Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Stewart County, Tennessee
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2009
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 11
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 12
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 13
Ecosystem ......................................................................................................................... 13
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge ............................................................................. 14
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 15
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 15
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 16
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 16
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 17
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 17
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 18
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 18
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 18
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 21
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 25
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 26
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 27
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 29
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 29
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 31
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 35
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 37
Public Involvement and Planning Process ................................................................................. 37
Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ...................................................................... 38
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 38
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 39
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 40
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 41
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 43
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 44
ii Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 46
Fish and Wildlife Management ......................................................................................... 46
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 56
Cultural and Historic Resources ....................................................................................... 70
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 71
Refuge Operations ............................................................................................................ 77
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 81
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 81
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 81
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 83
Cultural and Historic Resources ....................................................................................... 85
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 85
Refuge operations ............................................................................................................ 87
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 89
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities .......................................................................................... 91
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 91
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 91
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 93
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 95
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 95
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 95
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 95
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 96
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 96
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 96
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 97
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 99
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 101
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 101
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 101
Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ........................................................... 101
Alternative B - Public Use Emphasis .............................................................................. 103
Alternative C – Wildlife Management Emphasis ............................................................. 105
Alternative D – Enhanced Wildlife Management And public Use Program (Proposed
Management Action) ....................................................................................................... 107
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 109
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 111
Table of Contents iii
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 121
Pre-Settlement Conditions .............................................................................................. 121
Custodial Management of Upland and Wetland Habitat ................................................. 121
Control of Lake Barkley Water Levels ............................................................................. 122
Substantial Expansion of Recreational Opportunities ..................................................... 122
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 123
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 123
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 123
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 123
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 123
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 124
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 124
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 124
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 125
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 125
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 125
Alternative A - Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 125
Alternative B - Public Use Emphasis ............................................................................... 127
Alternative C – Wildlife Management Emphasis ............................................................. 130
Alternative D – Enhanced Wildlife Management And public Use Program (Proposed
Management Action) ....................................................................................................... 132
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 135
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 146
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 146
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 146
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 147
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 147
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 147
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 147
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 148
Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources,
Environmental Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities 152
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 154
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 154
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 155
SECTION C. APPENDICES
I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 157
II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ......................................................................... 167
III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................. 171
iv Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 185
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 185
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 185
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 186
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 187
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 188
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 190
V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 191
VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 197
VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................................... 221
VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 225
IX. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................................... 227
X. BUDGET REQUESTS .................................................................................................................. 243
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 243
service asset Management System Needs .............................................................................. 244
XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 245
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee....................................... 9
Figure 2. Local vicinity map of Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge, Tennessee ............................ 10
Figure 3. USFWS-designated Ecosystems in Conterminous U.S. ...................................................... 12
Figure 4. Distribution of habitats and land cover at Cross Creeks Refuge .......................................... 20
Figure 5. Public use facilities at Cross Creeks NWR ........................................................................... 33
Figure 6. Proposed wildlife and habitat enhancement areas, segment 1 ............................................ 59
Figure 7. Proposed wildlife and habitat enhancement areas, segment 2 ............................................ 60
Figure 8. Proposed treatment areas for invasive species .................................................................... 69
Figure 9. Proposed public use facilities at Cross Creeks Refuge ........................................................ 73
Figure 10. Current and proposed staffing chart .................................................................................. 90
vi Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Approximate acreages of Cross Creeks Refuge habitats/land cover ..................................... 7
Table 2. Wintering duck and goose populations (1986-2004) .............................................................. 8
Table 3. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry ....................................... 28
Table 4. Comparison of demographic statistics for Stewart County, Tennessee, and the USA ......... 29
Table 5. Summary of projects for Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 88
Table 6. Approximate annual costs of proposed new staff positions in 2008 dollars ......................... 89
Table 7. Refuge National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans .......................................... 92
Table 8. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Cross Creeks Refuge .................. 111
Table 9. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Cross Creeks Refuge .......................... 136
Table 10. RONS projects at Cross Creeks NWR ............................................................................. 243
Table 11. Service Asset Management System (SAMMS) ................................................................ 244
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and
their effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state and federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs relating to wild
birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and
wildlife research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acreage is spread across the other 49 states and several United
States’ territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program, which
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903
for the protection of colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican.
Western refuges were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), pronghorn antelope (1931),
and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters
decimated once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted
breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused
on “waterfowl production areas” (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The
emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response
to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973 the Service began to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, either fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36
percent in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities
grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies.
The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard
(Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. Annually, some
38,000 volunteers contribute more than 1.4 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation with
adjoining federal, state, and private landowners, and that the Service develop and implement a process to
ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and
strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource
management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and
other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between
Cross Creeks NWR and other partners, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), National Park
Service (NPS),Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), and private landowners.
Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and
management of the Cross Creeks NWR are provided in Appendix III.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract
from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, a refuge’s role within an
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among other wildlife conservation efforts, the Partners-in-Flight Plan,
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network, and the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations,
academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working
to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated
approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national
bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Interior Low Plateaus physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds,
primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
6 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and
wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management
areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for
protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of
fish and wildlife species in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) http://www.state.tn.us/twra/) is the state agency
charged with game enforcement responsibilities and management of state natural resources in
Tennessee. 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 integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate. The state’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue
to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Signed on November 9, 1962, the Memorandum of Agreement between the Service and the Corps
created Cross Creeks NWR. The creation of Cross Creeks NWR was mitigation for waterfowl habitat
lost due to the flooding of the former Kentucky Woodlands NWR. This flooding occurred from the
creation of Lake Barkley Reservoir, a project of Corps, in 1954. Public Land Order 4560 formally
transferred land rights of Cross Creek NWR to the Service (USFWS 2007a; USFWS, no date-a).
The refuge’s name originates from the intersection of North Cross Creek and South Cross Creek on
the refuge. Cross Creeks NWR is 8,862 acres in size (USFWS 2005a). The mixture of open water,
wetlands, woodlands, croplands, and grasslands creates a mosaic of wildlife-rich habitats (USFWS,
no date-b). Table 1 shows figures for current estimated habitat acreage by type at Cross Creeks
NWR (USFWS, no date-c). The refuge provides valuable wintering habitat for migrating waterfowl
and bald eagles. It also provides habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species, such
as gray bats, Indiana bats, and least terns (USFWS, no date-d).
Table 1. Approximate acreages of Cross Creeks NWR habitats/land cover
Habitat type Acres
Open water 2,800
Wetlands 1,500
Woodlands 2,542
Croplands 1,300
Grasslands 600
Infrastructure 120
Total 8,862
Cross Creeks NWR stretches 12 miles on either side of the Lake Barkley Reservoir and the
Cumberland River between Dover and Cumberland Cities, Tennessee (USFWS 2004) (Figure 1 and
Figure 2). This river creates a north side and a south side of the refuge. The reservoir and refuge
are on the middle transition portion of the Cumberland River between Cheatham Dam and Barkley
Dam. The Corps operates Lake Barkley “primarily for flood control, hydropower, and navigation, as
well as secondary purposes of recreation, water quality, water supply, and fish and wildlife habitat”
(USFWS 2006a).
Multiple local roads cross the refuge (Figure 2). Cross Creeks NWR receives about 32,000-45,000
visitors annually (USFWS 2006a). Residents and non-residents generate $1.8 million in expenditures
annually (USFWS, no date-d).
8 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Cross Creeks NWR is in the Tennessee-Kentucky part of the Mississippi Flyway. Peak wintering
populations of ducks reached over 108,000 in the mid-1990s. Recently, duck populations have
peaked at 35,000-50,000. Canada geese peak wintering populations reached over 73,000 twice in
the early to mid-1990s. However, recent wintering populations are 4,000-5,000, with an average of
15,000 from 1997-2003 (Table 2) (USFWS 2006a; USFWS, no date-d).
Table 2. Wintering duck and goose populations (1986-2004)
Waterfowl Season Duck
Totals Peak Date Goose
Totals
Peak
Date
1986/87 37,463 1/10/87 27,600 1/24/87
1987/88 50,839 1/17/88 32,945 1/3/88
1988/89 58,548 1/24/89 33,735 1/17/89
1989/90 47,012 12/20/89 73,534 12/27/89
1990/91 54,339 12/27/90 19,183 12/27/90
1991/92 61,936 12/10/91 14,946 12/23/91
1992/93 60,895 1/13/93 14,639 1/23/93
1993/94 93,985 1/25/94 73,155 1/25/94
1994/95 71,100 1/21/95 19,400 1/21/95
1995/96 108,630 1/13/96 36,620 1/13/96
1996/97 59,425 12/23/96 11,240 1/21/97
1997/98 56,920 1/9/98 8,880 1/15/98
1998/99 45,950 1/8/99 20,362 1/15/99
1999/00 56,549 1/28/00 13,822 1/28/00
2000/01 44,037 12/28/00 20,023 1/12/01
2001/02 34,462 1/19/02 5,653 1/12/02
2002/03 28,360 12/29/02 4,047 1/19/03
2003/04 35,552 1/10/04 5,398 1/10/04
2004/05 51,219 12/30/04 5,251 12/30/04
(USFWS 2006a)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Cross Creeks NWR, Tennessee
10 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Local vicinity map of Cross Creeks NWR, Tennessee
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Bald eagles returned to the refuge in 1983 after a 22-year nesting absence in Tennessee. The
refuge now contains a single active nest (USFWS 2008a). The refuge also supports an abundance
of wildlife including over 650 species of plants, 250 species of birds, and 250 species of mammals,
fish, reptiles, and amphibians (USFWS, no date-d).
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to fulfill the purpose for which it was
established but also to fulfill the mission of the Refuge System. If there is a conflict between the two,
the purposes for which the refuge was established takes precedence.
The establishing and acquisition authorities for Cross Creeks NWR include the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-
667). These documents state that the refuge:
1. “For use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.”
2. “Shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior directly or in accordance with cooperative
agreements…and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation, maintenance,
and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon.”
In addition, Public Land Order 4560 identified the purposes of the refuge to be “To build, operate, and
maintain sub-impoundment structures; produce food crops or cover for wildlife; to regulate and restrict
hunting, trapping and fishing and to otherwise manage said lands and impoundment areas for the
protection and production of wildlife and fish populations” (Public Land Order 1962).
Specifically, the objectives for Cross Creeks NWR are:
􀁹􇤠 To provide habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl.
􀁹􇤠 Provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species – gray bats, Indiana
bats, and least terns (and formerly the now de-listed bald eagle and peregrine falcon).
􀁹􇤠 Provide wildlife-dependent recreation for the public.
􀁹􇤠 Provide environmental education for students, faculty, and private sector (USFWS, no date-d).
Cross Creeks NWR was established to provide feeding and resting habitat for migratory birds in the
Tennessee-Kentucky portion of the Mississippi Flyway, with an emphasis placed on providing habitat
for wintering waterfowl. Objectives are achieved through a habitat management program involving
sixteen waterfowl impoundments and two deep-water reservoirs. Other methods are cultivation of
about 1,200 acres of agricultural land and management of about 170 acres of moist-soil habitat
(USFWS, no date-b). Management of the moist soils and impoundments uses a network of levees
and water control structures to adjust water levels to provide food and habitat, as well as to manage
water levels for agriculture. The cooperative farming program leaves unharvested a portion of the
crops grown to provide food and shelter for waterfowl and other animals, while the entire crop on
acreage planted by staff is left unharvested for the same purpose (USFWS 2006a).
12 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Cross Creeks NWR does not include any lands under special designation. That is, it does not contain
congressionally designated wilderness areas, federally designated wild and scenic rivers, demonstration
areas, or research natural areas. In addition, oil and gas activities do not occur on the refuge.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service has
found it useful to divide the entire contiguous United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily
along watershed boundaries (Figure 3). Cross Creeks NWR lies within the Lower Tennessee-
Cumberland ecosystem (LTCE), which spans portions of Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky. This
ecosystem is further divided into two subunits, the Lower Tennessee River watershed and the
Cumberland River watershed. The refuge is in the Cumberland River watershed (LTCE, no date-a).
The LTCE team has developed a strategic planning approach to outline goals, objectives, and
strategies to protect and restore the Service trust resources and ecological integrity within the LTCE
(LTCE 1995). The LTCE team formed three subgroups – Aquatics, Migratory Birds, and Land
Acquisition – to help achieve these plans. The first two subgroups identify priority watersheds,
determine research need, and develop projects for the restoration and protection of marine life and
migratory birds respectively (LTCE, no date-b; LTCE, no date-c). The last subgroup focuses on
providing recommendations for land purchases for the Service
Figure 3. Service-designated ecosystems in conterminous U.S. with LTCE (#28) highlighted
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
(LTCE, no date-d). The LTCE team collaborates with other agencies and concerned groups to help
accomplish team objectives. Cross Creeks NWR has contributed to meeting the biological goals and
objectives of the LTCE.
Cross Creeks NWR has a special role to play in the conservation of migratory birds. The refuge
serves as an important wintering ground for thousands of migratory waterfowl using the Mississippi
Flyway and provides a significant contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Suitable wintering or nesting habitat occurs on the refuge for species including American black duck,
mallard, gadwall, goldeneye, ring-necked duck, bufflehead, Canada goose, great blue heron, bald
eagle, and others. In the last twenty years, wintering duck populations peaked at over 108,000 in
1995-96. During the same time period, Canada geese peaked at around 73,000 in 1989-90 and
1993-94, but has since declined to around 5,000 from 2001-2005. The Southern James Bay
Population of Canada geese is an important component of the wintering Canada goose population,
which has been in steady decline since the early 1990s. Over 40 percent of the black ducks in the
Mississippi Flyway observed during the mid-winter survey from the 1970s through the mid-1990s
occurred in Tennessee (White 1994; Sanders et al., 1995). Bald eagles nest on the refuge. The
refuge also provides stopover habitat for at least 30 shorebird species. The abundance and diversity
of managed wetlands at Cross Creeks NWR support at least 30 species of herons, egrets, rails, gulls,
terns, and other waterbirds (USFWS 2006a).
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in Fiscal Year 2002. Under this new program,
Congress provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
design and implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A
requirement of SWG was that each state complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
(CWCS) by October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS was intended to identify and focus
management on “species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be
used to manage and conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
The Tennessee CWCS effort began in 2003. In late 2003, TWRA contracted with The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) for the services of its state conservation planning manager to establish and lead
a core planning team. The result of this team’s work, as well as the collaboration of Tennessee’s
conservation partners, resulted in the production of the first edition of the state’s CWCS. The Service
approved the Tennessee CWCS in 2005. The CWCS uses a consolidated GIS system as a
component for identifying wildlife species in the greatest need of conservation. The plan also
describes the actions necessary for these species’ restoration (TWRA 2005).
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
ECOSYSTEM
Much of the region's economic activity – agriculture, lumbering, mining, and recreation – is based on
using the watershed's natural resources. Sustaining most of these activities requires maintenance of a
healthy ecosystem. Stress from human activities has adversely affected the ecological integrity of the
LTCE, and there are indications that this stress is increasing. The exceptionally diverse but damaged
mussel fauna illustrates the extent of these adverse impacts. This unique faunal group evolved and
flourished in response to a free-flowing riverine ecosystem that was spared the periodic ravages of
14 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
glaciation. However, since European settlement, and especially during the 20th century, this vast riverine
ecosystem was profoundly altered by impoundments (over 2,000 miles of its rivers are impounded),
channelization, siltation, and water pollution. Historically, about 100 distinct mussel taxa existed in the
LTCE. This once diverse and abundant fauna has been so decimated that nearly half (46 percent) of the
species are either extinct (8 percent), classified as endangered (24 percent), or under review for federal
protection (14 percent). During the twentieth century, no other wide-ranging faunal group within the
continental United States experienced this degree of loss (LTCE 1995).
Other taxonomic groups are also in jeopardy. There are 74 species in the LTCE that are federally listed
as threatened or endangered or are proposed for listing: 28 species of mussels, 19 species of plants,
10 species of fish, 8 species of mammals, 4 species of birds, 4 species of snails, and 1 arachnid.
Additionally, based on data from the Breeding Bird Survey, 74 percent of the neotropical migratory bird
species breeding in Tennessee suffered declining populations between 1980 and 1989 (LTCE 1995).
Environmental alteration and degradation are continuing challenges to the maintenance of a
productive and healthy LTCE. Indigenous biological resources of the area are threatened by land
conversion, poor land use practices, direct and indirect physical alteration of the area's rivers and
streams, and both point- and non-point-source discharges of pollutants. Herbicides, insecticides,
nutrients, and sediment are significant components of the agricultural runoff that adversely affects
aquatic systems throughout the area. Acid precipitation and other airborne pollutants are having
dramatic effects on aquatic and terrestrial communities, particularly at high elevations. An expanding
human population and its increasing demand for renewable and nonrenewable resources further
threaten natural resources. Contamination of both aquatic and terrestrial systems through the
accidental release of toxic chemicals is a continuing threat. The expansion of urban and suburban
areas within the ecosystem and the concurrent loss of forest, agricultural, and other types of open
space associated with this expansion have reduced the quantity and quality of natural habitats
available to fish and wildlife (LTCE 1995).
Given the abundance of ecosystem-altering influences past and present, a coordinated landscape-scale
effort is necessary to reverse and prevent further declines in biological resources. A healthy
ecosystem will provide much more than diverse flora and fauna. It will provide clean air and water,
healthy soil, sustainable harvests from forests and fields, and abundant outdoor recreational
opportunities for this and future generations (LTCE 1995).
CROSS CREEKS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Dam construction and operation, wastewater outfalls, navigation-related dredging, contaminants, and
commercial sand and gravel dredging are likely contributors to the degradation of water quality and
substrate habitat in and around the refuge. Habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation,
contamination, and human disturbance cause declines of wildlife populations, especially shorebirds
and waterbirds. With increasing human population and development in the area, these pressures will
only intensify (USFWS 2006a).
Little of the original bottomland hardwood forest remains from the conversion to agricultural and
waterfowl impoundments. This results in less habitat for forest-dependent species such as the
prothonotary warbler. This is a top species of conservation concern by the Central Hardwoods Joint
Venture (CHJV) and the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (PIF). Other
species of concern in this habitat are the belted kingfisher and the green heron. The abandonment of
fields has created two habitats that were not historically present: grasslands and scrub/shrub
habitats. These encourage native species that were originally uncommon. However, PIF’s and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
CHJV’s species of concern that nest in these habitats include northern bobwhite, eastern
meadowlark, blue-winged warbler, and prairie warbler (USFWS 2006a).
Invasive species clog pipes, inhibit water flow, and out-compete beneficial food and cover. Thus,
invasive species present a significant obstacle to water management and to migratory bird utilization
of pools. Invasive species occurring at Cross Creeks NWR include alligatorweed, parrotfeather,
spatterdock, kudzu, privet, castor bean, Apple of Peru and Japanese stilt plant. Through impeding
water management, invasive species contribute to the less than maximum productivity of the
agricultural fields for waterfowl food that requires flooding. Spatterdock exists in the ponds, and
alligatorweed out-competes native wetland species. Japanese stilt plant impacts natural
regeneration, causes tree stress, and affects nesting habitat (USFWS 2006a).
The refuge’s role as a waterfowl sanctuary enhances hunting on nearby public and private lands, as
well as providing opportunities for wildlife observation. Sanctuary is a critical part of annual waterfowl
conservation and management. Sanctuary provides areas where birds can rest, gain fat, and
develop pair bonds that improve the likelihood of successful nesting in the spring and summer.
Nearby private waterfowl hunt areas are becoming larger and more developed with increased
emphases placed on maintaining flooded food sources that support several thousand waterfowl. The
location of the hunt clubs immediately adjacent to refuge boundaries limits the ability of the refuge to
provide optimum foraging opportunities for waterfowl during the waterfowl hunting season because of
baiting issues. Adjacent hunting also limits the areas that can be used for waterfowl sanctuary
without exposing the ducks and geese to disturbance. Waterfowl usually need a buffer between
hunters and a sanctuary.
A network of refuge levees and water control structures allows water levels to be controlled for optimum
habitat for many species of wildlife. Flooding of the impoundments on the north side of the refuge is
primarily rainfall-dependent. Water management capabilities relative to drawdowns are somewhat
hindered in most impoundments by the operation schedule of Lake Barkley. The primary objectives of
flood control and hydroelectric power dictate the schedule for Lake Barkley’s water level operation, which
occurs too late for moist-soil management (see the Water Quality and Quantity section below). Thus, the
refuge has to use pumping to manage the water levels for moist-soil dewatering and the planting of
agricultural fields. At present the refuge does not use pumps to fill impoundments.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate for the refuge region is described as having warm, humid summers and mild winters
(NOAA 1980; 1993). However, summer temperatures in the 1990s and winter lows well below
freezing are not uncommon (Owenby and Ezell 1992). January is the coldest month, with an average
temperature of 34.2 degrees Fahrenheit. July is normally the hottest, with an average temperature of
77.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Winters are mild with most snow occurring in January and February
(NOAA 2004).
The average yearly rainfall is over 53 inches, with rainfall well distributed throughout all seasons and
the wettest season is spring. March is the wettest month at 5.40 inches, and October is the driest at
3.51 inches (NOAA 2004). Seasonal floods in bottomlands and along the shoreline of Lake Barkley
are more common during winter and spring months (USFWS 2006a).
16 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The refuge is located mostly within Western Highland Rim of the Interior Low Plateau (TWRA 2005).
Smalley (1980) describes the topography of the uplands of this region as "narrow winding to
moderately broad undulating ridges flanked by steep side slopes" with narrow V-shaped valleys in the
upper reaches of the intermittent streams, gradually becoming u-shaped and broader as the streams
approach the major river bottoms. Land elevations range from approximately 640 to 354 feet MSL
(USFWS 2006a).
Much of the refuge lies within the floodplain of the Cumberland River. These lands are nearly flat to
gently sloping with well-drained to poorly drained soils. The remainder of the refuge acreage
encompasses the hillsides surrounding the river valley, with a mixture of rolling hills and rocky high
bluffs (USFWS 2006a).
SOILS
Refuge lands fall within two soil associations as described by the Stewart County Soil Survey (USDA
1942). The soils of the upland sites within the refuge are classified in the Bodine-Baxter-Nixa-Ennis
soil association, which is found in 80 percent of the county. The bottomland sites are included in the
Huntington-Lindside-Wolftever soil association, found in 5.5 percent of the county (USFWS 2006a).
“Narrow winding ridges and deep steep-walled v-shaped valleys” characterize the Bodine-Baxter-
Nixa-Ennis soil association, found in the highly dissected uplands. Most of the upland forests on the
refuge are of this association and have a typical make up of Dickson or Mountview soils on the ridge
crests, Bodine or Baxter soils on the slopes, Greendale soils on the foot slopes and alluvial-colluvial
fans, Humphrey soils on stream terraces, and Ennis soils on the stream bottoms. Limited
occurrences of Pickwick and Paden soils are found on the high terraces, as well as limited
occurrences of Lobelville and Lee soils on the bottoms (USFWS 2006a).
This soil association is not well suited to crop production and is primarily comprised of the Baxter or
Bodine series. These soils are steep, well-drained to excessively drained, cherty, and have low
fertility. Well-drained Dickson and Mountview soils occur on the wider ridgetops, but are isolated.
The soils of the narrow tracts of bottomland and foot slopes commonly are deep, well-drained,
moderately fertile with variable amounts of chert washed from the nearby hills. In some areas, the
chert is common enough to interfere with cultivation (USFWS 2006a).
The Huntington-Lindside-Wolftever soil association is described by the Stewart County Soil Survey as
“somewhat undulating, consisting of natural levees near the river and other low ridges and
intervening swales or sloughs that run nearly parallel to the river.” Of the dominant soils in this
association, the Wolftever is a deep soil which occupies the majority of this area and is commonly
found adjacent to the bottom lands on the highest, best-drained parts of the terraces or second
bottoms. Silty, moderately well-drained Lindside soils are found in long narrow strips along the old
stream channels dissecting the bottoms or in sloughs. Well-drained loamy Huntington soils are
typically found closest to the river in long narrow strips on the natural levees with some areas where
these soils form broad areas up to one-quarter-mile wide. Other less common soils in this
association include the poorly drained Melvin soils, which are found in association with the Lindside
soils. Sequatchie soil is found in association with Wolftever soils, but is always over sandy alluvim.
Staser soils are found in the first bottoms, on the high natural levees. Robertsville soils are found in
the terraces in broad depressed areas closest to the uplands. Taft soils are intermediate to the
others, but are predominately found in association with Wolfever soils (USFWS 2006a).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
This soil association is the most fertile and has been historically used for cultivation and pasture land.
However, because of their close association to the river, these soils are subject to flooding and uses
are limited by annual water fluctuations. At the time of the soil survey, the Cumberland River valley
was the most productive in the country because of these rich soils (USFWS 2006a).
HYDROLOGY
Cross Creeks NWR lies within the Cumberland River Valley. The construction of the Barkley Lock,
Dam, and Hydroelectric Power Plant across the Cumberland River near Grand Rivers, Kentucky,
formed Lake Barkley. This structure is the last of five Corps facilities managing waters along the
Cumberland River from Clay County, Tennessee, to Lyon County, Kentucky. The excess waters of
Lake Barkley are discharged into the Cumberland River channel at the lock and dam, which then
flows into the Ohio River. A 1.5-mile canal connects the Cumberland River with the Tennessee River
approximately one mile upstream from the dam and allows water to freely flow between these two
bodies of water (USFWS 2006a).
Drainage within much of the bottomlands on the refuge is dependent upon the water level of Lake
Barkley and to a lesser degree, Kentucky Lake. Under normal water flows, the Corps has sole
control over the water management of Lake Barkley and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has
sole control over the water management of Kentucky Lake for the primary objectives of flood control
and hydroelectric power production. Uncontrolled flooding of the bottomlands on the refuge occurs
when heavy rains fall within the Cumberland River Valley or when the Ohio and/or Mississippi Rivers
exceed flood stage, prompting the Corps to hold water in Lake Barkley and to order TVA to reduce
discharges from Kentucky Lake (USFWS 2006a).
Site-specific drainage varies considerably throughout the refuge. Drainage within the bottomlands
ranges from good to poor depending on the soil type. Upland sites have excellent to excessive
drainage, primarily related to topographic position (USFWS 2006a).
There are sixteen impoundments and two deep water reservoirs on the refuge, with varying water
management capabilities. Some of the impoundments on the south side of the refuge have very
good drainage and flooding potential. The two reservoirs serve to flood most of the impoundments
on the south side during the fall and winter. Flooding of the impoundments on the north side of the
refuge is primarily rainfall dependent. On the other hand, the water management capabilities relative
to dewatering are somewhat hindered in most impoundments by the operation schedule of Lake
Barkley (USFWS 2006a).
AIR QUALITY
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist for six contaminants, referred to as
criteria pollutants, and apply to the ambient air. Ambient air is the air that the general public is
exposed to every day (USEPA 2002a). These criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide, ozone,
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead.
Compared to other counties in the United States, Stewart County, Tennessee, has relatively high
emissions of air pollutants. It ranks in the 90th percentile for nitrogen oxide emissions and sulfur dioxide
emissions. For the other pollutants, the county is at or below the 40th percentile (Scorecard 2005).
Areas where the ambient air quality does not meet the NAAQS are said to be non-attainment areas.
Areas where the ambient air currently meets the national standards are said to be in attainment. Stewart
County, Tennessee, is in attainment for all six criteria pollutants (USEPA 2002a; USEPA 1995).
18 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
In Tennessee, the most common causes of pollution in rivers and streams are sediment/silt, habitat
alteration, pathogens, and nutrients. The main sources of these pollutants are agriculture, hydrologic
modification, municipal dischargers, and construction. The leading causes of pollution in reservoirs
and lakes are organic substances, like PCBs, dioxins, and chlordane, plus nutrients, sediment/silt,
and low dissolved oxygen. The principal source of problems in reservoirs and lakes is the historical
discharge of pollutants that have accumulated in sediment and fish flesh. Other sources include
agriculture, hydrologic modifications, municipal dischargers, and construction (TDEC 2006).
“Fully supporting” means that the watershed is able to support all designated uses. Less than half of
Barkley Reservoir is in Tennessee with the rest being in Kentucky. Lake Barkley Reservoir in
Tennessee is fully supporting (TDEC 2006). Dam construction and operation, wastewater outfalls,
navigation-related dredging, contaminants, and commercial sand and gravel dredging are likely
contributors to the degradation of water quality and substrate habitat in and around the refuge
(USFWS 2006a).
The TVA operates a coal-fired electric plant upstream on the Cumberland River at Cumberland City,
Tennessee. Toxic wastes and air and water pollutants emitted by this plant are monitored by the
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA 2008).
As noted above in the section on hydrology, drainage within much of the bottomlands on the refuge is
dependent upon the water level of Lake Barkley and to a lesser degree, Kentucky Lake. Lake levels
are typically higher in the summer, reaching 359’ mean sea level (MSL) and lowered to a winter pool
level of 354 MSL for floodwater storage (USFWS 2006a).
On the refuge, a network of levees and water control structures allow water levels to be controlled for
optimum habitat for many species of wildlife. Current water management capabilities, which are
largely influenced by Lake Barkley Reservoir operations, significantly limit the area that can be
planted in corn and then flooded. These crops provide food and shelter for migrating and resident
wildlife. Currently, the operations’ schedule requires that the Lake Barkley reservoir maintains its
winter pool (354’) until April 1, and then it quickly rises five feet to the summer pool elevation (359’) by
May 1. A slow fall drawdown begins on July 5 and reaches winter pool by December 1. The July 5
drawdown is too late to plant corn at low elevations and is on the late side of desirable moist-soil
management drawdowns. The only option to improve refuge management capabilities is to increase
pumping capacity (USFWS 2006a).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Cross Creeks NWR consists of rich bottomlands surrounded by rolling, heavily forested hills and
rocky, limestone bluffs. Deciduous woodlands characterize the surrounding hillsides, while the
bottomlands primarily consist of open water impoundments and cultivated fields. The types of
habitats found on the refuge are cropland, moist-soil vegetation, forested uplands, isolated
bottomland hardwoods, and open water habitats. A biological review in 2006 of Cross Creeks NWR
discussed these five habitats. Brief descriptions of each of the Cross Creeks NWR habitats are given
below (USFWS 2006a). Figure 4 depicts the layout of the refuge’s various habitats or land cover.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Cropland
Refuge cropland acres vary in total production each year between 1,200-1,300 acres, depending on
specific fields in production and those left fallow. There are currently (2008) two cooperative farmers
on the refuge, one on the north side of the Cumberland River and one on the south side. Crops
planted by cooperative farmers consist of corn, soybeans, and winter wheat. A strict corn/soybean
rotation is maintained with roughly half the acres in each crop in a given year. The current refuge
share is 25 percent of the corn, which is left standing in the fields following the harvest of the farmer’s
share. In substitution for 25 percent of the soybeans, the refuge’s share consists of several acres of
winter browse that is planted by the cooperative farmers. During most years and in order to meet the
objective for goose browse, the refuge must also plant several acres of winter wheat or a substitute
crop to make up the difference. In addition, the refuge staff currently plants several impoundments in
millet each year for wintering waterfowl (USFWS 2006a).
Moist Soil
Around 850 acres were managed in moist-soil habitat during the late 1980s. Current (2008)
estimates are that around 170 acres are actively managed for moist-soil production. A network of
levees and water control structures allows water levels to be controlled for optimum habitat for
many species of wildlife. Current staffing levels limit active control of moist-soil areas to only
water manipulation. Much of the original moist-soil habitat has reverted to woody vegetation and
invasive aquatic plants, due to inactive management (USFWS 2006a). (See croplands for details
about water level issues.)
Forested Uplands
Historically, the refuge acreage of forested uplands was estimated at one-third of the total refuge
acreage. With reforestation projects and natural regeneration, current GIS technology has estimated
the forested/woody acreage to now encompass approximately 2,542 acres (somewhat less than one-third
of the refuge). The majority of the forest is comprised of upland stands that are predominantly
oak-hickory (USFWS 2006a).
Bottomland Hardwoods
A small isolated block of remnant bottomland hardwoods occurs in Rattlesnake Hollow and reforested
tracts of various oak species run along portions of the main road on the south side of the river.
Bottomland hardwood forests historically comprised the floodplain of the Cumberland River. A large
number of these forests at Cross Creeks NWR has been converted to agriculture and waterfowl
impoundments. Currently there exists one small tract (under 10 acres) of mature bottomland
hardwood forest, consisting of large (greater than 50 cm diameter breast height), flood tolerant trees
(USFWS 2006a).
Bottomland hardwood forests provide habitat for numerous species of breeding birds, including
several listed as species of concern by the Central Hardwoods Joint Venture (CHJV) and the PIF.
Bottomland hardwoods provide acorns, invertebrates, and some moist-soil seeds. Bottomland
hardwoods with a good red oak component and subject to annual flooding are essentially nonexistent
on the refuge (USFWS 2006a).
20 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Distribution of habitats and land cover at Cross Creeks NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Open Water
Cross Creeks NWR has many open water areas, among them the Cumberland River, Lake Barkley,
Cub Creek, North Cross Creek, and South Cross Creek. Some of the water impoundments also have
open water. Several species of gulls and terns, including the endangered least tern, may frequent
the open water and mudflats of the refuge and adjacent Lake Barkley during migration and wintering
periods. The deeper water habitats found in the Elk Creek and South Cross Creek Reservoirs attract
loons and grebes (USFWS 2006a).
WILDLIFE
Its diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats enables many wildlife species to make the refuge their
home either during the entire year, during the winter months as many waterfowl do, or during
temporary stopovers as do some migratory songbirds (USFWS no date-b). The refuge focuses most
of its efforts on waterfowl habitat management, but a variety of these habitat management practices
benefits numerous other species. Over 250 bird species have been observed on the refuge. An
additional 26 species have been observed and are listed as “accidental” birds (USFWS, 2006a). The
abundance and diversity of managed and natural wetlands support at least 30 species of herons,
egrets, rails, gulls, terns, and other waterbirds. The large bodies of water scattered along the refuge
host a diversity of waterbirds associated with lacustrine (lake-related) habitats. In addition, up to 230
species of mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians may use the refuge for part or all of their life cycle
(USFWS, no date-b).
Waterfowl
Cross Creeks NWR serves as an important wintering ground for thousands of migratory waterfowl
using the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge winters between 34,000 – 108,000 ducks. The refuge also
serves as an important area for wintering American black ducks. Over 40 percent of the black ducks
in the Mississippi Flyway observed during the mid-winter survey from the 1970s through the mid-
1990s occurred in the State of Tennessee (Sanders et al., 1995). Other waterfowl species present in
considerable numbers during fall and winter include the mallard, gadwall, American wigeon, green-winged
teal, pintail, and ring-necked duck. Waterfowl species that nest on the refuge are the wood
duck, hooded merganser, and giant Canada goose (resident population) (USFWS 2006a).
Orr et al., (1998) identified Cross Creeks NWR as one of the three critical terminal wintering regions for
migrant Canada geese that show fidelity for Deep South wintering areas. The Southern James Bay
Population of Canada geese has made up an important component of the wintering Canada goose
population. Winter peak populations have varied widely over the last 20 years, ranging from just over
4,000 to 73,000 geese. The average mid-winter inventory population of geese from 1985-89 was 15,400
geese on Cross Creeks NWR. More recently, waterfowl surveys on the refuge indicate a significant
decline of geese. The average peak has slumped to approximately 5,000 geese (USFWS 2006a).
A diversity of habitat types occurs on the refuge, with many of them serving to meet the foraging
needs of waterfowl. The managed foraging habitat primarily consists of agricultural grains and
browse, with some moist-soil areas available. Natural unmanaged habitats also provide important
foraging, loafing, pair-bonding, and roosting areas. These natural areas include aquatic plant
colonies, mudflats, flooded woodlands, open waters, and scrub/shrub wetlands (USFWS 2006a).
22 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Marsh Birds
Population sizes and trends for many marsh-dependent species are poorly known. Given their
secretive nature, they tend to be difficult and costly to survey accurately. The habitats in which
they occur are prone to significant impacts from habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation,
differing marsh management practices, and other factors. Priority marsh bird species identified
by Conway (2005) and are known or suspected to occur on Cross Creeks NWR include: king rail,
Virginia rail, sora, American bittern, least bittern, pied-billed grebe, and American coot. Better
information and management are needed for these species in many places inland in the
southeastern United States (Hunter et al., 2006). Little is known about marsh bird use of habitats
on Cross Creeks NWR. Systematic marsh bird surveys have not been conducted and incidental
observation data are few (USFWS 2006a).
Shorebirds
Many shorebird species face significant threats from habitat loss, habitat degradation, and human
disturbance. There is little existing information for many species that would allow a determination of
how shorebird populations have been affected by alterations to their habitat. Despite major ongoing
conservation efforts, many shorebird populations are declining. Seven highly imperiled shorebird
taxa and 23 taxa of high concern are identified in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al.,
2001), several of which are in need of management or monitoring in the southeastern United States
(Hunter 2002). Among those known or suspected to occur on or near Cross Creeks NWR are highly
imperiled birds, such as the piping plover and the buff-breasted sandpiper. Birds of high concern
include the American golden-plover, solitary sandpiper, upland sandpiper, western sandpiper, short-billed
dowitcher, American woodcock, and Wilson’s phalarope (USFWS 2006a).
Shorebird use of habitats at Cross Creeks NWR is poorly known. As with marsh birds, systematic
shorebird surveys have not been conducted and incidental observation data are few. The refuge
provides stopover habitat for at least 30 shorebird species. The timing and duration of the moist-soil
and agricultural impoundments coincides with the spring migration period of most shorebird species.
During the fall when most of the impoundments are in the process of being flooded, shorebird habitat
occurs mostly on Lake Barkley during the Corps’ annual drawdown. Several species of gulls and
terns, including the endangered least tern, may frequent the open water and mudflats of the refuge
and adjacent Lake Barkley during migrating and wintering periods (USFWS 2006a).
Colonial Nesting Waterbirds (long-legged waders)
Like most waterbird species, many colonial waterbird species have experienced population declines
related to habitat loss and fragmentation, human disturbance, and the effects of contaminants.
Colonial waterbird species of concern identified in the North America Waterbird Conservation Plan
(Kushlan et al., 2002) and known to occur on Cross Creeks NWR include the little blue heron and
snowy egret. Species of moderate concern are the yellow-crowned night-heron, black-crowned night-heron,
and white ibis (USFWS 2006a).
Colonial waterbird use of habitats on Cross Creeks NWR is relatively well-known. Great blue herons,
though not presently at risk, nest at two locations on the refuge. One great blue heron rookery is on
the north side of the Cumberland River. In May 2006, this rookery had 12 to 20 active nests. The
other rookery has not been actively monitored. Systematic surveys of colonial nesting waterbirds
have not been conducted, though incidental observation data is good (USFWS 2006a). Since great
blue heron nesting colonies facilitate nesting by other species, such as the little blue heron, a species
of high concern, and the great egret, systematic surveys are important in documenting if and when
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
other species have initiated nesting in association with great blue herons (Hunter et al., 2006).
However, post-breeding dispersal foraging habitats are especially important for the little blue heron,
the snowy egret, and the wood stork (USFWS 2006a).
Upland Forest Birds
The upland forests within Cross Creeks NWR were historically comprised of mature, mesic deciduous
forests on rolling hills and rocky, limestone bluffs. These bluffs comprise the majority of the refuge
boundary on the north and south sides of the Cumberland River. Upland forest cover currently
consists of various age stands ranging from young natural regeneration (under 10 years old) to
mature stands of deciduous trees (over 60+ years old). These forests provide habitat for numerous
species of upland forest birds, including many listed as species of concern in the CHJV Plan
(Fitzgerald 2003), the PIF Interior Low Plateaus Plan (Ford et al., 2000), and the PIF North American
Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al., 2004). Bird species of concern in mature upland forests at
Cross Creeks NWR include the cerulean warbler, worm-eating warbler, wood thrush, Kentucky
warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, whip-poor-will, yellow-throated vireo, Acadian flycatcher, yellow-billed
cuckoo, great crested flycatcher, and eastern wood-pewee (USFWS 2006a).
The Partners in Flight plan (Rich et al., 2004) has population goals for these species, which still need
to be stepped down to the level of the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region (BCR) and
Cross Creeks NWR. The global population goals for many species on the list range from increasing
populations 100 percent for the cerulean warbler to increasing populations 50 percent for the wood
thrush, prothonotary warbler, Kentucky warbler, and maintaining current populations, which is desired
for the remainder of the species listed above. Species of highest conservation concern require
specific attention at the refuge and Lake Barkley area (USFWS 2006a).
Scrub/shrub Birds
Historically, Cross Creeks NWR maintained approximately one-third of the refuge in forest cover.
Natural succession and abandonment of agricultural fields have contributed to the acreage of this
habitat type; the majority of these newer reforested areas are still in scrub/shrub or early successional
forest. The addition of extensive amounts of early successional forest has likely resulted in an
increase in the abundance of a cohort of species that were likely uncommon when the area was
primarily mature forest and agriculture. Managing for scrub/shrub near mature forest decreases
forest fragmentation in the landscape and may increase habitat quality for mature forest nesting
species by providing foraging opportunities for fledglings, as well as a buffer from nest predators and
parasites (i.e., brown-headed cowbirds) (USFWS 2006a).
Scrub/shrub provides habitat for numerous species of early successional forest birds, including many
listed as species of concern by the CHJV and the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan.
Bird species of concern nesting in scrub/shrub at Cross Creeks NWR include the blue-winged
warbler, prairie warbler, field sparrow, white-eyed vireo, yellow-breasted chat, brown thrasher, and
eastern towhee (USFWS 2006a).
The 2005 PIF plan has population goals for scrub/shrub species, which still need to be stepped down
to the level of the Central Hardwoods BCR and the refuge. The global population goals for many
species on the list range from increasing populations 50 percent for blue-winged and prairie warblers
to maintaining current population levels for white-eyed vireo, brown thrasher, and eastern towhee.
Species of highest conservation concern require specific attention at the local scale (USFWS 2006a).
The northern bobwhite is also a high-priority species at the refuge and occupies scrub/shrub habitats
(Dimmick et al., 2002).
24 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Grassland Birds
Historically, grassland was not a component of the habitats found at Cross Creeks NWR where the
landscape was dominated by forest and agriculture. Grasslands provide habitat for many species of
breeding birds, including many listed as species of concern by the CHJV, the PIF North American
Landbird Conservation Plan, and the Northern Bobwhite Initiative (Dimmick et al., 2002). Bird
species of concern that nest in grasslands at Cross Creeks NWR include the eastern meadowlark,
field sparrow, and northern bobwhite. Grasslands provide nesting, foraging, and roosting areas for
these species, but they are commonly found along hedgerows and in scrub/shrub habitat as well.
Other species of high conservation concern rarely occurring at Cross Creeks NWR include Henslow’s
sparrow and grasshopper sparrow. The Henslow’s sparrow is not identified on the Cross Creeks
NWR species list, although the largest breeding population in Tennessee occurs at Ft. Campbell, less
than 20 miles away (USFWS 2006a).
Bottomland Hardwood Forests Birds
Bottomland hardwood forests provide habitat for numerous species of breeding birds, including
several listed as species of concern by the CHJV and the PIF North American Landbird Conservation
Plan. The top species of conservation concern that breeds in the BLH at Cross Creeks NWR is the
prothonotary warbler. Other species of concern that utilize bottomland systems for foraging and
perching include the belted kingfisher and green heron. The Swainson’s warbler, which is not
identified on the bird list for the refuge, would be a rare breeding bird. Swallow-tailed kites formerly
bred in the vicinity of the refuge but these populations have been extirpated for several decades
(USFWS 2006a).
The 2005 PIF plan has population goals for bottomland hardwood species, which still need to be
stepped down to the level of the Central Hardwoods BCR and the refuge. The global population
goals for many species on the list range from doubling global populations of swallow-tailed kite, to a
50 percent increase in prothonotary warbler populations, and maintaining current population levels for
Swainson’s warbler and others. Species of highest conservation concern require specific attention at
the local scale (USFWS 2006a).
Other Birds
The refuge serves as a survey area for the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Counts (USFWS, no
date-d) in which many of the species already discussed are observed.
Barn owls are an uncommon species of owl that commonly nests and roosts in manmade structures.
The PIF plan has recognized the barn owl as a species of concern due to its scattered distribution,
unknown population status, and rarity (USFWS 2006a).
The American woodcock is a migratory bird species that utilizes forest and scrub/shrub communities
near open fields. Woodcock have experienced a range-wide population decline over the last 12 to 15
years (Kelley 2004; Kelley et al., 2006). The primary limiting factors are lack of high-quality habitats
(early successional scrub/shrub wetlands sites and high-density stands of saplings). Most woodcock
in Tennessee are migratory; fall migration is at its peak in Tennessee in late November and
December and spring migration is in mid-to-late February. Migration and preferred winter habitats
include moist areas with a very high sapling stem density (less than two inches in diameter),
especially sweetgum and pine, brushy streams and ditch channels, and cane and briar thickets.
Nocturnal habits cause most woodcock to seek out open fields near forest lowlands, where such
fields are clear of dense grasses, but contain bare ground patches or rows within mowed or plowed
fields (USFWS 2006a).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Favorable turkey habitat and a healthy, huntable population of turkeys exist throughout the refuge.
These game birds benefit from the hundreds of acres of grain crops planted each year throughout the
area. It is common to encounter in excess of 300 birds in a single flock feeding in agriculture fields
during the winter. A significant portion of the grain intended for waterfowl is probably consumed by
turkeys. With current (2008) harvest regulations allowing the take of only one bearded turkey per
season, the annual turkey population is more related to weather factors, primarily during the spring
nesting season, rather than to impacts of hunting (USFWS 2006a).
Mammals
Deer are abundant throughout the refuge, utilizing the diversity of habitats. They heavily use the
agricultural fields from summer through the winter months. Foraging activities of high-density deer
populations can have a significant negative impact on forest regeneration as well as on agricultural
crops. For this primary reason limited hunting of deer is allowed throughout most of the refuge to
keep the deer herd in a healthy condition and reduce habitat damage (USFWS, 2006a).
Gray and fox squirrels are abundant, particularly where suitable mast-producing hardwoods occur.
Squirrels, particularly fox squirrels, also utilize grain crops on the refuge. Due to their high potential
reproductive rate, directly related to the availability of hard mast, and high natural mortality rates, it is
unlikely that any long-term changes in squirrel population densities have occurred within the available
habitat (USFWS 2006a).
Other mammals include beaver, raccoon, muskrat, and groundhog (USFWS, no date-b). Small
mammals on the refuge include mice, chipmunks, rabbits, and moles. Several species of bats inhabit
the Cross Creeks NWR (USFWS 2005a).
Amphibians and Reptiles
Baseline information for these species does not exist. Nevertheless, Cross Creeks NWR has 70
species of reptiles and amphibians present from documented sightings and expected presence from
natural distribution ranges overlapping the refuge (USFWS 2005a; USFWS 2006a).
Fish
The refuge – including Lake Barkley Reservoir on the Cumberland River and adjacent tributaries and
impoundments – contain 80 species of fish (USFWS 2005a; USFWS 2006a). Crappie, largemouth
bass, bluegill, and catfish are the most sought after species by anglers (USFWS, no date-b).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Cross Creeks NWR has diverse habitats which support populations of federally listed species.
Protection of these species and their habitats is a priority of the refuge. Federally listed species
occurring or known to have historically occurred on the refuge are the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis),
gray bat (M. grisescens), least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), piping plover (Charadrius
melodus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), orangefoot pimpleback (Plethobasus cooperianus), and
pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) (USFWS 2006a). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was
delisted in 2007, but still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. This dramatic bird is not only the national symbol but a symbol of Americas’ wildlife
heritage and Americans’ commitment to restore threatened and endangered wildlife.
26 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Indiana Bat and Gray Bat
Indiana and gray bats have been collected in Stewart County, Tennessee. It is likely that they
periodically occur on the refuge even though there are no records for either species. The refuge has
suitable foraging habitat. There are no known caves on the refuge, but caves may be present in the
limestone bluffs within close proximity to the refuge. The forested areas contain suitable summer
maternity habitat for Indiana bats needed to contribute to the recovery plan for this species (USFWS
1999; USFWS 2006a).
Least Tern
The least tern only occurs on the refuge during spring and fall migrations. Most observations have
consisted of single birds. Since no formal shorebird surveys are conducted on the refuge, it is
suspected that most occurrences go unnoticed (USFWS 2006a).
Piping Plover
The piping plover is probably a very rare fall migrant on the refuge. However, its occurrence is
unverified (USFWS 2006a).
Wood Stork
The most recent wood stork observations were associated with post-breeding dispersal in 1983. The
species is considered “accidental” in the area. The moist-soil management program focused on
waterfowl inadvertently provides the shallow-water habitats desired as foraging sites for wood storks.
Summer drawdowns concentrate fish and other aquatic species in shallow pools, improving access to
many species of wading birds (USFWS 2006a).
Orangefoot Pimpleback and Pink Mucket Mussels
The orangefoot pimpleback and pink mucket mussels, listed as federally endangered, were
historically found in the Cumberland River within the refuge boundary. Lacking surveys, it can only
be speculated as to the current existence of these mussel species within refuge boundaries. Dam
construction and operation, wastewater outfalls, navigation-related dredging, contaminants, and
commercial sand and gravel dredging are likely contributors to the degradation of water quality and
substrate habitat in and around the refuge that call into question the continued presence of these
species locally (Hubbs et al., in draft).
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of
Access To "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an
American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that
is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
The area within and surrounding Cross Creeks NWR is rich in history and prehistory. Archaeological
investigations indicate that the earliest known presence of human beings may have occurred about
8,000 years ago during the Paleoindian/Early Archaic period. Evidence uncovered by research
archaeologists indicates that early inhabitants were hunters and gatherers along the watercourses
and within the forests of the area (USFWS 2005a).
Limestone, timber, and deposits of iron ore were all locally abundant. In addition, plentiful streams
furnished power and river systems provided transportation to markets. The confluence of these
factors spurred the development of an iron industry in the Stewart County, Tennessee, area. This
industry reached its peak during the 1850s. The remains of one of the many iron furnace stacks –
Bellwood Furnace – is located on refuge property. This site is listed on the NRHP (USFWS 2005a).
The local area is also extremely rich in Civil War history. Nearby Fort Donelson National Battlefield,
just downstream from the refuge on the Cumberland River, preserves the battlefield at which in early
1862 a then relatively unknown Union general – Ulysses S. Grant – claimed his first major victory in
the war. If Grant had not won at Fort Donelson, then arguably, there would have been no Shiloh,
Vicksburg, Appomattox Court House, or White House in his and the nation’s future.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Cross Creeks NWR is located in Stewart County, Tennessee. The refuge is near the city of Dover.
The refuge is about 75 miles northwest of Nashville, Tennessee (USFWS, no date-b).
Stewart County has about one-fifth the population density of the State of Tennessee (27 versus 130
people per square mile). In 2005, Stewart County’s estimated population was 12,969, about 0.22
percent of Tennessee’s population of 5,962,959. The county and state population increased by 4.8
percent from 2000 to 2005 (USCB 2007).
About a quarter of Stewart County’s workforce is in management, professional, and related
occupations and about another quarter is in production, transportation, and material moving
occupations. The next highest occupational sector is sales and office occupations at about 20
percent. The biggest employer in industry jobs is manufacturing at about 19 percent followed by
educational, health, and social services at about 18 percent. Table 3 shows employment by major
industrial sectors (USCB 2007).
28 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry
Industry Percent of Population
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting, Fishing, and Mining 2.9
Construction 10.1
Manufacturing 18.9
Wholesale Trade 1.8
Retail Trade 9.5
Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 11.0
Information 1.6
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing 4.6
Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste
Management Services 3.9
Educational, Health, and Social Services 17.9
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services 6.8
Other Services (except for Public Administration) 3.8
Public Administration 7.2
Source: (USCB, 2007)
Tennessee’s statistics are below the national averages for people below the poverty line and median
household and per capita income. Tennessee’s statistics are well below the national averages for
educational attainment levels. Stewart County’s statistics are lower for these indicators than
Tennessee as a whole. The exception is for people below the poverty line where Stewart County’s
level conforms to the national average.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
In terms of race and ethnicity, non-Latino whites dominate state and county populations. In fact,
Stewart County has 93.6 percent non-Latino whites compared to 77.9 percent for Tennessee and
66.9 percent for the USA. This indicates that Stewart County is less diverse and has fewer minorities
than the state or the nation. Table 4 illustrates economic and demographic statistics on the county,
state, and national level (USCB 2007).
Table 4. Comparison of demographic statistics for Stewart County, Tennessee, and the USA
Category Stewart County, TN Tennessee USA
Median Household Income $34,725 $37,925 $43,318
Per Capita Income $16,302 $19,393 $21,587
% Below Poverty 12.7 13.5 12.5
% High School Graduates 74.3 75.9 80.4
% Bachelor Degree 10.2 19.6 24.4
% White* 93.6 77.9 66.9
% Black 2.6 16.8 12.8
% Hispanic** 1.3 3.0 14.4
% Asian 1.5 1.2 4.3
% Native American 0.6 0.3 1.0
Source: (USCB, 2007)
*This percentage is of non-Latino whites. ** Indicates Hispanic ethnicity of any race
Note: The numbers do not add to 100 percent due to difference between race (white, black) and ethnicity
(Latino and non-Latino) and not including people who identify as multiple races or some other race.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
As noted earlier, Cross Creeks NWR is an important wintering ground for thousands of migratory
waterfowl using the Mississippi Flyway, and is especially important for black ducks and the Southern
James Bay Population of Canada geese. Wintering populations of 34,000-108,000 ducks have been
documented on the refuge. Cross Creeks NWR’s habitat diversity provides for the foraging needs of
these waterfowl. The refuge’s managed foraging habitat consists mainly of agricultural grains and
browse along with some moist soil areas. The refuge’s unmanaged, natural habitats – including
aquatic plant colonies, mudflats, flooded woodlands, open waters, and scrub/shrub wetlands – also
provide important foraging, loafing, pair-bonding, and roosting areas.
30 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge’s role as a waterfowl sanctuary enhances waterfowl hunting on nearby public and private
lands. It also provides opportunities for wildlife observation at Cross Creeks NWR. Waterfowl
sanctuary is crucial to annual waterfowl conservation and management; it furnishes areas where
birds can rest, gain fat, and develop pair bonds that improve the probability of successful nesting in
the spring and summer.
To benefit resident wood ducks, the refuge provides and maintains 24 nesting boxes for wood ducks.
They are maintained in accordance with the 2003 Regional Wood Duck Management Guidelines for
nest box programs. There is not presently any active management for shorebirds, colonial nesting
waterbirds, or marsh birds at Cross Creeks NWR. While there is also no active management of
landbirds, the refuge partners with others to conduct an annual Christmas Bird Count and North
American Migration Count (in conjunction with International Migratory Bird Day).
As mentioned above, active habitat manipulation at Cross Creeks NWR is inhibited by water levels on
Lake Barkley Reservoir, which is operated by the Corps “primarily for flood control, hydropower, and
navigation, as well as secondary purposes of recreation, water quality, water supply, and fish and
wildlife habitat.”
In order to furnish forage for waterfowl and other wildlife, the refuge has an active cooperative
farming program that cultivates crops (e.g., corn, soybeans, and winter wheat) on between 1,200-
1,300 acres annually.
Waterfowl would be best served by growing corn in fields that can later be flooded. However, current
water management capabilities, largely determined by operations on Lake Barkley Reservoir, limit the
area that can be planted in corn and then flooded. The corn that cannot be flooded to the proper
depth has to be mechanically manipulated (knocked down) to make the grain available.
Approximately 170 acres are actively managed as moist soil habitat, down from 850 acres in the late
1980s. Because of inactive management, much of the original moist-soil habitat reverted to woody
vegetation and invasive aquatic plants. Moist-soil sites need to have soil disturbance periodically to
set back plant succession.
Sixteen impoundments and two deep-water reservoirs are on the refuge. Their water management
capabilities vary. Some of the impoundments on the south side of the refuge have very good
potential for drainage and flooding. The two reservoirs serve to flood most of the impoundments on
the south side during the fall and winter. Flooding of the impoundments on the north side of the
refuge largely depends on rainfall; dewatering is somewhat hindered in most impoundments by the
operation schedule of Lake Barkley.
Cross Creeks NWR’s upland habitats are dominated by hardwood deciduous forests, scrub/shrub,
and a small area of warm season grasses. None of these habitats are actively managed for wildlife
benefits at this time.
Invasive Plants Control
Several species of invasive plants, both aquatic and terrestrial, are currently found on the lands
managed by Cross Creeks NWR. Spatterdock or yellow pond lily, alligatorweed, apple of Peru,
castor bean, parrotfeather, and the Japanese stilt plant are all documented on the refuge. However,
the exact locations and extent of infestation are largely unknown.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Invasive exotic plants can significantly impact the production of native plants in wetland habitats,
including impoundments, ditches and moist-soil units, at Cross Creeks NWR and elsewhere. These
plants and sedimentation have also impacted the ability to move water through certain
impoundments. If these processes are left unchecked, the affected ditches would eventually become
nonfunctional. At present, the refuge carries out limited annual spraying of aquatic plants
alligatorweed, spatterdock, and parrotfeather. Mechanical control – mowing and disking – is also
conducted on certain upland plants.
Animal Control Program
Animal control is a management tool that addresses issues such as infrastructure damage, habitat
damage, and invasive exotic species. Methods can range from relocation using means such as live
capture, harassment, and habitat modification; to removal using methods such as capture and
euthanasia, shooting, and lethal trapping.
Animal control efforts at Cross Creeks NWR are currently limited to addressing problems beavers
cause with water control structures on the south side of the refuge. Beavers frequently clog pipes
with debris to the point that they are nonfunctioning. Most of the water control structures on the north
side of the refuge are inoperable due to beaver activities. The muskrat is another species that is
known to damage refuge infrastructure by burrowing into levees, which can eventually lead to levee
failure. If muskrat damage to levees is observed, control efforts for this species should be employed.
Crop depredation by resident Canada geese directly impacts the habitats managed for migratory
birds, including competition for the grain planted for and left for waterfowl and over-browsing of
natural habitats. The refuge addresses this problem by controlling resident geese populations
through hunting.
At banding sites, many predators can become imprinted on these locations as an easy source of food
and can render the site useless. Controlling individual marauders may be required.
The nutria is a large rodent native to South America and now naturalized in the southeastern United
States. They prefer semi-aquatic habitats and often burrow into riverbanks and levees. Nutria are very
prolific and can quickly overpopulate an area. Once nutria are established in an area, they tend to target
vegetation essential to maintaining waterfowl populations. There have not been any sightings on the
refuge at this time but nutria have been documented in west Tennessee and in the Tennessee River in
northern Alabama. It is anticipated that nutria will eventually occur on the refuge, if they are not already
present. When they arrive, steps should be taken to eradicate them from the refuge.
The Russian wild boar provides popular sport hunting in many parts of the country, although
introduction of this large mammal causes significant damage to wildlife habitats. The refuge has
received reports that wild boars have been released on or near the refuge in recent years. As a
result, the refuge should monitor the possible occurrence of this species on the refuge and, if
discovered, take immediate actions to eradicate it from the refuge.
VISITOR SERVICES
Presidential Executive Order 12996 and the Improvement Act recognized six priority public uses on
national wildlife refuges as long as they were compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were
established. These uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, which “have been and are expected to continue to be
generally compatible uses.” However, these uses are by no means the only permitted public uses on
32 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
national wildlife refuges. Other uses have been and can continue to be permitted if they are determined
to be compatible with the refuge purposes. Some of these include: general boating, canoeing, hiking,
horseback riding, and bicycling. All-terrain vehicles are not permitted on Cross Creeks NWR. (See
Appendix VI for the uses that are permitted on Cross Creeks NWR.)
Cross Creeks NWR is located about a mile off of Highway 49. An estimated 32,000-45,000 people
visit Cross Creeks NWR annually. The refuge is located in close proximity to the Land Between the
Lakes National Recreational Area operated by the U.S. Forest Service, Fort Donelson National
Battlefield (NPS), Fort Campbell Military Reservation, Stewart State Forest, and the State of
Tennessee’s Barkley Wildlife Management Area (USFWS, no date-d). Tennessee NWR is within a
half-hour’s drive to the west.
The fishing program is the largest public use program on the refuge. Hunting, wildlife viewing and
photography, and environmental education are also popular programs. Second to fishing, the
primary refuge management emphasis has been on environmental education. There is active
participation of volunteers and refuge staff promoting awareness and environmental education in the
local communities and schools.
The entire refuge, including the refuge bottomlands used to provide winter waterfowl habitat and
sanctuary, is closed to public access from November 15 to March 15, to protect these trust species
from human disturbance (USFWS, no date-d). Areas around occupied bald eagle nests are closed to
public entry during the nesting season to promote successful fledging of eaglets. When the refuge
waterfowl management units are closed to public entry, several of the units can still be viewed from
the refuge visitor center (USFWS 2004).
A variety of signs, such as entrance, boundary, and regulatory, is located throughout the refuge at
public use areas. Refuge entrance signs direct the visitor to the visitor center. Signs, kiosks,
publications, and the web site provide visitors and prospective visitors with clear information. Two
entrance signs are posted on the south side at State Highway 49 before turning on to the main refuge
road and at State Highway 49 turning on to South Cross Creek Dike Road. There is another less
conspicuous entrance sign on Bellwood Hollow Road and Bellwood Road. Signs on the north side of
the refuge have been frequent targets of theft and vandalism (USFWS 2004).
Refuge regulations are communicated to visitors through the use of publications. The refuge���s
general brochure is designed to welcome visitors and provide basic refuge information, regulations
and a map of the public use area. The refuge also has a hunting brochure, a fishing brochure, a bird
list, and an amphibians/fish/mammals/reptiles list. The refuge website has pertinent information and
links. All of these brochures are available for off-hour visitors at outdoor brochure boxes found at the
visitor center and headquarters buildings, as well as the outdoor kiosk next to the visitor center.
Figure 5 shows the refuge’s public use facilities.
Hunting
Cross Creeks NWR is open to hunting of squirrel, deer, turkey, and resident Canada geese. Hunting
is permitted in designated areas only, which exclude the office vicinity, visitor center, maintenance
areas, and within 100 yards of a private dwelling (USFWS 2006b). Many other uses of the refuge
coincide with the hunting season, and some refuge neighbors expressed safety concerns during
public scoping about hunting occurring near private residences
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 5. Public use facilities at Cross Creeks NWR
34 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Although the refuge lacks on-site law enforcement staff, a limited degree of law enforcement staff
provided by Tennessee NWR and from Service law enforcement staff stationed at Fort Campbell
(USFWS 2004). Hunting information is publicized through news releases, visitor contact at the refuge
office and visitor center, and distribution of hunting brochures (USFWS 2004).
Fishing
Sport fishing is the most popular visitor use at Cross Creeks NWR and about 3,260 acres are open
for access to fishing on the refuge. Many military personnel and local citizens fish at the refuge.
Open season for Elk and South Cross Creek Reservoirs and all the refuge pools is mid-March
through mid-November. Boat access is permitted year-round to the water of Lake Barkley. However,
public access to the refuge impoundments is limited to daylight use only (USFWS 2005b). Fishing
access in some areas may be closed to the public because of flooding, management purposes, or to
minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles or waterfowl (USFWS 2004).
Wildlife Observation and Photography
The main refuge road, the waterfowl impoundments, Woodpecker Trail, and Lake Barkley offer
excellent wildlife viewing opportunities for birders and other enthusiasts. When waterfowl
impoundments are closed to the public, there is still outstanding viewing from the visitor center and
adjacent areas (USFWS 2004).
A wildlife drive for motorists (auto tour route) begins at the visitor center and provides visitors a
panoramic view of refuge impoundments and upland forested areas. The drive allows viewing of
waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, neotropical migratory birds, deer, and turkey. The drive
is closed November 15 through March 15, but the view from the visitor center overlook can be more
spectacular in winter, especially when thousands of ducks and geese are using the pools and
agricultural fields. A one-mile long foot trail, Woodpecker Trail, is open from March 16 through
November 14. The trail provides excellent opportunities for viewing spring wildflowers, migratory and
resident songbirds, as well as other wildlife. Refuge bird lists and mammal/reptile/amphibian lists are
available at the office or visitor center. The refuge is listed in the Tennessee Wildlife Viewing Guide
and is one of several officially designated wildlife observation areas in the state (USFWS, no date-d).
Environmental Education and Interpretation
The refuge has worked with local schools to develop an environmental awareness curriculum. The
refuge was also a sponsor and main organizer of the Stewart County Earth Camp conducted every
summer for up to 30 or more campers. Other contributors included the Park Service, Forest Service,
Corps of Engineers, and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and Stewart County civic groups
(USFWS 2004). With the loss of the refuge’s park ranger position in early 2008, Earth Camp has
been discontinued indefinitely. As requested, refuge staff gives presentations to local schools and
civic groups (USFWS 2004).
Located on Wildlife Road about a mile off of Highway 49, the visitor center, administrative office, and
maintenance yard are the main facilities at Cross Creeks NWR. Wildlife exhibits, audio-visual
presentations, an observation window, amphitheatre style stairway, and a three-panel outdoor kiosk
are located at the visitor center. The auto tour route (the main south side refuge road), foot trail,
seasonal fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation are the main visitor activities. The refuge visitor
center is closed on the weekend; however, an outdoor, three-panel kiosk next to the visitor center,
and accessible at all times, has interpretive panels and refuge brochures for visitors (USFWS 2004).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Cross Creeks NWR currently has four permanent full-time employees and one temporary/intermittent
employee, for a total of five employees. They include a refuge manager, office assistant,
maintenance mechanic, equipment operator, and temporary tractor operator. The refuge’s annual
2008 fiscal budget was $311,000 (USFWS, no date-d).
Cross Creeks NWR is divided into two distinct management units (north side and south side), with
Lake Barkley and the Cumberland River bisecting the refuge in the middle. As a result, the refuge
can be accessed by water from a variety of locations along the river shoreline. The refuge
headquarters, including administrative site, visitor center, and maintenance yard, is on the south side
of the refuge off of Wildlife Road near Lake Barkley. The north side of the refuge is more isolated
and inaccessible (USFWS 2004).
All roads open for the public to drive are gravel. Stewart County maintains the county roads that
transect the refuge, but does not maintain entrance roads leading to various parts of the north side of
the refuge. In general, the county maintains all roads up to the refuge boundary, and some gravel
roads serving homes which cross the refuge boundary. Gravel roads which go to public use or
refuge facilities are maintained by the refuge. The parking area at the headquarters can
accommodate ten or more automobiles and buses have room to turn around. There is also ample
parking at the visitor center. Handicap parking is clearly marked. The parking areas at the boat
ramps, on both north and south sides of the river, can accommodate anywhere from two to ten
vehicles. Hunters can park along the side of the refuge roads to access hunting areas. Refuge
entrance gates that control vehicular access to refuge winter waterfowl habitat are closed from
November 15 through March 15 (USFWS 2004).
Partnerships and Volunteers
Cross Creeks NWR enjoys active, productive partnerships with a number of agencies, institutions and
individuals. Among these are the Tennessee Valley Authority, USDA Forest Service, National Park
Service, Fort Campbell, and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.
There is active participation of volunteers and refuge staff promoting awareness and environmental
education in the local communities and schools (USFWS 2004). Other tasks volunteers perform are
waterfowl banding, wildlife surveys, maintenance projects, research studies, and conducting tours
(USFWS 2005a). Other priorities prevent the refuge from expanding the volunteer program.
Volunteer management will involve additional staff to orient and manage volunteers and provide
needed services to supplement current refuge programs. Because of the proximity to Fort Campbell,
Land Between the Lakes, and other public land management, there are excellent opportunities for
recruiting volunteers and building a stronger volunteer program (USFWS 2004).
The refuge staff has made an effort to start a Friends group. However, at this time, there has been
insufficient interest from the community to do so. The refuge will continue to pursue interest in
starting a support group. The newly formed Friends group at Tennessee NWR has expressed
interest in possibly assisting with the establishment of such a group at Cross Creeks NWR. Many
national wildlife refuges around the country enjoy the support of Friends groups, which can take many
forms, including fund-raising and providing volunteers and outreach to surrounding communities.
36 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND PLANNING PROCESS
Prior to public scoping in 2007, the Service carried out a Visitor Services Review in 2004 and a
Biological Review in 2006. The Visitor Services Review was conducted by Service public use and
outreach specialists. The review team toured the refuge and identified and discussed the current
status of public use programs. Their report made short-term, medium-term, and long-term
recommendations for enhancing and improving these programs.
In the Biological Review, a diverse team of federal and state personnel undertook a holistic
examination of habitat and wildlife management programs at the refuge. The team then considered
how the refuge might fit into accomplishing a number of relevant system-wide and landscape
conservation needs. The Biological Review team included staff from the refuge, as well as Service
fish and wildlife biologists from the Division of Ecological Services and Division of Migratory Birds. In
addition, wildlife biologists from TWRA and the Corps participated. The team’s goals, objectives, and
strategies set forth in its final report entitled, Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review for Cross Creeks
National Wildlife Refuge, were instrumental in preparing the goals, objectives, and strategies listed in
Chapter IV of this Draft CCP/EA.
The core planning team, which consists of the refuge manager, park ranger, a Service natural
resources planner from the Regional Office, and a contractor with experience in comprehensive
conservation planning met for the first time in December 2006, for a tour of the refuge and an
overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and opportunities.
The core planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary
schedule and plans for public involvement. The core team developed a mailing list of the public,
landowners, state and tribal agencies, non-profit organizations, and local governments. Letters were
sent notifying these parties of the planning process being initiated, and encouraging their participation
in the scoping of issues in preparation for developing the Draft CCP/EA.
TWRA was invited in January 2007 to participate on the planning team tasked with preparing the
Draft CCP/EA. At an intensive two-day workshop held in July 2007, the planning team drafted the
goals, objectives, and strategies that are the heart of this Draft CCP/EA, guiding refuge management
in the coming 15 years. In addition, the team crafted four alternative management approaches for
evaluation in the EA. The Corps and the Tennessee NWR also participated in this workshop.
The refuge held one open house and public scoping meeting at the Stewart County Public Library in
Dover, Tennessee, on February 27, 2007. Between 30 and 35 people attended. Presentations about
the refuge and the CCP process followed an open house. Afterwards, meeting participants had the
opportunity to publicly express their concerns about the refuge and ideas and suggestions for its
future management. In addition, a comment form was distributed for attendees and other interested
parties to submit their written comments. Written comments could be submitted right at the meeting,
mailed subsequently, or sent via email. A total of 12 comment forms and letters was received during
scoping for this Draft CCP/EA. Some of the letters included multiple names, and one person sent two
different letters.
38 Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to wildlife
conservation, habitat management, refuge recreation, and law enforcement. Additionally, the planning
team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, and
plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input through a public scoping meeting,
comment forms, emails, letters, and personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were
considered, however, some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be
made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues raised through this planning
process, and has developed a Draft CCP/EA that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding
important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are
most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
􀁹􇤠 Ability to attract and keep waterfowl.
􀁹􇤠 Help all wildlife – quail, whip-poor-will, owls.
􀁹􇤠 Return to original intent of inviolate sanctuary instead of the encouragement and expansion of
exploitation of the wildlife seeking sanctuary at the refuge. [23 people]
􀁹􇤠 Produce more waterfowl lands (fields flooded, removal of trees not supporting waterfowl, and
plant trees).
􀁹􇤠 Use refuge for early wood ducks.
􀁹􇤠 Convert to more modern methods of areas where animals/birds can peacefully exist.
􀁹􇤠 Maintaining the property for wildlife is most important.
􀁹􇤠 Include both sides of the Cumberland River during bird counts.
􀁹􇤠 Hunting is not for deer population control when TWRA has a policy of increasing deer
population until half their licensed hunters bag a deer.
􀁹􇤠 Predator management and native species reintroduction should be closely evaluated.
Species do not need government management, just better private landowner incentives.
􀁹􇤠 Non-game birds should have the same level of priority as other birds, with the realization that
the refuge cannot become a sanctuary for all species.
􀁹􇤠 Create permanent and actively managed shorebird habitat of a series of ponds regulated by
adjustable gates. These would be in addition to moist-soil management, which attracts only a
limite