “Refuge Purpose” section in Chapter III), all operations and management are considered in light of their impact on migratory birds, of which waterfowl are the most numerous. The refuge staff monitors the refuge’s waterfowl populations, and works to provide sufficient high quality habitat to fulfill the population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as established in Ford and Wathen (2001) and the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). Portions of the refuge are dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl (please refer to the following “Habitat Issues” section). In order to meet its waterfowl objectives, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet the habitat needs of waterfowl and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. Songbird Populations Nearly every study examining the population trends of North America’s neotropical migratory birds has reported declines in at least some species (Askins et al., 1990). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has been identified as experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel et al., 1994). Partners in Flight has developed conservation plans for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al., 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey et al., 1998) to address priority species and bird conservation issues. Since 1994, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has cooperated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Southern Hardwoods Research Station to assess and monitor the populations, habitats, and status of cerulean warblers on the refuge. The refuge continues to monitor its migratory and resident songbirds, and works to address the habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant populations, in keeping with its goals and establishing purposes. Threatened and Endangered Species A key function of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is to enhance the survival of threatened and endangered species. Three federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to use or populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuge: the bald eagle, pallid sturgeon, and interior least tern. As many as 16 bald eagles are known to winter annually on the Chickasaw Refuge, and three known active nests are documented on refuge lands. The refuge’s habitat restoration and protection activities continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles. The pallid sturgeon is not known to inhabit refuge waters. However, it is present in the Mississippi River, which is immediately adjacent to the refuge. The refuge can support pallid sturgeon recovery efforts by providing technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management agencies, and by supporting efforts to restore riverine habitats. Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars in close proximity to the refuge, and are regularly observed feeding on refuge lands. The refuge’s protection of lands immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River provides protection to the sandbars, which are used by least tern nesting colonies during the summer months. 18 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Resident Species Populations The refuge’s resident wildlife include game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, rabbits, and furbearers, as well as numerous species of nongame mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The refuge monitors some resident wildlife populations through surveys such as the turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. Species groups that lend themselves to management (e.g. deer, turkey, etc.) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management goals, and refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored for potential management issues. The benefits to resident wildlife are one of the factors considered when opportunities arise for land acquisitions within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary. Shorebird Populations Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent inundation of fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). The refuge’s waterfowl management activities offer concurrent opportunities to provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with the management of impoundments and moist soil units. The staff monitors shorebird use on the refuge and looks for opportunities to support the priorities of the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird populations. HABITAT ISSUES Waterfowl Habitat Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the purpose for which the refuge was established. Thus, the refuge’s management priorities must be directed toward providing quality wetland areas that are attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese. Each management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for each group to complete its life cycle. A portion of the refuge is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order to meet the refuge’s objectives for waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl habitat needs, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. Songbird Habitat As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, the refuge’s priorities include providing quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migrant songbirds. The refuge’s land and forest management practices will continue to take into account the value of such practices to songbirds. The songbird research being conducted on the refuge by the U.S. Department of Agriculture since 1994 continues to provide valuable information in regard to habitat suitability for cerulean warblers. The refuge will continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant bird populations. Forest Habitat Management The refuge protects more than 20,293 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and over 503 acres of upland forests. These bottomland hardwood and upland forests provide invaluable habitat for a wide range of wildlife species and are critical to their preservation and perpetuation. The bottomland hardwood forests, in particular, are important to migratory and wintering waterfowl, especially Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 mallards and wood ducks. The forested tracts provide crucial food resources such as hard mast, soft mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events in the fall and early spring. The refuge will complete its forest habitat and other habitat management plans, and management decisions will be made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge purposes, with due consideration for all other environmental factors. Cooperative Farming Agricultural crops play an important role in the overall scheme of migratory bird management, as they provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the refuge grows corn and soybean crops that are rotated with moist soil units or are produced on the higher elevations to ensure a readily available source of food for wildlife, and to meet refuge objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The Chickasaw Refuge’s cropland operation includes an impoundment system and occupies approximately 1,186 acres. Under a cooperative farming agreement, this acreage is divided by a 75 percent farmer to 25 percent refuge ratio, with the refuge usually receiving its portion of the crops on the lower and wetter fields. Another farming option being used on the refuge is force-account farming, in which refuge personnel and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component in the overall management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a portion of the refuge. Force-account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that the Service must bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer, and chemicals. Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the cooperative farmer to bear the cost of production and leave a designated share of crops in the field as payment for renting the property. Thus, force-account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense but the advantage of greater flexibility and retains one hundred percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of agricultural products left in the field for use by wildlife. Most crop fields that are planted for the refuge can be flooded for waterfowl use. This, coupled with subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuge to make substantial contributions to the migratory bird objectives of the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s farming program will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. Moist Soil Habitat Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl, as these food resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and the associated river floodplain are capable of supplying moist soil foods such as barnyard grass, sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous plants. The refuge provides 835 acres of these early successional habitats and plays a key role in the migration patterns of midcontinental waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge’s present and future resource management will in large part be influenced by practices that actively benefit waterfowl, including moist soil habitats. The management of the refuge’s moist soil units will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. 20 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that hunting and fishing are two consumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In addition, hunting and fishing are integral parts of the lifestyle and culture of west Tennessee. Due to this fact and the limited amount of public land, it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding the refuge’s hunting and fishing opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. However, the refuge’s hunting opportunities could be expanded through additional land acquisitions from willing sellers within the current approved acquisition boundary. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance its hunting and fishing opportunities, in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes. Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are four nonconsumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In accordance with this legislation, the refuge will seek to increase opportunities for these priority public uses. Currently, hunting and fishing are the major public uses on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge currently does not have the staff or facilities needed to provide programming for important environmental education, interpretive, or nonconsumptive wildlife-dependent activities. More exposure resulting from expanded nonconsumptive recreational uses and programs would increase public awareness and have a positive effect on other refuge programs. The refuge is located in Lauderdale County (population 27,101) within 10 miles of Ripley, Tennessee (population 7,844), and approximately 60 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population 873,000) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Better-developed visitor facilities in association with a Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge visitor center annex would provide a level of wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreational opportunities currently not available in Lauderdale County. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuge, in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes. Public Access Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with a high degree of public interest in the opportunities it offers for the enjoyment of natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the refuges to provide, when compatible with refuge purposes, opportunities for the “big six” wildlife-dependent types of public recreation. The “big six” are hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. Therefore, attention must be given to providing the appropriate amount and forms of visitor access on the refuge. Issues regarding the increasing or limiting of public access should be considered with respect to the refuge’s overall resource management goals and purposes. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION ISSUES Maintenance and Operations The budget for national wildlife refuges is prioritized and divided among the 550 individual refuges that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. Operating within a fixed budget requires the prioritizing of programs and projects. The Service’s Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) are the processes used for the refuges to submit their Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 budgetary requests. The Chickasaw Refuge’s management priorities include managing aquatic and forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species; cultural resources; public use; and law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance. Funds are assigned to the refuge’s maintenance needs, in light of its priority resource needs and budget constraints. Consideration should be given to providing comprehensive maintenance of the refuge’s facilities, within the constraints of available resources and management priorities. Management decisions would continue to address the refuge’s priority operational needs, and budgetary requests would be made in keeping with goals and purposes for which the refuge was established. Law Enforcement Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use, and unfortunately in some cases, misuse; so the continual involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in order to protect the resources as well as the public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive law enforcement on refuge lands. As with other issues, refuge priorities must be established which compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should be considered and ways to improve law enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuge’s goals and purposes. LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES Land Acquisition The refuge’s land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources as well as additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has a current approved acquisition boundary of approximately 60,240 acres. As of July 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total of 25,006 acres within this approved acquisition boundary (Figure 6). Public perception of federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which eminent domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. It is the Service’s policy to acquire land only from willing sellers, and every effort should be made to provide effective information to the public in order to promote full understanding of the refuge acquisition process. Management decisions must include acquisition priorities as well as future management of acquired tracts in light of the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. Water Level Management Water level management has the potential to affect the resources on the refuge and its immediate vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and natural flooding induced by the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi river systems. Impacts from refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. The comprehensive planning process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a case-by-case basis, while keeping management decisions in line with the refuge’s management goals and purposes, as well as potential water level impacts on neighboring lands. Protection of Unique Areas At least ten cultural resource sites are documented on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. These sites were discovered during an archaeological investigation conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the site of proposed waterfowl impoundments (Anderson, 1995). Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted throughout the nearby portions of west Tennessee. These west 22 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge To Ripley −−> Mississippi River Open Lake Chisholm Lake Obion River S.Fork Forked Deer Dry Arm Wardlows Chute Wardlows Pocket Gar Pond Coker Slough Right Hand Arm Gum Pond Jennings Pond 19 88 Barr Rd Dee Webb Rd Chisholm Lake Rd Watkins Rd Great River Rd Hales Point Barr Rd Morris Rd. Knob Creek Rd Key Corner Rd Suggs Rd Porter Gap Rd Brushy Ridge Rd Sand Bluff Rd Barr Rd Legend Current Refuge Boundary Acquisition Boundary Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 Tennessee archaeological surveys document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. While only one archaeological survey has been conducted on the refuge, past history indicates that many more cultural sites are likely to exist on refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas, in keeping with the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. Protection from Excessive Siltation Excessive silt enters the refuge from Cold Creek and has changed the hydrology on certain refuge lands. Refuge management should consider alternatives for protecting refuge lands from this siltation. Efforts of partnering agencies such as Natural Resources Conservation Service and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to monitor and reduce siltation in the Cold Creek watershed should be supported, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. 24 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 III. Refuge Description LAND ACQUISITION Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in rural western Tennessee, approximately 15 miles southwest of the city of Dyersburg (Figure 7). The refuge gets its name from the Chickasaw Indians, who historically occupied portions of west Tennessee, including Lauderdale County in which the refuge is located. Prior to federal acquisition, most of the lands that make up the Chickasaw Refuge were owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company of Memphis, Tennessee. In 1956, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency leased the tract and managed it as a wildlife management area. The refuge was approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on May 14, 1985, to protect approximately 37,500 acres of bottomland hardwoods and adjacent habitats for migratory waterfowl. This approval included two acquisition areas: a 23,600-acre upper area that is now Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and a 13,900-acre lower area that today is owned and managed by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. From 1985 to 1990, 14,934 acres of the upper unit were purchased by The Nature Conservancy for resale to the Service. In addition to these lands, a 190-acre tract at the west end of Chisholm Lake and a 1,428-acre block comprised of three contiguous tracts lying several miles east of the main body of the refuge were purchased by the Service from landowners in 1987. This latter area is primarily agricultural and is being developed as feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and shorebirds. In 1997, a 437-acre tract known as the Marley Lease was purchased from the Trust for Public Land, with funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Account. These purchases comprised the entirety of the 16,989 acres originally under Service fee title ownership at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. In addition to the fee title lands, the Chickasaw Refuge includes 4,847 acres of contiguous and 540 acres of noncontiguous lands managed under a no-fee lease from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, bringing the total refuge acreage to 22,376 acres as of 1998. In addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion of the refuge acquisition boundary was approved in 1999. This expanded boundary covers approximately 35,221 additional acres in Lauderdale County, adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a). The Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The project lands involve about 127 ownerships that vary in size from less than one acre to 6,000 acres. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the refuge’s total size to approximately 60,240 acres. Since the approval of the current acquisition boundary in 1999, several tracts have been acquired from willing sellers, bringing the refuge to a current total of 25,006 acres (as of April 1, 2004). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation, other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other areas. The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. Funding for land acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). 26 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions will be provided through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1). REFUGE PURPOSE Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d) for “... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 established additional refuge purposes to be “... 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 or servitude ...” (16 U.S.C. 742 (b) (1)). Later, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) declared the refuge to be “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....” The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4) (5)), is the specific law that grants authority for acquiring lands for national wildlife refuges. Under this Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to take steps as may be required for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources, including but not limited to research, development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and water or interests therein. The Act also authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept gifts of real or personal property for its benefit and use in performing its activities and services. The Land Acquisition Planning Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985b) that proposed the initial land acquisitions for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge stated the purpose of the acquisition proposal: “to protect habitat of significant value to migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, with special emphasis on migrating Canada goose populations.” Expanding on these purposes, the refuge’s objectives were further defined in the Service’s Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a). The following management objectives were identified for the proposed expansion at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge: • Preserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated fish and wildlife values. • Preserve, protect, reestablish, and manage habitat for endangered and threatened species. • Manage for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for wintering waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks. • Manage for native wildlife species and their associated habitats. • Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent recreation. The proposed project would also help support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Team. These priorities involve migratory bird populations and their habitats; wetlands; threatened and endangered species and their habitats; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b). 28 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge REFUGE ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lies in the Lower Mississippi River floodplain with eight miles of the refuge’s western boundary adjoining the Mississippi River. The refuge extends east two to six miles to the edge of the heavily dissected Chickasaw Bluff. The dominant land forms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. Due to the lack of a mainline Mississippi River levee in Lauderdale County, the entire refuge is subject to inundation from high river stages, typically in late winter and early spring. During high river stages, water depths can reach 30 feet in the lower-lying portions of the refuge. In addition, headwater flooding from the Mississippi River has been virtually eliminated by upstream levees adjacent to the river. As a result, the frequency and duration of backwater flooding have increased in all non-leveed areas, including the Chickasaw Refuge and adjacent lands. The natural patterns of erosion and sedimentation have been altered due to channelization and other human disturbances. Erosion rates have increased on both upland and alluvial soils. Sedimentation has increased in the swamps, brakes, oxbow lakes, and other low-lying areas. Sediment loading in streams and rivers has also increased, disrupting the natural patterns of aggradation and degradation. The altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and lake formation associated with Mississippi River meandering is no longer occurring or is occurring on a very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs. Topographically, the refuge is slightly undulating due to past influences of the Forked Deer and Mississippi rivers, with most drainage to the west along the Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River. The topography of these bottomlands is characteristically flat, but slight variations in elevation are associated with considerable differences in soils, drainage conditions, and forest species composition (Barrett 1980). A number of small open-water areas are present within the floodplain, some within old sloughs. Two of these, Open Lake and Chisholm Lake, were reportedly formed by the New Madrid earthquake, the latter apparently within an old oxbow channel of the Mississippi. The main portion of the refuge has elevations ranging from 220 to 260 feet above mean sea level (msl), with the highest elevations occurring along existing or old channels of the Mississippi and its larger tributaries. The elevations along the eastern portion of the refuge, adjacent to the eroded lower slopes of the loess bluffs, range from 250 to 300 msl. The eastern two-thirds of Lauderdale County consist of nearly level to steep, well drained to poorly drained, silty soils on loess uplands. The western one-third of the county consists of nearly level, well drained to poorly drained, clayey to sandy soils on the Mississippi River floodplain (Monteith 1990). The soils on the refuge consist of deep loess on the eastern margin and alluvial sediments in the floodplain. Within the floodplain, loamy soils are more common along the present or former natural levees. The soils in the flats or depressions of the lower-lying areas within the floodplain are dominated by clays. As a result of the extensive drainage efforts that have occurred from the early twentieth century to the present day, the drainage patterns have been altered appreciably in some areas. In addition, the ongoing sedimentation is gradually filling in many aquatic features on the refuge. The refuge climate is characterized by mild winters; hot, humid summers; and abundant rainfall. For the period from 1962 to 1980, the average annual temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, with Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 average daily temperatures ranging from 35.2 degrees in January to 79.9 degrees in July. The total annual precipitation during the period of observation has averaged 51.2 inches, with the highest average rainfall occurring during the months of March through May. Summer and early fall are the driest periods, with the lowest rainfall occurring from July through October. In the summer, most rain falls in brief yet intense thunderstorms, which occur on about 53 days each year. The average annual snowfall is nine inches. The freeze-free period, or growing season, ranges from 203 to 233 days, from late March to early November (Monteith, 1990). DEMOGRAPHY The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west Tennessee. The immediate area surrounding the refuge is even less populated than most of west Tennessee, due to its location adjacent to the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers and their floodplains. According to the 2000 census, Lauderdale County had a population of 27,101 people, which is an increase of 15.4 percent since the 1990 census (Tennessee County Profiles: Lauderdale County, http://cls.coe.utk.edu/counties/lauderdale.html). The per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2000 was $19,339. Lauderdale County’s per capita income was $13,682. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic bases. Several small to medium manufacturing companies are located in the county, with some of the major private employers including Wal-Mart, Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Tennessee Electroplating, and S & R of Tennessee. Other major employers include the Lauderdale County Schools, Forked Deer Electric Cooperative, and Baptist Memorial Hospital. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitats for threatened and endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Three federally listed species, including the endangered interior least tern, the endangered pallid sturgeon, and the threatened bald eagle, are all found on or near Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars adjacent to the refuge and to feed on refuge lands. The pallid sturgeon is known to occur within the Mississippi River. It is possible that pallid sturgeons could enter the refuge’s lakes during high river stages; however, this has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers. As many as 16 bald eagles winter annually on the refuge, with at least three known active nests documented on refuge lands. No federally listed flora are known on the refuge. A Section 7 Intra- Service Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V. AVIAN SPECIES Birds are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on nearby Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Appendix IV contains a list of the avian species known to occur on the refuge and their residence status. The bottomland hardwood forests serve as important habitat for breeding birds and migrants in the spring and fall, and migratory birds occur in substantial numbers seasonally. For migratory forest-breeding songbirds and shorebirds, the ecological and biological significance is transcontinental, with the refuge providing breeding and migration habitat for Gulf of Mexico migrants returning from their wintering grounds in Central and South America. 30 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Recent studies indicate significant population declines in some species of neotropical migrant birds (Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most neotropical migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring on the refuge during 1985-87 and 1991. Additional research began in 1992 and is ongoing to assess the habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel et al., 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on the Chickasaw Refuge include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. Approximately 32 species of shorebirds (TWRA and USFWS 2002) are commonly found in west Tennessee, with the highest populations occurring during migration periods that typically peak from August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). Shorebird species common to west Tennessee include the killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge lands that provide shorebird habitat include riverine mudbars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, the margins of reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, the Chickasaw Refuge manages approximately 1,186 acres of impoundments as shorebird habitat. Shorebird habitat is provided within the impoundments each spring (target 100 acres) and fall (target 30 acres). The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl populations that breed in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and its adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population numbers may exceed 150,000. The value of the Chickasaw Refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to other refuges. It lies within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to the west; White River and Lower Hatchie to the south; Hatchie and Tennessee to the east; and Reelfoot, Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek, and Mingo to the north. Other species of waterfowl known to use the areas include the black duck; gadwall; pintail; green-winged teal; blue-winged teal; widgeon; wood duck; ring-necked duck; and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and depend on refuge habitats for nesting and brood-rearing. Approximately 1,186 total acres are currently managed on the refuge as a waterfowl sanctuary. These are moist soil or agricultural habitats. The fields are managed at an average ratio of 50 percent moist soil to 50 percent agricultural; the ratio varies year to year due to river stages and other environmental factors. Approximately 30 to 100 acres of the sanctuary are managed for shorebird habitat depending on the time of year. Agricultural crops are raised by a cooperative farming agreement; the refuge’s share of the crops is 25 percent (unharvested), with 75 percent (harvested) going to the farmer. The waterfowl objectives for the refuge are 500,000 goose-use days and 13.5 million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, impoundments, flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of the refuge expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Wild turkeys are also present on the refuge, although spring flooding impacts nesting success on a regular basis. Flocks consisting of up to 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, in which the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves and bobwhite quail are common on the open lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, barred owl, and turkey and black vultures. Kestrels and broad-winged hawks are also present but occur less frequently. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 MAMMALS Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge contains a diversity of mammals representing seven taxonomic orders, including pouched mammals (opossums), insect-eaters (shrews and moles), bats, flesh-eaters (raccoons), gnawing mammals (squirrels and mice), rabbits, and even-toed hoofed mammals (white-tailed deer). The diverse habitat types on the refuge are very productive for a wide variety of game and nongame mammals. Mammalian game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbits. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink. Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels. Providing a diversity of habitats on the refuge contributes to healthy populations of numerous mammalian species, as well as other resident animals. Habitat management practices that focus on providing habitat for migratory birds would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diversity of forest habitats would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats. Appendix IV provides a list of the mammalian species known to occur on the refuge. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES A diverse group of amphibians is found on the refuge, including salamanders, toads, and frogs. Most are well adapted to the refuge’s aquatic and terrestrial environments, with moisture being typically important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and skinks, are common as well. Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most of the refuge’s freshwater and terrestrial habitats, and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the environmental health of an ecosystem. Comprehensive inventories will be performed to establish baseline information on the occurrence and habitat use of amphibian and reptilian species on the refuge, as resources become available. Knowledge of which species occur on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area. A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are declining. Loss and degradation of habitat are the main known causes of declines in reptile and amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alterations, and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee which negatively affect populations. The refuge’s land protection and management efforts serve these populations by protecting their existing habitats, as well as by restoring degraded habitats. The reptiles and amphibians known to exist on the refuge and their status in west Tennessee are listed in Appendix IV. 32 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge AQUATIC SPECIES The sloughs, rivers, and lakes within Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge support a diversity of game fish, including largemouth bass; black crappie; white crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, and channel catfish. Nongame species such as carp, buffalo, and drum are also present. Appendix IV provides a comprehensive listing of fish likely to occur in the Mississippi River proper and the directly westward-flowing tributaries in western Tennessee, including the rivers on the Chickasaw Refuge (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes between the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers and their associated wetland habitats on the refuge provide a constant and renewable fishery. When flooding occurs in the spring, these areas provide good nurseries for juvenile fish. Although decades of hydrologic alteration and sedimentation have impacted the aquatic resources of the refuge and surrounding vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife; the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Cropland Reserve Program, Forest Legacy, and The Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Plan for the Hatchie River (2000). MUSSELS A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuge, and few published surveys are available on the mussels of the Mississippi River and its major tributaries in west Tennessee. However, a survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported seven species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in Ortmann 1926) listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and five species from the Wolf River in Shelby County. Don Manning (1989) later reported 33 species of mussels in the nearby Hatchie River. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels are likely to exist in the vicinity of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Mussel species known to exist in the Obion and Forked Deer rivers are listed in Appendix IV. As stated in the above Aquatic Resources section, hydrologic alterations and sedimentation have impacted the area’s aquatic resources, including mussels. Similarly, the refuge’s land protection and habitat restoration efforts result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and mussel species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use practices. In addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel populations should be conducted on the waters of the refuge and surrounding vicinity, when resources become available. NOXIOUS INVASIVE SPECIES Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuge include a hybrid cocklebur, hemp sesbania, and the kudzu vine. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is resistant to flooding and wet soil conditions. The species is prolific and will outcompete native moist soil vegetation in moist soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will also outcompete the preferred moist soil plants. Kudzu occurs along field and forest edges and forest openings where direct sunlight can penetrate the forest floor. This exotic vine is a native of Asia and was introduced into the United States at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. By 1900, kudzu was being sold through mail order suppliers as an inexpensive livestock forage. The Soil Erosion Service distributed approximately 85 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 million seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture removed kudzu from its list of cover plants and listed it as a common weed in 1970 (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 1977; Miller and Boyd, 1983). Kudzu is an aggressive vine that can grow up to 60 feet per year, forming a continuous blanket of foliage. The dense foliage often chokes out native plants and trees, alters native biotic communities, and drastically decreases biodiversity. Today, an estimated seven million acres in the southeast are covered in kudzu. While kudzu is not known to currently exist on the refuge, heavy infestations on adjacent lands require continual monitoring. The Chickasaw Refuge’s Habitat Management Plan includes plans and preferred methods for control and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species, which presently occur on or in close proximity to the refuge. HABITATS Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife species. The habitats on the refuge consist of approximately 94 acres of open administrative land; 1,186 acres of agriculture and moist soil open lands (the agricultural/moist soil breakdown varies from year to year); 1,874 acres of bald cypress/tupelo forest; 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forest; 966 acres of open water; 1,018 acres of sandbars; 515 acres of osage orange savanna; 431 acres of scrub-shrub; and 503 acres of upland forest. The total current deeded acreage being managed as Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is 25,006 acres (July 1, 2004). Figure 8 shows the existing habitat types on the refuge. The refuge���s 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods consist of black willow, eastern cottonwood, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, bald cypress, sweet pecan, bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. Forest management practices are used in these areas to maintain an optimal diversity of forest habitat for wildlife. Mast production in the bottomland hardwood habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl, deer, squirrel, and turkey. During the winter and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat. There are approximately 1,186 acres of agriculture/moist soil open lands on the refuge. In any given year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for agricultural production and 50 percent are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year to year due to river flooding and other factors. The croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers, who grow corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is usually planted in corn, which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption. The refuge currently contains approximately 1,874 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is dominated by bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory and buttonbush in the understory. Buttonbush is also abundant in the 431 acres of scrub-shrub habitat found on the refuge. In the 966 acres of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged aquatics such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail, as well as emergents such as American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily. Approximately 1,018 acres of sandbar habitat are found on the refuge, primarily adjacent to the Mississippi River along the refuge’s western boundary. Vegetation is essentially lacking as these sandbars are intermittently submerged. Adjacent to the sandbar habitat is a unique savanna habitat 34 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge State Highway 88 Hobe Webb Road M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Barr Road State Highway 19 Dee Webb Road Chisholm Lake Road Watkins Road Hales Point Barr Road Morris Road Out Bounds Road Sand Bluff Road Turkey Hill Road J. D. Smith Road Acres 94 1,186 1,874 18,419 966 1,018 515 431 503 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Types Habitat Types Administrative Agriculture Moist Soils Baldcypress−Tupelo Bottomland Forest Open Water Sand Bar Savanna Scrub Shrub Upland Forest 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 dominated by osage orange, which comprises about 515 acres. The approximately 503 acres of upland hardwood forest habitat is found primarily along the Chickasaw bluff on the eastern edge of the refuge and in a large tract in the western portion of the refuge. These upland forests consist primarily of southern red oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, post oak, white oak, various hickories, and American beech. EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge has adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are management’s primary focuses for public use, and over time programs will be developed to increase visitor awareness and appreciation of the refuge’s fish and wildlife resources. Wildlife-dependent recreation activities currently available on the refuge include wildlife observation (by hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), hunting, fishing, and photography. Hunting and fishing have been the primary uses on the refuge since its inception, and encompass the majority of public use. The refuge staff also provides environmental education and interpretative programs when requested by local civic and school groups. Currently, there are no interpretive facilities on the refuge. In many years, prolonged seasonal flooding from the high stages of the Mississippi River, especially during the spring months, poses a unique challenge in providing visitor services. The seasonal floodwaters can reach as much as 30 feet deep in some areas of the refuge. In fiscal year 2000, the refuge received about 115,764 visitors, although visitor use data is limited. The refuge is open during most of the state hunting seasons, with some exceptions and certain restrictions which apply to certain hunts. Fishing is permitted all year according to state regulations, but certain restrictions apply. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities unless expressly permitted. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography are permitted on most areas of the refuge. All public access is prohibited on the 1,186-acre Waterfowl Rest Area from November 15 through March 15. About eleven miles of trails, primarily old logging roads, are maintained for foot hunting access, wildlife observation, photography, and hiking. Figure 9 shows the existing public use facilities on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Numerous other public lands within commuting distance offer wildlife-dependent recreation experiences. Five other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 acres); Lake Isom (1,850 acres); Lower Hatchie (9,451 acres); Sunk Lake (1,873 acres); and Hatchie (11,556 acres) are located within a two-hour drive of the Chickasaw Refuge. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge offers a diverse interpretive and environmental education program, including tours to observe concentrations of up to 200 bald eagles, as well as concentrations of ducks and geese that winter in the Reelfoot Lake area. Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge provides excellent birding opportunities within the scenic Hatchie River bottoms. The Hatchie River, which traverses through both the Hatchie and Lower Hatchie refuges, is a state-designated scenic river and is the only unchannelized river remaining in west Tennessee. Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge, with facilities including fishing piers, boat ramps, and bank fishing areas. Reelfoot and Hatchie offer universally accessible fishing areas. Waterfowl hunting, as well as big and small game hunting, is offered on each west Tennessee national wildlife refuge. 36 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge To Ripley−−> Barr Rd Dee Webb Rd Chisholm Lake Rd Great River Rd Watkins Rd Hobe Webb Rd Hales Point Barr Rd Morris Rd. Knob Creek Rd Key Corner Rd Suggs Rd Porter Gap Rd Brushy Ridge Rd Sand Bluff Rd 19 88 Mississippi River Open Lake Chisholm Lake Obion River S.Fork Forked Deer Right Hand Arm Camp Slough Dry Arm Coker Slough Wardlows Chute Wardlows Pocket Gar Pond Gum Pond Legend Office Observation Tower Boat Ramps Camping Hiking Trails Chickasaw NWR Boundary Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages approximately 250,000 acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee. All of these TWRA lands offer some fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby state wildlife management areas include Anderson-Tully (12,000 acres); Moss Island (3,400 acres); and Tigrett (7,000 acres). The State of Tennessee allows the use of both modern and primitive weapons for deer hunting. During the 2002–3 season, the state offered in west Tennessee a total of 43 days of modern gun deer hunting; 53 days of muzzleloader deer hunting; and 105 days of archery deer hunting. Most of west Tennessee’s wildlife management areas are also open to waterfowl and small game hunting. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of five permanent employees. The staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially bottomland hardwood forests, through land acquisition and forest management. The refuge’s Habitat Management Plan provides an inventory of existing forest resources and long-term plans for management of these resources to maximize their value as habitat for a diversity of wildlife. Of particular concern under management activities is providing quality habitats for migratory birds. The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies, and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on land acquisition efforts and keeping the public informed regarding public use opportunities and refuge activities. The staff maintains one administrative site, the main headquarters located on Sand Bluff Road. The administrative site contains an office in a trailer, a large enclosed shop and storage barn, and two open pole barns. Much of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is accessible through a county-maintained road system (Figure 9). The refuge can be accessed from the north via State Highway 88 and from the south via State Highway 19. Barr Road and Watkins Road are the main refuge arteries. In addition to the road system, other refuge facilities include two boat ramps and one seasonal campground used primarily by hunters. The Ed Jones boat ramp on the northwest end of the refuge provides direct access to the Mississippi River. This boat ramp consists of a large concrete ramp and large gravel parking area, which was developed in partnership with the State of Tennessee. The second ramp, which can be used by visitors with smaller boats, is located off of Barr Road at Wardlows Pocket, a permanent backwater area that connects to the Mississippi River during high flow periods. In addition to the refuge’s normal road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the Federal Lands Highway program. The Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge staff is coordinating with Federal Highway Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or improvements with TEA-21 funding. Congress requires that the projects must be compatible with comprehensive management plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal Highway Administration is available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract administration. Projects proposed for immediate work (2005 to 2010) under the TEA-21 grant funding process include the rehabilitation of Wardlows Pocket Parking Area; Camp Slough Road north; Rush Slough Road east; River Road; Rush Slough Road west; Loop Road; and Dry Arm Road. In addition, the refuge staff is working with the county to secure possible additional TEA-21 funding for county roads that pass through the refuge, including Dee Webb Road. 38 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES Before the area was colonized by Europeans, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of western Tennessee that now includes Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Initial European explorations included visits by the Spanish explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made contact with the Chickasaw Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson 1995). After the American Revolution, the lands occupied by the Chickasaw were ceded to the new United States government, which made peace with the Chickasaw in 1786. In 1818, the Chickasaw Nation ceded all claim to lands in Tennessee, and in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw east of the Mississippi were removed to the West. Archaeological investigations that have been conducted on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lands consist of survey activities conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the site of proposed waterfowl impoundments (Anderson 1995). These investigations discovered ten archaeological sites, indicating Woodland period use. Mississippian pottery was observed at one site, and archaic projectile points were observed at several locations. The survey recommended that certain sites be tested and evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The locations of all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it was determined that these sites and areas should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment. Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted in nearby portions of west Tennessee. Significant surveys performed in west Tennessee include Mainfort (1994), in which archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River drainage; and Dickson and Campbell (1979), which surveyed cultural resources on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom national wildlife refuges. These reports document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been conducted in west Tennessee in conjunction with various federal development projects. Prior to refuge ownership, levee and road construction, as well as agricultural activities, may have adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuge. However, it is likely that numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuge, because the refuge was formerly owned by a timber company (Anderson-Tully Company), and was in private ownership prior to that time. Recommendations resulting from the surveys included that the Service develop a cultural resource management plan for the entire refuge to assist in future project management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth of information regarding the refuge and the county. LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION Of the total area of 60,240 acres within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary, the Service had acquired 25,006 acres as of April 1, 2004, leaving a balance of 35,234 acres in private ownership. The refuge staff is focusing on land acquisition within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary. The land protection goals set for the refuge would support strategic growth in areas where there is greatest concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and songbirds. All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls because federal government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service makes annual payments to Lauderdale County in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payments for acquired land are computed on whichever of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 Of the 324,570 acres in Lauderdale County, 192,010 acres consist of cultivated crop lands, and 92,600 acres are forests. There are approximately 505 farms in Lauderdale County with an average size of 380 acres (U.S. Department of Agriculture website: http://www.usda.gov.nass/). The lands immediately adjacent to the refuge are privately owned and managed as farmlands and hunting clubs. The surrounding farmlands are cultivated primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn, and milo. Farm commodity prices, in general, have decreased since the mid-1980s, and more dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Poor farm production, droughts, and low commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many producers to sell their farms or enroll them in some kind of conservation program. Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. In 2000–2001, Lauderdale County claimed 11,593.4 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (Donna Neal, pers. comm., Lauderdale County Farm Service Administration, Ripley, Tennessee). As of 2003, Lauderdale County claimed 239.9 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program (Dwayne Johnston, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ripley, Tennessee). The Fish and Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private lands in these programs. Private land enrollment in conservation programs would continue to be encouraged to augment the Service’s program and mission requirements. A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al., 2001). Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex, endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge. However, on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, the total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below published levels for the protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species. Mixtures of multiple pesticides were often detected in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem refuges, and their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas production facilities, which do not occur on or near the Chickasaw Refuge. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (CUPs) (including the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On the Chickasaw Refuge, water samples indicated the presence of five CUPs. On nearby lands outside the refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that exceeded the aquatic life criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al., 2001). In summary, the tests at Chickasaw indicated no likely hazard in regard to OCPs, PCBs, or PAHs, but further testing is needed to accurately determine the possible risks associated with current-use pesticides. REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS Bottomland hardwood forests within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) provide habitat for a rich diversity of wildlife species. Of 24 million acres of forested wetlands originally in the MAV, only about 5 million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al., 1979). Today, over 80 percent of the MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al., 1999). The remaining forested lands are typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the 40 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Mississippi Alluvial Valley; of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than one percent are greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the vicinity of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests, which equates to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was formerly owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company, and the forest was logged on a reserve harvest basis (logging continued for five years after purchase) as part of the purchase agreement with the Service. This logging was completed in 1995. As a result of this harvest, approximately one-half of the existing sawtimber volume was removed, and a third of the sawtimber stems were removed, resulting in fewer, smaller trees. These timber practices by the former owner resulted in an overstory dominated by species that are less productive for wildlife, such as elm and sugarberry. It also produced a significant reduction in the proportion of red oaks, which produce valuable mast for waterfowl and numerous other wildlife species. A forest habitat inventory is being compiled in a Habitat Management Plan, and inventories of vertebrate species for the refuge are provided in Appendix IV. The relative newness of the refuge, as well as the limited operation and maintenance resources available to date, have played a role in the lack of inventory information thus far. More comprehensive surveys of refuge fauna should be completed as resources and opportunities become available. Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the rivers within and adjacent to the refuge. As a result, the physical and biological interaction between the rivers and floodplain has been impeded, and much of the natural hydrologic functioning of the system has been hindered significantly. Lauderdale County is one of the few remaining areas along the Mississippi River where the main line levee is incomplete, which allows high river stages to inundate much of the refuge lands on a regular basis. While this seasonal inundation is beneficial, the hydrology has been altered by agricultural and flood control interests, and so the natural hydrology is severely impacted nonetheless. Two heavily impacted systems that affect the refuge include Cold Creek and the Old Bed of the Forked Deer River. Cold Creek, which flows from the Chickasaw bluffs into the southeastern portion of the refuge, historically flowed directly into Chisholm Lake. The creation of levees and an agricultural field at the mouth of Cold Creek in recent history has changed the natural course of Cold Creek and caused it to flow across refuge woodlands and eventually into the Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River. As a result, tons of silt and sand are deposited just south of Chisholm Lake and onto refuge lands, and the area’s natural hydrology has been significantly impacted. The Old Bed of the Forked Deer River formerly connected the Obion River to Chisholm Lake. The construction of a dirt and concrete dam north of Chisholm Lake by private interests now restricts the low-water flows within the system, and has further disrupted its natural hydrology. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES The conservation priorities identified for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge include continued emphasis on habitat for migratory waterfowl and bottomland hardwood forests, and an increased emphasis on habitat for migratory songbirds. The importance of the Lower Mississippi Valley as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl populations serves to reinforce the value of the refuge for migrating waterfowl. The refuge and adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s value as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 other refuges. The Chickasaw Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 for “...use as an inviolate sanctuary or for other management purposes, for migratory birds.” Management of impoundments, agricultural lands, moist soil units, and bottomland hardwood forests would be carried out with an emphasis on providing habitat for migrating waterfowl. The vast amount of clearing and forest fragmentation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley underscores the importance of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge as the largest contiguous block of bottomland hardwood forest remaining in west Tennessee. A priority is placed on protection and maintenance of the refuge’s bottomland hardwood forests, as well as the reforestation of most of the newly acquired open lands. Refuge management is working to maintain and increase the red oak component of the forest and develop a forest structure that provides a diversity of habitats for numerous species of wildlife. Significant declines in populations of many neotropical migratory songbirds serve to emphasize the importance of forest habitats for species that migrate through the Lower Mississippi Valley. Emphasis would continue to be placed on the study and management of the refuge’s forests for these species. Management efforts to enhance existing forests for songbirds would continue to be a refuge priority. The refuge’s focal species include the swallow-tailed kite, cerulean warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. Focal wildlife species would continue to be managed in support of the goals and objectives developed for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b). The resource goals and objectives developed cooperatively with the State of Tennessee (TWRA and USFWS, 2002) would continue to be a priority in the future planning and management of refuge lands. The Service would continue to work with partners and landowners to achieve common goals and form conservation partnerships. One such partnership involves the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Landowner participation in the Wetlands Reserve Program and Cropland Reserve Program would assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting its wildlife objectives through the |
| Tag | Library-Source-CCPs |
| Date created | 2012-08-31 |
|
|