Reelfoot/Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
I
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Reelfoot/Lake Isom
National Wildlife Refuge
USFWS Photo
a L I W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
4343 Highway 157 - Union City, TN 38261
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Manager: Randy Cook
Reelfoot NWR
4343 Highway 157
Union City, TN 38261
Phone: 731/538-2481
Fax: 731/538-9760
Email: Reelfoot@fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
April 2006
Reelfoot and Lake Isom
National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
April 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
REELFOOT AND LAKE ISOM NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES
Lake and Obion Counties, Tennessee
Fulton County, Kentucky
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
April 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................................5
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................7
Overview .............................................................................................................................7
Threats and Problems.......................................................................................................10
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................11
II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15
Overview....................................................................................................................................15
Issues ........................................................................................................................................16
Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................17
Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18
Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................19
Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20
Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................21
III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25
Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................25
Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................26
Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................27
Topography and Climate...................................................................................................27
Demography.....................................................................................................................28
Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................29
Avian Species ...................................................................................................................29
Mammals..........................................................................................................................30
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................31
Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................31
Mussels............................................................................................................................31
Noxious and Invasive Species ..........................................................................................32
Habitats .............................................................................................................................32
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................34
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................35
Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................36
Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................36
Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................38
Water Level Management of Reelfoot Lake......................................................................39
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................40
Wilderness Review............................................................................................................41
ii Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................43
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................43
Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................43
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................43
Comprehensive Conservation Plan – Summary Statement .......................................................44
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................45
Goal 1 – Waterfowl ..........................................................................................................45
Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species................................................................46
Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds ..........................................................................................47
Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds.................................................................................47
Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................48
Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................49
Goal 7 – Public Use ..........................................................................................................49
Goal 8 – Administration and Operation.............................................................................50
Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................51
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................53
Background ...............................................................................................................................53
Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................53
Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................................54
Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management...................54
Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education .................................58
Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation ...............................................61
Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation....................................................63
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................64
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................64
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................67
Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................67
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................67
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................71
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................77
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................81
APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................85
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS................................................................................103
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation...........................................................................103
Compatibility Determinations – Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge...........................................107
Compatibility Determinations – Lake Isom National Wildlife refuge .........................................140
APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..................................................171
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................181
Public Scoping.........................................................................................................................181
Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................182
APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................193
APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.................................................................195
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................199
List of Figures
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................2
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................6
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.......................................................................................8
Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley .................................................9
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas .................................................................12
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary for Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge.................................22
Figure 7. Approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge .............................23
Figure 8. Vicinity map of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges .....................................26
Figure 9. Existing habitat types on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges......................33
Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex..............65
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. ....................................................................................66
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management actions and direction of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges over the next 15
years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives for the
two refuges. The plan’s overriding considerations are that fish and wildlife conservation requires first
priority in refuge management, and that wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed and encouraged
as long as they are is compatible with or do not detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and the purposes for which the two refuges were established.
In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning
process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. The area for this joint planning
study includes all of west Tennessee from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee River, and from
border to border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi. This area covers approximately six
million acres of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1).
This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of this chapter, and in
Chapter II, The Planning Process.
During the planning process, four management alternatives were developed for the Reelfoot and
Lake Isom refuges in an effort to determine how best to manage the two refuges over the next 15
years. The alternatives covered a broad spectrum of comments from the refuge staff, the general
public, and others during the scoping process. After reviewing the two refuges’ management needs,
the priorities of regional and national resource management plans, comments from the staff and
public, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred
action is described in Chapter V, Plan Implementation. The other alternatives considered during the
planning process were addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuges would play in support of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities. The plan is needed to
• provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuges;
• ensure that management of the refuges is in keeping with the purposes for which the two
refuges were established;
• provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on the refuges and its partnerships around the refuges;
• ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreation, and
education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
• ensure that the management of the refuges is consistent with federal, state, and county plans;
and
• provide a basis for the two refuges’ operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
2 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort
Gilt Edge
LOWER HATCHIE
NWR
FORT PILLOW
STATE PARK
JIM TULLEY
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AREA
STATE OF
TENNESSEE
(TDOC)
FORT PILLOW
SUNK LAKE PUNA
CHICKASAW
NWR
LAKE ISOM
NWR
I−155
I−40 51
64
45
45
70
79
Eva
Lucy
Eads
Cuba
Troy
Guys
Como
Dyer
Yuma
Atoka Mason
Locke
Rives
Obion
Medon
Bemis
Ramer
Halls
Gates
Paris
Henry
Luray
Huron
Crump
Toone
Milan
Eaton
Macon
Lenox
Bells
Alamo
Leach
Sharon
Martin
Tipton
Kenton
Mercer Pinson
Selmer
Michie
Finger
Ripley
Sardis
Reagan
Darden
Shiloh
Counce
Medina
Gibson
Moscow
Braden
Miston
Finley
Bogota
Atwood
Camden
Gleason
Dukedom
Dresden
Clifton
Munford
Memphis
Cordova
Samburg
Jackson
Denmark
Henning
Ridgely
Puryear
Stanton
Hornsby
Bolivar
Trenton
Oakland
Laconia
Trimble
Tigrett
Newbern
Parsons
Gadsden
Enville
Lavinia
Randolph
Burlison
Brighton
Rosemark
Lakeland
Bartlett
Hornbeak
Elbridge
Oakfield
Chewalla
Wynnburg
Savannah
Saltillo
Silerton
Idlewild
Humboldt
Bradford
Gallaway
Westport
Bruceton
Holladay
Drummonds
Covington
Woodstock
Kerrville
Ellendale
Brunswick
Arlington
Mansfield
Lexington
Olivehill
Saulsbury
Middleton
Yorkville
Williston
Rossville La Grange
Dyersburg
Fruitvale
Henderson
Trezevant
Big Sandy
Greenfield
Millington
Germantown
Union City
Adamsville
Whiteville
Pocahontas
Rutherford
Somerville
Maury City Sugar Tree
Friendship
Huntingdon
Clarksburg
Fisherville
Barretville
Beech Bluff
Tiptonville
Springville
Scotts Hill
Brownsville
Jacks Creek
Hollow Rock
Cedar Grove
Buena Vista
Palmersville
Collierville
South Fulton
Spring Creek
Stantonville
Wildersville
Decaturville
Bath Springs
Milledgeville
Cottage Grove
Morris Chapel
Hickory Withe
Woodland Mills
Bethel Springs
Hickory Valley
Grand Junction
Essary Springs
Crockett
Mills
McLemoresville
Parker Crossroads
CHICKASAW
STATE
FOREST
NATCHEZ TRACE
STATE PARK &
FOREST WMA
HATCHIE NWR
REELFOOT LAKE WMA
TIGRETT WMA
MOSS ISLAND
MEEMAN SHELBY
STATE PARK WMA
BIG HILL POND
STATE PARK
ERNEST RICE WMA
HARTS MILL
REFUGE
HORNS BLUFF
REGUGE
LAKE
GRAHAM
WHITE LAKE REFUGE
BEAN SWITCH
REFUGE
MUSTARD BOTTOMS
WILDLIFE REFUGE
BLACK BAYOU REFUGE
PINSON MOUNDS
STATE PARK
FORT RIDGE
T.O. FULLER
STATE PARK
CHICKASAW STATE PARK
GARRETT LAKE
LAKE
LAUDERDALE
REFUGE
TIGRETT REFUGE
SPRING CREEK
JARRELL
SWITCH
PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT
MANESS
SWAMP
REFUGE
REELFOOT NWR
CARROLL LAKE
OAK DRAIN
WETLAND
WHITEVILLE
LAKE
OBION RIVER WMA
WEST BANK−REELFOOT
GOOCH WMA
West Tennessee Focus Area
0 25 50
Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley
T e n n e s s e e R i v e r
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
To better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues to seek
cooperative working relationships with numerous agencies, organizations, and businesses. In keeping with
this partnering concept, this comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant regional, national,
and international resource management plans. These include the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Project; the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird
Wetlands Conservation Initiative; the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan; the Partners-in-Flight
Initiative; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Plan; the Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008); the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency–Scientific Ecology Group Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service
also has specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species,
anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the
Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding
migratory birds, see the Service website at http://birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some
conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local and private entities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages 545 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more than
96 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation. About 77 million acres are in
Alaska; the remaining acreage is spread across the other 49 states and several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were
initiated in 1997 to fulfill the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are prepared with extensive
public involvement, help guide the future management of the refuges by establishing natural
resources and recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to
• fulfill the individual purpose for which it was established;
• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• consider the needs of wildlife first;
• fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the
Refuge System;
• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife
Refuge System;
• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses.
4 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Approximately 37.5 million people visited National Wildlife Refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife
in their natural habitats. As this visitation grows, the economic benefits to local communities will
continue to increase. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related
pursuits in 1996, according to Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of
National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997a). An updated version of this
report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b) found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to
national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging,
transportation, and other expenditures. In addition, volunteers continue to be a major contributor to
the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on
the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy; that the growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a
model for habitat management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by National Wildlife Refuge System policy,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for refuge
management are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the
Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104 (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the legal and policy guidance for the
operation of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix III.
Guidance and direction can also be found in the following:
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual
• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to
• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to the refuge’s purposes and goals;
• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and
interpretation); and
• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were
established.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges
together provide the foundation for the protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to
the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (http://www.state.tn.us/twra/) is charged with game
enforcement responsibilities and management of the state’s wildlife resources. The TWRA manages
approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges. It also
coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities,
including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management areas.
An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common
mission objectives where appropriate. The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this
planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the management of
fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee.
As previously mentioned, a joint interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the
TWRA, in collaboration with the Service’s comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee.
This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private,
state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this
cooperative planning effort would develop comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands.
In order to perform this joint planning effort, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in
their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all significant management
actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including
opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), state agencies are
not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that dictate federal planning
requirements do not apply to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. So the two agencies sought
to combine their planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy for each
agency to accomplish its desired objectives.
A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2) to allow both agencies to accomplish their
planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. This process will produce joint objectives for west
Tennessee lands, and will allow the Service to plan according to its NEPA requirements, while
providing the TWRA the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without NEPA provisions.
A core group was formed to oversee the planning process. This group consists of TWRA and Service
project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership of
the core group, nine resource working groups were recruited and developed to study nine specific
resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of experts from
various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals with expertise
in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species, critical habitats, and
opportunities, and developed management strategies for the west Tennessee resource groups.
6 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process.
Focus Area-Wide
Goals/Objectives
CCP Process
NEPA Process
Comprehensive
Conservation Plans
West Tennessee
Wildlife Resources
Conservation Plan
Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation
Land
Acquisition
Proposals
Habitat
Enhancement
Resource Working Groups
State Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Private Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Federal Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
West Tennessee Master Plan
Core Group
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The nine resource working groups developed a set of focus area-wide goals and objectives, which
were then translated into a series of map overlays that rank the areas of specific interest and provide
a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In
addition, each working group developed a text describing the goals, objectives, and strategies for
implementing the desired goals and objectives for each specific resource category.
The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies for
private, state, and federal lands, and then incorporated into the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002). The goals, objectives, and strategies developed for
federal lands were used by the Service as the biological foundation for its refuge comprehensive
conservation planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee lands, the
planning process produced a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for each national wildlife
refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot/Lake Isom; Chickasaw; Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie.
Once finalized, the refuge CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire
west Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is
expected to be compiled in 2006. It will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal
managers alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative interagency management and
administration of west Tennessee resources.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and
has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife
Refuges are located within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3).
The Service’s resource priorities for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are as follows:
• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened,
and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Plan 2000).
The Lower Mississippi Valley (which is a geographic subset of the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem) once supported a vast complex of bottomland hardwood forests that extended along the
Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this bottomland hardwood
forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or remains in scattered patches throughout the region
(Figure 4). Floodwaters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic
systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower
Mississippi Valley is fragmented by levees, and its water flows are restricted by flood control projects
and agricultural diversions. Its water quality is heavily impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff.
8 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Baton Rouge
Vicksburg
Monroe
Little Rock
Dyersburg
Memphis
Poplar Bluff
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
LOUISIANA
ARKANSAS
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
Reelfoot NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lower Hatchie NWR
0 30 60 120 180 240
Miles
Legend
National Wildlife Refuges
State Wildlife Management Areas
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
!
" !
##
" !
##
!
$ $ %
10 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
The rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid, laden with pesticides; and support a small
fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources.
Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners,
local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus its efforts on
adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife
populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common
threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The biological objectives targeted in
this plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally,
nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United
States, and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern
physiographic areas (Twedt et al. 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in
irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. The national wildlife refuges
in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the
remaining wildlife resources.
Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include
• the loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
• the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, i.e., fragmentation;
• the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of
agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• the homogenization of remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem; and
• the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have
become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in
the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to
occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct.
Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alterations in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley have
resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et
al. 2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have decreased in the past several decades, and the
availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance,
distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al. 1994).
The species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are those that are
area-sensitive or dependent on special habitat requirements such as large, mature blocks of
forest that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 bird species
nest regularly in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting
waterbirds, with at least 70 species occurring in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat
(Twedt et al,.1999). Less than one percent of the remaining forest patches are large enough to
support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s
warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al. 2000).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic
resource productivity. Despite efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other
aquatic resources, a growing number are declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost
400 aquatic species either have or need special protection in some part of their natural or historic
range (Williams et al. 1989; Moyle and Leidy 1992). The number of aquatic species listed in 2002
as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has increased to 19 amphibian
species, 21 crustacean species, 70 mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these
declines are linked largely to habitat loss or alteration (including flow changes, watershed
modifications, sedimentation, and pollution) and the impacts of harmful exotic or transplanted
species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for National Wildlife Refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on
threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. Working with others
makes the Service more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. The
Service and other agencies consider bottomland hardwood forests a high priority on which to focus
management efforts. A combination of land protection and habitat management methods is used by
the Service and others to compensate for bottomland hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared or
common long-term goals established for this area.
The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its associated Lower Mississippi
Valley Joint Venture Plan have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive
conservation plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering habitat for
midcontinental waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between
private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental
waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of wetland habitats in North America. In
addition, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan encompasses a regional approach with the
same objectives: to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The
joint venture has initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore
lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds, and has identified
conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts.
One of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for
migratory bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than
100,000 acres. In addition, Partners in Flight has developed a Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation
Plan that establishes habitat objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al. 1998). In order
to meet population objectives for migratory land birds, this plan has identified 87 bird conservation
areas (BCAs), broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and
more than 100,000 acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases, which serve as priority
areas for forest restoration, will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity.
In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and/or protection of one each of the
following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres.
Three Tennessee bird conservation areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) were identified by
Ford (1998) and are delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the
Upper, Middle, and Lower Implementation Zones. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife
Refuges are included within the Upper Implementation Zone, which extends from the Kentucky-
Tennessee state line south to the northern boundary of Moss Island Wildlife Management Area
12 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas
Shelby
Dyer
Fayette
Tipton
Haywoo
Lauderdale
Lake
BCA 3 − Lower
Implementation Zone
BCA 1− Upper
Implementation Zone
Legend
Bird Conservation Areas
USFWS Lands
USFWS Expansion Boundaries
State Lands
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
Miles
Lower Hatchie NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Reelfoot NWR
BCA 2− Middle
Implementation Zone
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
(TWRA and USFWS 2002). Future land acquisitions within the two refuges’ approved acquisition
boundaries would contribute toward achieving these BCA goals.
Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners in
Flight Plan (Twedt et al. 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land
bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability
of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird
species (Bonney et al. 1999). Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat
type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This
list of focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the
refuges.
The Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b) has
established five resource ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of
this comprehensive conservation plan. These goals involve the protection, enhancement, and
management of the following: migratory bird populations and habitats; wetlands; habitats and
populations of endangered, threatened, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatic resources; and
national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish
and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands in conjunction with public
lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that
the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce redundancy and
overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations.
14 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. The Planning Process
OVERVIEW
The west Tennessee planning effort included the preparation of four comprehensive conservation
plans (CCPs) for five national wildlife refuges: Reelfoot and Lake Isom; Chickasaw; Lower Hatchie;
and Hatchie. It also included the cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Conservation Plan, which identifies resources and management goals for approximately 10,000
square miles of federal, state, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory
birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the
state, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan provided the main biological
foundation for the four national wildlife refuge CCPs.
In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (in which four of the five west Tennessee national wildlife refuges are
located), migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the
comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen 2001; TWRA and USFWS 2002;
Twedt et al. 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the
comprehensive planning effort that sufficient habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be
provided on the national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that
had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective
national wildlife refuge boundaries and incorporated any public and private lands that might be
available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs for
west Tennessee, and incorporated over 6 million acres of land.
The final product of this west Tennessee planning effort will be a West Tennessee Master Plan that
will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the
four refuge CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively
protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the
requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats
in the western third of the State of Tennessee.
The planning process began in January, 2000, with initial core group meetings in which the Service
and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The core group selected nine
resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and
strategies for specific resource categories on federal, state, and private lands within the west
Tennessee planning area (Figure 1).
Preplanning for the Reelfoot and Lake Isom draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment also began during early 2000. The identification of issues is a major
factor in determining the management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans.
To ensure that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series
of meetings and interviews was conducted to guide the identification of issues for the planning effort.
In September 2000, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Reelfoot
National Wildlife Refuge and the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex) began meeting to
discuss the refuges’ issues and management opportunities. On November 14, 2000, a public scoping
meeting was held in Tiptonville, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to
comment orally or in writing regarding their perceived issues and opportunities for management of the
refuges. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by mailings, with additional comments received
16 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
by mail, telephone, and e-mail. The planning staff of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges
Complex then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of
management alternatives in the draft environmental assessment.
Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations and
the surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and the projects
identified for the refuges. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Reelfoot and Lake Isom
Planning Review Group, in which refuge neighbors, organizations, educators, government agencies,
and local officials were invited to attend and share their thoughts in a focus group meeting. The
Reelfoot and Lake Isom Planning Review Group included representatives from the Tennessee
Wildlife Resources Agency; Reelfoot State Park; Ducks Unlimited; Tennessee Ornithological Society;
Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges; Dyersburg State Community College; the
University of Tennessee at Martin; and the Reelfoot Lake Tourism Council, as well as local
landowners, businessmen, and county officials from Tennessee and Kentucky. This group provided
oversight during the planning process, and solicited suggestions from local individuals and private
interests. Draft versions of the comprehensive conservation plan were routed to the Planning Review
Group members periodically for review, and their comments were considered in plan revisions.
The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January, 2002, the WTWR
Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for
much of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, as
well as other relevant documents, the input received from the public, and the refuge staff’s
professional judgment, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom Technical Team evaluated the two refuges’
issues and resource needs and developed various management alternatives which were then
considered in the Draft Environmental Assessment. The alternatives addressed four different
management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and concern was considered in the context of at
least one of the alternatives. The environmental assessment constituted the documentation and
process by which the proposed action was selected.
Once the proposed action was selected, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom Technical Team developed a set of
goals, objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15
years. The goals, objectives, and strategies are described in Chapter IV, Management Direction.
A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. The public will be notified when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges is available.
ISSUES
The identification of issues provided the basis for initiating the development of management
objectives and strategies. The identified issues play a role in determining the refuges’ future
conditions and were considered in the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues and
concerns described in the following pages were generated by the public, the Planning Review Group,
and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 21 issues was consolidated into a list of 18 issue
categories concerning the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. The 18 issues were
grouped according to five broad management categories: (1) fish and wildlife population issues; (2)
habitat issues; (3) visitor services and environmental education issues; (4) refuge administration and
operation issues; and (5) land protection and conservation issues. Appendix VII provides a summary
of the comments received during the public scoping process.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES
Waterfowl Populations
Because the refuges’ establishing purpose was specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds”
(see the “Refuge Purpose” section in Chapter III), all operations and management are considered in light
of their impact on migratory birds, of which waterfowl are the most numerous. The refuge staff monitors
the refuges’ waterfowl populations, and works to provide sufficient high quality habitat to fulfill the
population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as established in Ford and Wathen (2001) and
the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002). A portion of the refuges is dedicated to
providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the
feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl (please refer to the following
“Habitat Issues” section). In order to meet their objectives for waterfowl, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom
refuges must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet the habitat needs of waterfowl and
provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Populations
Nearly every study examining the population trends of North America’s Neotropical migratory birds
has reported declines in at least some species (Askins et al. 1990). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley
has been identified as experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel
et al. 1994). Partners in Flight has developed conservation plans for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley
(Twedt et al. 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey et al. 1998) to address priority species
and bird conservation issues. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges continue to monitor migratory and
resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and Neotropical migrant
populations, in keeping with the refuges’ goals and establishing purposes.
Threatened and Endangered Species
A key function of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges is to enhance the survival of
threatened and endangered species. Two federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to
use or populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuges: the bald eagle and the interior least tern. As
many as 200 bald eagles are known to winter annually in the vicinity of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National
Wildlife Refuges, and one known active nest is documented on Lake Isom. The refuges’ habitat restoration
and protection activities continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles.
Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars in close proximity to Reelfoot National Wildlife
Refuge, and are regularly observed feeding on refuge lands. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’
protection of lands within approximately three miles of the Mississippi River provides protection to
interior least tern feeding areas. This protection also includes the sandbars, which are used by least
tern nesting colonies during the summer months.
Resident Species Populations
The two refuges’ resident wildlife include game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey,
squirrels, rabbits, and furbearers, as well as numerous species of nongame mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. The refuges monitor some resident wildlife populations through surveys such as the
turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. Species groups that lend themselves to management
(deer, turkey, etc.) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management
goals, and refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored in order to identify potential
18 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
management issues. The benefits to resident species are one of the factors considered when
opportunities arise for land acquisition within the refuges’ current approved acquisition boundaries.
Shorebird Populations
Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent
inundation of fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for
providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Refuge waterfowl management activities
may provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with management of impoundments and
moist soil units. The staff monitors shorebird use on the refuges and looks for opportunities to support
the priorities of the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002) for migratory and resident
shorebird populations.
HABITAT ISSUES
Waterfowl Habitat
Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the
purpose for which the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges were established. Thus, the refuges’
management priorities must be directed toward providing quality wetland areas that are
attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese. Each
management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for each group to
complete its life cycle. A portion of the refuges is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded
croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and
breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order to meet their objectives for
waterfowl, the refuges must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl
habitat needs, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Habitat
As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, the refuges’ priorities include providing
quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migrant songbirds. The refuges’ land and
forest management practices will continue to take into account the value of such practices to
songbirds. The refuges will continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address
habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant populations.
Forest Habitat Management
The refuges protect more than 7,294 acres of bottomland hardwood and bald cypress forest
habitat. The refuges’ bottomland hardwood forests provide invaluable habitat for a wide range
of wildlife species and are critical to their preservation and perpetuation. Bottomland hardwood
forests are important to migratory and wintering waterfowl, particularly mallards and wood
ducks. The forested tracts provide crucial food resources such as hard mast, soft mast, and
invertebrates for mallards during flood events in the fall and early spring. The refuges will
complete their habitat and forest habitat management plans, and management decisions will be
made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge purposes,
with due consideration for all other environmental factors.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Cooperative Farming
Agricultural crops play an important role in the scheme of migratory bird management, as they
provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the
refuges supply corn and soybean crops, which are rotated with moist soil units or produced on the
higher elevations to ensure a readily available source of food for wildlife, and to meet refuge
objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The cropland operation on the Reelfoot and
Lake Isom refuges includes approximately 1,560 acres, which are managed in a combination of
agricultural crops and moist soil foods. This acreage varies from year to year, based on management
needs. Under a cooperative farming agreement, this acreage is divided by a 75-to-25 percent farmer-to-
refuge ratio, with the refuges’ portion of the crops usually grown on the lower and wetter fields.
These crops are left standing in the fields and provide supplemental forage for resident and migratory
wildlife, specifically migratory waterfowl.
Another farming option being used on the refuges is force-account farming, in which refuge personnel
and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component in the overall
management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a portion of the
refuges. Force-account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that the Service must
bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer, and chemicals.
Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the cooperative farmer to bear the cost of
production and leave a designated share of crops in the field as payment for renting the property.
Thus, force-account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense but the advantage of greater
flexibility and retains one hundred percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no
expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of
agricultural products left in the field for use by wildlife.
Approximately 385 acres of the refuges’ crop fields can be flooded for waterfowl use as part of the refuges’
impoundment systems. This, coupled with subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuges to make
substantial contributions to the migratory bird objectives of the Mississippi Flyway. The refuges’ farming
program will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations.
Moist Soil Habitat
Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl, as these food
resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom
refuges and the associated river floodplains are capable of supplying moist soil foods such as
barnyard grass, sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous
plants. As described previously, the refuges manage approximately 1,560 acres of a combination of
agricultural crops and moist soil foods. This acreage varies from year to year, based on management
needs. The refuges annually provide substantial acreages of these early successional moist soil
habitats and play a key role in the migration patterns of midcontinental waterfowl and other migratory
birds. The refuges’ present and future resource management will in large part be influenced by
practices that actively benefit waterfowl, including moist soil habitats. The management of the
refuges’ moist soil units will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations.
VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES
Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that hunting and fishing
are two consumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In addition, hunting and
20 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
fishing are integral parts of the lifestyle and culture of west Tennessee. Due to this fact and the
limited amount of public lands, it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in
expanding the refuges’ hunting and fishing opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities
will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge
purposes. However, the refuges’ hunting opportunities could be expanded through additional
land acquisitions from willing sellers within the current approved acquisition boundaries. The
refuges will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance hunting and fishing
opportunities, in keeping with their other resource needs and establishing purposes.
Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are four
nonconsumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In accordance with this
legislation, the refuges will seek to increase opportunities for these priority public uses.
Currently, hunting and fishing are the major public uses on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom
refuges. More exposure resulting from expanded nonconsumptive recreational uses and
programs would increase public awareness and have a positive effect on other refuge
programs. The refuges are located in Lake and Obion counties, Tennessee, and Fulton
County, Kentucky (combined population 47,738) within six miles of Tiptonville, Tennessee
(population 4,203), approximately 18 miles from Union City, Tennessee (population 10,770)
and 107 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population 648,882) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).
Better-developed visitor facilities would provide greatly enhanced wildlife-dependent
environmental education, interpretation, and recreational opportunities to Lake and Obion
counties, Tennessee, and Fulton County, Kentucky. The refuges will examine opportunities to
increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuges, in keeping
with their other resource needs and establishing purposes.
Public Access
Reelfoot and Lake Isom are frequently visited national wildlife refuges with a high degree of public
interest in the opportunities they offer for the enjoyment of natural resources. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the refuges to provide, when compatible with
refuge purposes, opportunities for the “big six” wildlife-dependent types of public recreation. The “big
six” are hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and
photography. Therefore, attention must be given to providing the appropriate amount and forms of
visitor access on the refuges. Issues regarding the increasing or limiting of public access should be
considered with respect to the refuges’ overall resource management goals and purposes.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION ISSUES
Maintenance and Operations
The budget for national wildlife refuges is limited because the available funds must be prioritized and
divided among the 550 individual refuges that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Operating within a fixed budget requires the prioritizing of programs and projects that compete for
funding and staffing. The Service’s Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance
Management System (MMS) are the processes used for the refuges to submit their budgetary
requests. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’ management priorities include managing aquatic and
forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species; cultural resources; public use; and
law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance. Consideration should be given to providing
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
comprehensive maintenance of the refuges’ facilities, within the constraints of available resources
and management priorities. Management decisions would continue to address the refuges’ priority
operational needs, and budgetary requests would be made in keeping with the goals and purposes
for which the refuges were established.
Law Enforcement
Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use and, unfortunately, in
some cases, misuse; so the continual involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in
order to protect the resources as well as the public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive law
enforcement on refuge lands. As with other issues, refuge priorities must be established which
compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should be considered and ways to improve law
enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuges’ goals and purposes.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES
Land Acquisition
The refuges’ land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources as well as
additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public. Reelfoot National Wildlife
Refuge has a current approved acquisition boundary of 18,015 acres. As of June 1, 2004, the
Service had acquired a total of 10,428 acres within this approved acquisition boundary (Figure 6).
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge has a current approved acquisition boundary of 7,133
acres. As of June 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total of 1,850 acres within this approved
acquisition boundary (Figure 7).
Public perception of federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which eminent
domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. It is the Service’s
policy to acquire land only from willing sellers, and every effort should be made to provide effective
information to the public in order to promote full understanding of the refuge acquisition process.
Management decisions must include acquisition priorities as well as future management of acquired
tracts in light of the refuges’ goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
Water Level Management
Water level management has the potential to affect the resources on the refuges and their immediate
vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and
natural flooding induced by the Obion and Mississippi river systems and their immediate tributaries.
Impacts from refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and
sedimentation. (On a larger scale, water level management of Reelfoot Lake (most of which is not
located on either refuge) involves the cooperation of several partners and has a lengthy history. A
brief summary of the water level management of Reelfoot Lake and how it relates to this
comprehensive conservation plan is described in Appendix VI.) The comprehensive planning
process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a case-by-case basis, while
keeping management decisions in line with the refuges’ management goals and purposes, as well as
potential water level impacts on neighboring lands.
22 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary for Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge
REELFOOT LAKE WMA
Reelfoot State Park
Phillippy Unit
Mississippi River
Hwy 21
Legend
Boat Ramp
Observation Tower
Office
Acquisition Boundary
Refuge Boundary
State Lands
County Roads
Reelfoot Lake
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 7. Approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge
Eagle Nest Trail
Boundary Line Rd
Bluff Rd
Will Short Rd
Grady Tolar Rd
Madie Thompson Rd
Peacock Rd
Lake Rd
Putnam Hill R d
Free Bridge Rd
Bradshaw Rd
Minnick−Elbridge Rd
Wynnburg−Keefe Rd
Isom Lake Rd
Bluff Rd
Reelfoot Lake
Legend
County Roads
Refuge Roads
Lake Isom Boundary
Landowner Tracts w/in Acquisition Boundary
24 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Protection of Unique Areas
Significant archaeological surveys were conducted on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife
Refuges in 1979 (Dickson and Campbell 1979) and 1997 (Brown et al. 1998). Numerous other
archaeological investigations have been conducted throughout the nearby portions of west
Tennessee. These archaeological surveys document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural
resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. The results of the archaeological surveys conducted on
the refuges, as well as past history, indicate that many more cultural resource sites are likely to exist
on refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique
areas, in keeping with the refuges’ goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
All of the above issues were further addressed in the “Summary of Management Alternatives” section
of Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences, in the Draft Environmental Assessment. In that section,
the issues were analyzed within the context of the four different management alternatives that were
considered and evaluated during the planning process.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
III. Refuge Description
LAND ACQUISITION
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge is located within four miles of the Mississippi River in rural
northwest Tennessee, about 35 miles north of the city of Dyersburg and 15 miles southwest of Union
City. It encompasses parts of Lake and Obion counties in Tennessee, and extends northward into
Fulton County, Kentucky. Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge is located in Lake County, Tennessee,
about 2 miles south of Reelfoot Lake and five miles southeast of Tiptonville, Tennessee (Figure 8).
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004). This
acreage includes 7,847 acres managed by the Service under a 1941 lease agreement with the State
of Tennessee, as well as 2,581 acres owned in fee title. In addition to lands within the original refuge
boundary, an expansion to the acquisition boundary was approved in 1989; it included an additional
7,587 acres adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). If
funding and opportunities becomes available, the Service proposes to acquire these lands through
conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The
proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the total size of the Reelfoot refuge to 18,015
acres. The majority of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary is located in Kentucky and adjoins
the Mississippi River at its northernmost point. At full expansion, the refuge boundary would
encompass the bulk of the remaining bottomland hardwood forest on or surrounding Reelfoot Lake.
The refuge lies within the Mississippi Flyway and is part of a 20,000+ acre migratory bird zone
identified in the WTWR Conservation Plan.
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 1,850 acres (as of June 1, 2004). In
addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion to the acquisition boundary was
approved in 1989; it includes an additional 5,283 acres adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). If funding and opportunities become available, the Service
proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee
title purchases from willing sellers. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the
total size of the Lake Isom refuge to 7,133 acres. Most of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary
is currently in agricultural production, although 788 acres of the approved acquisition boundary is
upland woods along the Bluff Road. The Lake Isom refuge also lies within the Mississippi Flyway and
is part of a 20,000+ acre migratory bird zone identified in the WTWR Conservation Plan.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation,
other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and, where
appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for
compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands
include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other areas.
The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, easements,
leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. Funding for
acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees to certain
national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
26 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Figure 8. Vicinity map of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions would be provided through the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these
funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the
Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1).
REFUGE PURPOSE
The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges are administered under the National Wildlife
Refuge System and thus are part of a larger national landscape conservation plan set forth by the
Service. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). There are currently 545
national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 96 million acres of lands managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The refuges are important components for the conservation and management of fish,
wildlife, and plant resources within the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 28, 1941, under the authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.715d). Subsequent lands for the refuge were
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
20 Miles
IL
AR
TN
KY
MO
45 Miles
Farmington
Cape Girardeau
Poplar Bluff
Paragould
Blytheville
Dyersburg
Union C ity
Jackson
Brownsville
Millington
Bartlett
Memphis
West Memphis
Murray
Paducah
Carbondale Marion
Herrin
Jonesboro
Kennett
Sikeston
Reelfoot
Lake Isom
National
Wildlife
Refuge
Refuge
National W ild life
Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Vicinity Map
N
20 0 20 40 Miles
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
acquired under the authority of the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1) and the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534). The refuge was specifically authorized “...
for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds”
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act), and is “... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented
recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered
species or threatened species ...” (Refuge Recreation Act). Further, lands acquired under the
Endangered Species Act have additional purposes, described as “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife,
... or (B) plants, ... which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ... ” (16 U.S.C. Sec.
1534, Endangered Species Act of 1973).
Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 12, 1938, by Executive Order 7953.
Subsequent lands were acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.
715d). The refuge was specifically authorized “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds
and other wildlife ...” (Executive Order 7953), and also “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) later declared national wildlife refuges to be
“suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of
natural resources, and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....”
In conjunction with their primary establishing purposes, these refuges will provide inviolate
sanctuaries for migratory birds and preserve for the public benefit a representative portion of the
bottomland hardwood forests of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The refuges would also help
support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Team.
These ecosystem priorities involve migratory bird populations and their habitats; wetlands; threatened
and endangered species and their habitats; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife
refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b).
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges are located in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, within three and six
miles, respectively, of the eastern shore of the Mississippi River. The Tennessee portion of the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley is a subset of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The dominant land
forms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River,
downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and
swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries.
The Mississippi Alluvial Valley is a 24-million-acre, relatively flat, weakly dissected alluvial plain,
comprised of natural levees, basins and flats, point bar formations, terraces, tributary floodplains, and
depressional wetlands. It is among the most heavily modified physiographichillside0260!
areas in the southeastern United States, but it still supports the largest forested floodplain in North
America (Twedt et al. 1999). This portion of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley overlies the New Madrid
fault line, with the potential for earthquakes.
The most significant recent geological event, which shaped the present-day landscape of the Reelfoot
Lake area, was the New Madrid earthquakes. This series of earthquakes, which shook the area from
December 1811 through February 1812, is reported as being the most significant to hit the continental
United States in recorded history. These earthquakes reportedly caused the Mississippi River to flow
backwards when an area just south of the Reelfoot refuge, known as the Tiptonville Dome, was thrust
28 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
violently upwards into the path of the river. Likewise, an area as much as 30 miles long and 10 miles
wide, by some accounts, sank up to 50 feet, creating a sunken forest and forming the present-day
Reelfoot Lake.
Over the history of Reelfoot Lake, altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural
geomorphic processes. As a result of the construction of main line levees between the
refuges and the Mississippi River, land and lake formation associated with Mississippi River
meandering is no longer occurring, or is occurring on a very limited basis, restricting the
formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs.
Extensive drainage efforts that have occurred from the early twentieth century to the present day
have resulted in significantly altered drainage patterns in the vicinity of both the Reelfoot and Lake
Isom refuges. As recently as the early 1920s Lake Isom was a part of Reelfoot Lake, but construction
of a ditch to drain Reelfoot Lake in 1921 effectively cut off the hydrological connection between Lake
Isom and Reelfoot Lake. Actions to clear and settle the lands around Reelfoot Lake have seriously
degraded the lake through accelerated siltation caused by farming the highly erodable soils around
the lake and on the adjacent loess bluffs. In addition, ongoing sedimentation is gradually filling in
many aquatic features on the refuge.
Both the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges have elevations ranging from 275 to 285 feet above mean
sea level, with the highest elevations occurring along existing or old channels of tributaries. The soils
of the refuges are of the Swamp-Bowdre-Sharkey Association. All the soils in this association were
formed in sediments deposited by the Mississippi River. Differences in elevation account for most of
the differences among the soils; however, nearly two-thirds of this association is level, dominantly
swampy terrain. It is ponded for long periods, and the lowest positions along Reelfoot Lake support
only water-tolerant plants such as bald cypress.
Fifteen soil series are found on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. Five major
types, Bowdre, Convent, Iberia, Sharkey, and Tunica, represent approximately 80 percent of the
soils on the refuges. The other types occur on a more localized basis. The Soil Survey of Lake
County, Tennessee (Brown et al. 1969), the Soil Survey of Obion County, Tennessee (Brown et
al. 1973), and the Soil Survey of Fulton County, Kentucky (Newton and Sims 1987), contain maps
and descriptions of these soil types.
The climate of the refuges is characterized by fairly mild winters, hot summers, and abundant rainfall.
There are wide and frequent changes in weather, both from day to day and from season to season.
The average annual temperature at Union City is 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Extremes of 109 degrees
and a minus 23 were recorded during the period 1931-60, but prolonged periods of very cold or very
hot weather are unusual. The average date of the last freezing temperature in the spring is March 31.
The average date of the first freezing temperature in the fall is October 28. The growing season
averages 210 days. The average annual rainfall is approximately 49 inches, with extremes of 31
inches (1941) and 72 inches (1950) having been recorded. Winter and early spring are the rainiest
times of the year; summer and early fall are the driest (Brown et al. 1973).
DEMOGRAPHY
The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west
Tennessee. The areas immediately surrounding the refuges are even less populated than most
of west Tennessee, due to their locations adjacent to the Obion and Mississippi rivers and their
floodplains. According to estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Lake
County, Tennessee, had a population of approximately 7,793 people in 2002, a decrease of 2.0
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
percent since the 2000 census. Obion County, Tennessee, had approximately 32,394 in 2002, a
decrease of 0.2 percent since 2000; and Fulton County, Kentucky, had approximately 7,551 in
2002, a decrease of 2.6 percent since 2000. The total estimated population for 2002 in the three
counties that encompass the two refuges was 47,738.
The per capita incomes of the states and counties recorded in 1999 are as follows: Tennessee,
$19,393; Lake County, $10,794; Obion County, $17,409; Kentucky, $18,093; and Fulton County,
$14,309. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic bases in the three
counties. Several small to medium manufacturing companies are also located in the counties; some
of the major private employers include Goodyear Tires, Tyson Foods, Lenox Fireplace, Wal-Mart,
Baptist Memorial Hospital, county and city schools, and the utility companies.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitats for threatened and
endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Two federally
listed species, the endangered interior least tern and the threatened bald eagle, are found on or near
the refuges. The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars within four miles of
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, and feed on refuge lands. As many as 200 bald eagles winter
annually in the vicinity of Reelfoot Lake, with at least one known active nest documented on Lake
Isom National Wildlife Refuge. No federally listed flora are known on the refuges. A Section 7 Intra-
Service Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V.
AVIAN SPECIES
Birds are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on Reelfoot
National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). Appendix IV contains a list
of the avian species known to occur on the refuges and their residence status. The
bottomland hardwood forests serve as important habitat for breeding birds and migrants in the
spring and fall, and migratory birds occur seasonally in substantial numbers. For migratory
forest-breeding songbirds and shorebirds, the ecological and biological significance is
transcontinental, with the refuges providing breeding and migration habitat for Gulf of Mexico
migrants returning from their wintering grounds in Central and South America.
Recent studies indicate significant population declines in some species of Neotropical migrant
birds (Askins et al. 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most
Neotropical migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining
species, the cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring on nearby Chickasaw National
Wildlife Refuge during 1985-87 and 1991. Additional research began in 1992 and is ongoing to
assess the habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel
et al. 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom
refuges include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Approximately 32 species of shorebirds (TWRA and USFWS 2002) are commonly found in west
Tennessee, with the highest populations occurring during migration periods that typically peak from
August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Shorebird species
common to west Tennessee include the killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater
yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge lands that provide
shorebird habitat include riverine mudbars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, the margins of
reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges manage
30 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
approximately 245 acres of impoundments as shorebird habitat. Shorebird habitat is provided within
the impoundments each spring (target 250 acres) and fall (target 60 acres).
The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl
populations that breed in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. The Reelfoot
and Lake Isom refuges and their adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover
area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population
numbers in the vicinity of the two refuges may exceed 250,000. The value of Reelfoot and Lake Isom
as waterfowl wintering areas is enhanced by their proximity to other refuges. The two refuges lie
within 125 miles of numerous other national wildlife refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to
the west; White River, Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie to the south; Tennessee to the east;
and Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek and Mingo to the north. Other species of waterfowl known to use
the areas include the black ducks; gadwall; pintail; green-winged teal; blue-winged teal; widgeon;
wood duck; ring-necked ducks; and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and
depend on refuge habitats for nesting and brood-rearing.
The combined waterfowl objectives for the two refuges are 3.5 million goose-use days and 15.2
million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, impoundments,
flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation
during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of the refuge
expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Wild turkeys are also present on the refuges, although spring flooding sometimes impacts nesting
success. Flocks consisting of upwards of 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, in
which the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves and bobwhite quail are common on
open lands within and adjacent to the refuges. Common raptors include the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered
hawk, northern harrier, barred owl, and turkey and black vultures. Kestrels and broad-winged
hawks are also present but occur less frequently.
MAMMALS
The diverse habitat types on the two refuges are very productive for a wide variety of game and
nongame mammals, represented by seven taxonomic orders, including pouched mammals
(opossums), insect-eaters (shrews and moles), bats, flesh-eaters (raccoon), gnawing mammals
(squirrels and mice), rabbits, and even-toed hoofed mammals (white-tailed deer).
Mammalian game species hunted on the refuges include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray and
fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbits. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver,
opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and
mink. Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice,
rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels.
Providing a diversity of habitats on the refuges contributes to healthy populations of numerous
mammalian species, as well as other resident animals. Habitat management practices that focus on
providing habitat for migratory birds would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and
regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a
greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diversity of forest habitats
would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats.
Appendix IV provides a list of the mammalian species known to occur on the refuges.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
A diverse group of amphibians is found on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges,
including salamanders, toads, and frogs. Most are well adapted to the aquatic and terrestrial
environments found on the refuges, with moisture being typically important for their survival.
Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and skinks, are common as well.
Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most of the refuges’ freshwater
and terrestrial habitats, and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many
species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the
environmental health of an ecosystem.
A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are
declining. Loss and degradation of habitat are the main known causes of declines in reptile and
amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests
having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alterations,
and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee which
negatively affect populations. The refuges’ land protection and management efforts serve these
populations by protecting their existing habitats, as well as by restoring degraded habitats.
Comprehensive inventories are planned to establish baseline information on the occurrence and habitat use
of amphibian and reptilian species by 2009. Specific knowledge of which species occur on the Reelfoot and
Lake Isom refuges is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area.
The reptiles and amphibians known to exist in west Tennessee and their status are listed in Appendix IV.
AQUATIC SPECIES
The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes between the Obion and Mississippi rivers and their
associated wetland habitats on the refuges provide a constant and renewable fishery. When flooding
occurs in the spring, these areas provide good nurseries for juvenile fish. The sloughs, rivers, and lakes
within the refuges support a diversity of game fish, including largemouth bass, black crappie, white
crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, and channel catfish. Nongame species such as carp,
buffalo, and drum are also present. Appendix IV provides a comprehensive listing of the fish likely to
occur in the Mississippi River proper and its directly westward-flowing tributaries in western Tennessee,
including the rivers on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges (TWRA and USFWS 2001).
Although decades of hydrologic alteration and sedimentation have impacted the aquatic resources in
the refuges’ vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic
habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of
channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Cropland Reserve Program, and Forest Legacy.
MUSSELS
A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuges, and few published surveys
are available on the mussels of the Mississippi River and its major tributaries in west Tennessee.
However, a survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported seven species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake
and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in Ortmann 1926) listed 12
species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake. Don Manning (1989) later reported 33 species of mussels in
the nearby Hatchie River. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels likely exist in
32 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
the vicinity of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. Mussel species known to exist
in the Obion and Forked Deer rivers of west Tennessee are listed in Appendix IV.
As stated in the above Aquatic Resources section, hydrologic alterations and sedimentation have
impacted the area’s aquatic resources, including mussels. Similarly, the refuges’ land protection and
habitat restoration efforts result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and mussel species. The
Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use
practices. In addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel populations should be conducted on the
waters of the refuges and surrounding vicinity, when resources and opportunities become available.
NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE SPECIES
Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuges include a hybrid
cocklebur, and hemp sesbania. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is
resistant to flooding and wet soil conditions. This species is prolific and will outcompete native moist
soil vegetation in moist soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will also
outcompete the preferred moist soil plants.
The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’ Habitat Management Plan includes plans and preferred
methods for control and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species.
HABITATS
Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges provide a variety of habitat types for a diversity of
wildlife species. The habitats on the refuges consist of approximately 98 acres of open administrative
land; 1,560 acres of agriculture and moist soil open lands (the agricultural/moist soil breakdown
varies from year to year); 2,168 acres of bald cypress/tupelo forest; 5,126 acres of mixed bottomland
hardwood forest; 11 acres of upland forest; and 3,315 acres of open water. The total current deeded
acreage being managed as Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge is 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004).
The total current deeded acreage being managed as Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge is 1,850
acres (as of June 1, 2004). Figure 9 shows the existing habitat types on the two refuges.
The refuges’ 5,126 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods consist of black willow, eastern
cottonwood, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, bald
cypress, sweet pecan, bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. Forest management practices are
used in these areas to maintain an optimal diversity of forest habitat for wildlife. Mast production in
the bottomland hardwood habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife,
including migratory waterfowl, deer, squirrel, and turkey. During the winter and spring months,
backwaters typically flood thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl
habitat. The 11 acres of upland forest are dominated by southern red oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar,
post oak, white oak, various hickories, and American beech.
There are approximately 1,560 acres of agriculture/moist soil open lands on the Reelfoot and Lake
Isom refuges. In any given year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for
agricultural production and 50 percent are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year
to year due to river flooding and other factors. The croplands are managed under cooperative
agreements with local farmers, who grow corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25
percent refuge share is usually planted in corn, which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption.
The refuges currently contain approximately 2,168 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is
dominated by bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory, with buttonbush most abundant in the
understory. In the 3,315 acres of open water habitat found on the refuges, dominant vegetation
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 9. Existing habitat types on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Reelfoot NWR
State HWY 78
Lake Isom NWR
Reelfoot
Lake
State HWY 183
Kentucky
Tennessee
State HWY 78
State HWY 21
State HWY22
Reelfoot and Lake Isom
National Wildlife Refuges
Habitat Types
Habitat Types
Administrative
Agriculture/Moist Soils
Baldcypress
Bottomland Forest
Open Water
Upland Forest
Acres
98
1,560
2,168
5,126
3,315
11
1 0.5 0 1 2 3
Miles
34 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
includes submerged aquatics such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail, as well
as emergents such as American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuges
have adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education
and interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses are management’s primary
focuses for recreation, and over time programs will be developed to increase visitor awareness and
appreciation of the refuges’ fish and wildlife resources.
Wildlife-dependent recreation activities currently available on the refuges include wildlife observation
(by hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), wildlife photography, environmental education
and interpretation, hunting, and fishing. Hunting and fishing have been the primary uses on the
refuges since their inception, and encompass the majority of public use. The refuge staff also
provides a diversity of interpretive and environmental education programs, including tours to observe
concentrations of up to 200 bald eagles, as well as concentration of ducks and geese, which winter in
the Reelfoot Lake area. Currently, the refuges’ interpretive facilities include a visitor center with a 15-
seat auditorium; three observation platforms (all of which are universally accessible); a boardwalk;
and a 0.6-mile trail that is currently being constructed.
In fiscal year 2003, the refuges received about 293,724 visitors, although visitor use data is limited.
The refuges are open during some of the state hunting seasons, specifically squirrel, raccoon, and
archery deer, as well as a limited quota hunt for firearms deer and turkey. Fishing is permitted when
the refuges are open, but all public access is closed on Reelfoot from November 15 to March 15 on
the Long Point unit and from November 15 to January 31 on the waters of the Grassy Island unit.
Lake Isom is closed to all public entry from November 15 to March 15. By law, national wildlife
refuges are closed to public use activities unless those activities are expressly permitted; however,
hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography are permitted on most areas of the refuges.
Numerous other public lands within commuting distance offer wildlife-dependent recreation experiences.
Three other national wildlife refuges, including Chickasaw (25,006 acres), Lower Hatchie (9,451 acres), and
Hatchie (11,556 acres), are located within a two-hour drive of Reelfoot and Lake Isom.
Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, with facilities including
fishing piers, boat ramps, and bank fishing areas. Reelfoot and Hatchie offer universally accessible fishing
areas. Big and small game hunting are offered on each west Tennessee national wildlife refuge.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages approximately 250,000 acres of state wildlife
management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee. All of these TWRA lands offer some
fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby state wildlife management areas
include Anderson-Tully (12,000 acres); Moss Island (3,400 acres); and Tigrett (7,000 acres). The
State of Tennessee allows the use of both modern and primitive weapons. During the 2003-4
season, the state offered in west Tennessee a total of 39 days of modern gun deer hunting; 53 days
of muzzleloader deer hunting; and 105 days of archery deer hunting. Most of west Tennessee’s
wildlife management areas are also open to waterfowl and small game hunting.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities,
including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of five permanent employees. The
staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially moist
soil and agricultural habitats for waterfowl, as well as forest management and environmental
education. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan
provides an inventory of existing habitat resources and long term plans for management of these
resources to maximize their value for a diversity of wildlife species. Of particular concern under
management activities is providing quality habitats for migratory birds.
The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies,
and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The
staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on keeping the public informed regarding public
use opportunities and refuge activities.
The staff maintains three administrative sites, with one each in the Grassy Island unit, the
Long Point unit, and the Lake Isom area. The Grassy Island unit includes the
headquarters/visitor use complex, an enclosed maintenance shop, and an oil storage facility.
The Long Point unit includes a maintenance shop and two pole sheds. The Lake Isom area
includes an enclosed compound and a maintenance shop.
The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges are accessible through several state- and county-maintained
roads (Figures 10 and 11). Reelfoot can be accessed via Tennessee State Highway 157 or Kentucky
State Highway 311, with the Walnut Log Road (in Tennessee) and State Highway 1282 (in Kentucky)
as the main refuge arteries. Lake Isom is accessible from Tennessee State Highway 22, via Greasy
Lane, or from Tennessee State Highway 78 indirectly via Isom Lake Road.
Another refuge facility is a boat ramp on Grassy Island Drive. It is located on Bayou DuChien, which
is connected by a dug channel with Reelfoot Lake. Another boat ramp is located on Lake Isom
National Wildlife Refuge near the south end of the refuge.
In addition to the refuges’ normal road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the
Federal Lands Highway program. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuge staffs are coordinating with
Federal Highway Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or
improvements with TEA-21 funding. Congress requires that the projects must be compatible with
comprehensive management plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal
Highway Administration is available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract
administration. One such project was completed in 2003 when the Visitor Center and Grassy Island
roads and associated parking areas were rehabilitated. Projects proposed for work (2005-2010) under
the TEA-21 grant funding process include the rehabilitation of Slough Road; Interior Refuge Road;
Goose Pen Road; West Banding Site Road; West Boathouse Road; the Long Point Auto Tour Road
and its associated parking areas; Lake Isom Boundary Line Road; Lake Isom Access Road; and the
Lake Isom Public Access Road. In addition, the refuge staffs are working with the county to secure
possible additional TEA-21 funding for other county and state roads that pass through the two refuges.
36 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
During the early historic period, the portion of western Tennessee that now includes the Reelfoot and
Lake Isom refuges was a hunting territory claimed by the Chickasaw Indians of northern Mississippi,
as well as certain Sioux peoples of the lower Midwest (Cotterhill 1954). Initial European explorations
included visits by the Spanish explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made
contact with the Chickasaw Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson
1995). After the American Revolution, the lands of northwestern Tennessee were ceded to the new
United States government, which made peace with the Chickasaw residents in 1786. In 1818, the
Chickasaw Nation ceded all claim to lands in Tennessee, and, in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw east
of the Mississippi were removed to the West.
Archaeological investigations on refuge lands consist of two significant surveys conducted on project-specific
areas on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges. A survey of project-specific areas by Dickson and
Campbell (1979) encountered a total of ten archaeological and historic sites. Eight of these were prehistoric
sites and two were historic. Another survey by Brown et al. (1998) encountered a total of 25 cultural
occurrences in the vicinity of proposed construction sites for the Reelfoot Lake spillway and a Lake Isom
project area. Evidence of Woodland and Mississippian occupation was found as a result of these surveys.
The surveys recommended that certain sites be tested and evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places. The locations of all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it
was determined that certain site areas should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment.
Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted in nearby portions of west Tennessee,
including Mainfort (1994), in which archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River
drainage. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been conducted in west
Tennessee in conjunction with various federal development projects. These reports document an area rich
in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C.
Prior to refuge ownership, earthquakes, levee and road construction, and agricultural activities may have
adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuges. However, it is likely
that numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuges. Recommendations resulting from the surveys
includeded that the Service develop a cultural resource management plan for both refuges to assist in future
project management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth
of information regarding the refuges and their surrounding vicinity.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004). This
acreage includes 7,847 acres managed by the Service under a 1941 lease agreement with the State
of Tennessee (Appendix VIII), as well as 2,581 acres owned by the Service in fee title. The total size
of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary is 18,015 acres; of this, 7,587 acres remain in private
ownership and may be acquired if funding and willing sellers become available.
The approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge totals 7,133 acres. To
date (as of June 1, 2004), the Service has acquired 1,850 acres for the Lake Isom refuge, leaving a
balance of 5,283 acres in private ownership within the approved acquisition boundary. The land
protection goals set for both refuges would support strategic growth in areas where there is greatest
concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and songbirds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls because federal
government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service makes
annual payments to Lake, Obion, and Fulton counties in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payments for acquired land are computed on
whichever of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the
fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected;
or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county.
Of the 133,759 acres in Fulton County, Kentucky, in 1997, approximately 93,677 consisted of crop
lands. There are approximately 162 farms in the county, with an average size of 578 acres. Of the
104,319 acres in Lake County, Tennessee, in 1997, approximately 89,635 consisted of crop lands.
There are approximately 80 farms in the county, with an average size of 1,120 acres. Of the 348,798
acres in Obion County, Tennessee, in 1997, approximately 242,251 consisted of crop lands. There
are approximately 705 farms in the county, with an average size of 344 acres. The remaining lands
in all three counties consist primarily of forested lands and open lands associated with residential and
commercial developments and transportation systems.
The lands immediately adjacent to the refuges are privately owned and managed as farmlands and
hunting clubs. The surrounding farmlands are cultivated primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn,
and milo. Farm commodity prices, in general, have decreased since the mid-1980s, and more
dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Poor farm production, droughts, and low
commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many producers to sell their farms or enroll them
in some kind of conservation program.
Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. As of
2004, Fulton County claimed 2,662.9 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (Joan Jackson, pers.
comm., Fulton County Farm Service Agency, Hickman, Kentucky) and 1,901 acres in the Wetlands
Reserve Program (Jackie Franklin, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fulton,
Kentucky). Lake County claimed 110 acres in the CRP (Ann Perkins, pers. comm., Lake County Farm
Service Agency, Tiptonville, Tennessee) and 4,930 acres in the WRP (Mike Williams, pers. comm.,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee). Obion County claimed 10,042.5 acres
in the CRP (Sally Cherry, pers. comm., Obion County Farm Service Agency, Union City, Tennessee) and
224 acres in the WRP (Jim Needham, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Union City, Tennessee).
The Fish and Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll
private lands in these programs. Private land enrollment in conservation programs would continue to be
encouraged to augment the Service’s program and mission requirements.
A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al. 2001). Samples of water,
sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic
chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex,
endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge. However, on the
Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges, the total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below published
levels for the protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species.
Mixtures of multiple pesticides were often detected in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem refuges,
and their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled
sediment and water were well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediment and water samples were low throughout the region,
except near oil and gas production facilities, which do not occur on or near the Reelfoot and Lake
38 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges
Isom refuges. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and benthic fish samples were well below
threshold levels for fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (CUPs) (including the
herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides diazinon, malathion, and
numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the frequency as they were at
nearby off-refuge areas. On Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, water samples indicated the presence
of four CUPs. On nearby lands outside the Reelfoot refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that
exceeded aquatic life criteria—that is, they may endanger aquatic life.
On Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge, water samples indicated the presence of six CUPs. On
nearby lands outside the Lake Isom refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that exceeded aquatic
life criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are uncertain due to
limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a quantitative
risk assessment (Shea et al. 2001). In summary, the tests at both the Reelfoot and Lake Isom
refuges indicated no likely hazard in regard to OCPs, PCBs, or PAHs, but further testing is needed to
accurately determine the possible risks associated with current-use pesticides.
REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS
Prior to agricultural development, almost all of the area that surrounds Reelfoot Lake was covered with
bottomland hardwood floodplain forests. Scattered openings dotted the forested landscape and were
primarily created by fire, winds, beaver, Native Americans, or large flood events and river changes by the
Mississippi River and its tributaries. These openings were generally comprised of early successional and
shrub/scrub wetlands that created excellent waterfowl and other wetland wildlife habitat.
The advent of agriculture brought cotton production, which was well developed in the area by the
1830s. Cotton was a profitable commodity and production doubled every five years until 1860.
Continual cotton production began to deplete the soil, and farming practices abused the landscape.
Soybeans eventually became a major cash crop by the end of World War II and were less susceptible
to flooding, due to their short growing season. Additionally, extensive flood control efforts such as
channelization were well underway during this period and contributed greatly to the increase of
farmable lands. From 1947 until the late 1970s, land was still being cleared for farming operations.
Of 24 million acres of forested wetlands originally in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, only about five
million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al. 1979). Today, over 80 percent of the
MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al. 1999). The remaining forested lands are
typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley; of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than one
percent are greater than 10,000 acres.
Agricultural practices in the vicinity of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges have
resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests, which equates to
significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat. Actions to clear, settle, and farm the
lands around Reelfoot Lake have seriously degraded the lake through accelerated siltation of the
highly erodable soils. The bluffs east of the lake consist of extremely erosive loessial soils, which are
carried into the lake by its major tributaries in huge quantities. This silt deposition problem has been
causing a sedimentation problem to the lake for numerous years and efforts to solve it are not new.
Massive navigation and flood-control works have also severely impacted the natural hydrological
processes of the rivers within and adjacent to the refuges. As a result, the physical and biological
interaction between the rivers and floodplain has been impeded, and much of the system’s natural
functions have been hindered significantly. Natural scouring and flushing out of the lake bed by river
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
floodwaters have been eliminated by the separation of the lake from the Mississippi River by mainline
levees. As a result, Reelfoot Lake continues to silt in and become shallower, significantly reducing
the quality and quantity of its aquatic habitats.
Lake Isom is adjacent to Running Reelfoot Bayou, approximately four miles south of Reelfoot Lake.
As recently as the early 1920s, Lake Isom was connected to Running Reelfoot Bayou, but
construction of a ditch to drain Reelfoot Lake in 1921 effectively cut off the hydrological connection
between Lake Isom and Running Reelfoot Bayou, and ultimately with Reelfoot Lake, which is
upstream of Reelfoot Bayou. The impacts of river controls on Lake Isom have been similar to those
experienced by Reelfoot Lake, in the form of limited natural flushing and scouring and increased
sedimentation. Similarly, Lake Isom has for years experienced the same loss of aquatic habitat
quantity and quality, as the lake is gradually being filled in by excessive silt.
WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT OF REELFOOT LAKE
In 1929, the State of Tennessee enacted a law that authorized the construction of a spillway
for Reelfoot Lake and established a uniform and constant lake level at 282.2 feet above mean
sea level (msl). In 1941, a lease and cooperative agreement between the State of Tennessee
and the Service established Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge’s current boundary
includes approximately 3,278 acres of aquatic habitat that is part of 18,000-acre Reelfoot
Lake. The 1941 lease agreement also gave the Service the responsibility to regulate the
water level of Reelfoot Lake by operating the spillway and manipulating the water levels by as
much as three feet above or below the elevation of 282.2 feet msl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1989b). The Reelfoot Lake watershed consists of approximately 153,000 acres in
west Tennessee and southwest Kentucky, and has three major tributaries: Reelfoot Creek,
Indian Creek, and Bayou du Chien (Running Slough). The lake’s major outlet is Running
Reelfoot Bayou (also called the Spillway Ditch), which is controlled via the Reelfoot Lake
spillway and gate structures at the south end of Reelfoot Lake.
As described in the preceding section, problems relating to the refuge and the lake are numerous,
as a result of reduced hydrology, erosive soils, and high levels of sedimentation. In addition,
various parties surrounding the lake, including sportsmen, farmers, and business owners, have
conflicting interests and different ideologies about how Reelfoot Lake should be managed. Thus,
water level management at Reelfoot Lake has been a source of conflict among various user
groups for many years. Natural resource professionals recognize the hydrological and water
chemistry problems and have been searching for a solution that would benefit all involved.
As a result, a fifty-year management plan for Reelfoot Lake and its surrounding watershed
was prepared in conjunction with Joint Senate Resolution 235 of the 1986 Tennessee General
Assembly. The resolution, recognizing the urgency to resolve the immediate needs and long-term
management problems of Reelfoot Lake, directed that a proposed comprehensive plan
be prepared by January 6, 1987. Water level management at Reelfoot Lake then became the
subject of a three-year study that resulted in the release
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Reelfoot/Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan |
| Description | ReelfootLakeIsom_final.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject |
Document Wildlife refuges Planning |
| Location |
Region 4 Tennessee Kentucky |
| FWS Site |
REELFOOT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE LAKE ISOM NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | April 2006 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source | NCTC Conservation Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 5236594 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Length | 215 |
| Full Resolution File Size | 5236594 Bytes |
| Transcript | I W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan Reelfoot/Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge USFWS Photo a L I W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov 4343 Highway 157 - Union City, TN 38261 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Manager: Randy Cook Reelfoot NWR 4343 Highway 157 Union City, TN 38261 Phone: 731/538-2481 Fax: 731/538-9760 Email: Reelfoot@fws.gov U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov April 2006 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region April 2006 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN REELFOOT AND LAKE ISOM NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES Lake and Obion Counties, Tennessee Fulton County, Kentucky U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Regional Office 1875 Century Boulevard Atlanta, Georgia 30345 April 2006 Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3 National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3 Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4 Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................................5 Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................7 Overview .............................................................................................................................7 Threats and Problems.......................................................................................................10 Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................11 II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15 Overview....................................................................................................................................15 Issues ........................................................................................................................................16 Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................17 Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18 Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................19 Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20 Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................21 III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25 Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................25 Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................26 Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................27 Topography and Climate...................................................................................................27 Demography.....................................................................................................................28 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................29 Avian Species ...................................................................................................................29 Mammals..........................................................................................................................30 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................31 Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................31 Mussels............................................................................................................................31 Noxious and Invasive Species ..........................................................................................32 Habitats .............................................................................................................................32 Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................34 Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................35 Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................36 Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................36 Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................38 Water Level Management of Reelfoot Lake......................................................................39 Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................40 Wilderness Review............................................................................................................41 ii Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................43 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................43 Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................43 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................43 Comprehensive Conservation Plan – Summary Statement .......................................................44 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................45 Goal 1 – Waterfowl ..........................................................................................................45 Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species................................................................46 Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds ..........................................................................................47 Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds.................................................................................47 Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................48 Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................49 Goal 7 – Public Use ..........................................................................................................49 Goal 8 – Administration and Operation.............................................................................50 Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................51 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................53 Background ...............................................................................................................................53 Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................53 Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................................54 Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management...................54 Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education .................................58 Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation ...............................................61 Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation....................................................63 Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................64 Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................64 Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................67 Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................67 Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................67 SECTION B. APPENDICES APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................71 APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................77 APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................81 APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................85 APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS................................................................................103 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation...........................................................................103 Compatibility Determinations – Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge...........................................107 Compatibility Determinations – Lake Isom National Wildlife refuge .........................................140 APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES ..................................................171 Table of Contents iii APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................181 Public Scoping.........................................................................................................................181 Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................182 APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................193 APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.................................................................195 APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................199 List of Figures Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................2 Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................6 Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.......................................................................................8 Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley .................................................9 Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas .................................................................12 Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary for Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge.................................22 Figure 7. Approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge .............................23 Figure 8. Vicinity map of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges .....................................26 Figure 9. Existing habitat types on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges......................33 Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex..............65 List of Tables Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. ....................................................................................66 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. Background INTRODUCTION The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the management actions and direction of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges over the next 15 years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives for the two refuges. The plan’s overriding considerations are that fish and wildlife conservation requires first priority in refuge management, and that wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed and encouraged as long as they are is compatible with or do not detract from the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the two refuges were established. In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. The area for this joint planning study includes all of west Tennessee from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee River, and from border to border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi. This area covers approximately six million acres of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of this chapter, and in Chapter II, The Planning Process. During the planning process, four management alternatives were developed for the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges in an effort to determine how best to manage the two refuges over the next 15 years. The alternatives covered a broad spectrum of comments from the refuge staff, the general public, and others during the scoping process. After reviewing the two refuges’ management needs, the priorities of regional and national resource management plans, comments from the staff and public, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred action is described in Chapter V, Plan Implementation. The other alternatives considered during the planning process were addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuges would play in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities. The plan is needed to • provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuges; • ensure that management of the refuges is in keeping with the purposes for which the two refuges were established; • provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the Service’s management actions on the refuges and its partnerships around the refuges; • ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection, recreation, and education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; • ensure that the management of the refuges is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and • provide a basis for the two refuges’ operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 2 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort Gilt Edge LOWER HATCHIE NWR FORT PILLOW STATE PARK JIM TULLEY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA STATE OF TENNESSEE (TDOC) FORT PILLOW SUNK LAKE PUNA CHICKASAW NWR LAKE ISOM NWR I−155 I−40 51 64 45 45 70 79 Eva Lucy Eads Cuba Troy Guys Como Dyer Yuma Atoka Mason Locke Rives Obion Medon Bemis Ramer Halls Gates Paris Henry Luray Huron Crump Toone Milan Eaton Macon Lenox Bells Alamo Leach Sharon Martin Tipton Kenton Mercer Pinson Selmer Michie Finger Ripley Sardis Reagan Darden Shiloh Counce Medina Gibson Moscow Braden Miston Finley Bogota Atwood Camden Gleason Dukedom Dresden Clifton Munford Memphis Cordova Samburg Jackson Denmark Henning Ridgely Puryear Stanton Hornsby Bolivar Trenton Oakland Laconia Trimble Tigrett Newbern Parsons Gadsden Enville Lavinia Randolph Burlison Brighton Rosemark Lakeland Bartlett Hornbeak Elbridge Oakfield Chewalla Wynnburg Savannah Saltillo Silerton Idlewild Humboldt Bradford Gallaway Westport Bruceton Holladay Drummonds Covington Woodstock Kerrville Ellendale Brunswick Arlington Mansfield Lexington Olivehill Saulsbury Middleton Yorkville Williston Rossville La Grange Dyersburg Fruitvale Henderson Trezevant Big Sandy Greenfield Millington Germantown Union City Adamsville Whiteville Pocahontas Rutherford Somerville Maury City Sugar Tree Friendship Huntingdon Clarksburg Fisherville Barretville Beech Bluff Tiptonville Springville Scotts Hill Brownsville Jacks Creek Hollow Rock Cedar Grove Buena Vista Palmersville Collierville South Fulton Spring Creek Stantonville Wildersville Decaturville Bath Springs Milledgeville Cottage Grove Morris Chapel Hickory Withe Woodland Mills Bethel Springs Hickory Valley Grand Junction Essary Springs Crockett Mills McLemoresville Parker Crossroads CHICKASAW STATE FOREST NATCHEZ TRACE STATE PARK & FOREST WMA HATCHIE NWR REELFOOT LAKE WMA TIGRETT WMA MOSS ISLAND MEEMAN SHELBY STATE PARK WMA BIG HILL POND STATE PARK ERNEST RICE WMA HARTS MILL REFUGE HORNS BLUFF REGUGE LAKE GRAHAM WHITE LAKE REFUGE BEAN SWITCH REFUGE MUSTARD BOTTOMS WILDLIFE REFUGE BLACK BAYOU REFUGE PINSON MOUNDS STATE PARK FORT RIDGE T.O. FULLER STATE PARK CHICKASAW STATE PARK GARRETT LAKE LAKE LAUDERDALE REFUGE TIGRETT REFUGE SPRING CREEK JARRELL SWITCH PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT MANESS SWAMP REFUGE REELFOOT NWR CARROLL LAKE OAK DRAIN WETLAND WHITEVILLE LAKE OBION RIVER WMA WEST BANK−REELFOOT GOOCH WMA West Tennessee Focus Area 0 25 50 Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley T e n n e s s e e R i v e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 To better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues to seek cooperative working relationships with numerous agencies, organizations, and businesses. In keeping with this partnering concept, this comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant regional, national, and international resource management plans. These include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Project; the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetlands Conservation Initiative; the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan; the Partners-in-Flight Initiative; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network; the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan; the Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008); the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency–Scientific Ecology Group Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service also has specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding migratory birds, see the Service website at http://birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local and private entities. As part of its mission, the Service manages 545 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more than 96 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation. About 77 million acres are in Alaska; the remaining acreage is spread across the other 49 states and several island territories. NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were initiated in 1997 to fulfill the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are prepared with extensive public involvement, help guide the future management of the refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to • fulfill the individual purpose for which it was established; • fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • consider the needs of wildlife first; • fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the Refuge System; • maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are legitimate and priority public uses; and • allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses. 4 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Approximately 37.5 million people visited National Wildlife Refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation grows, the economic benefits to local communities will continue to increase. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related pursuits in 1996, according to Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997a). An updated version of this report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003b) found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging, transportation, and other expenditures. In addition, volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million. The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy; that the growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by National Wildlife Refuge System policy, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for refuge management are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104 (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix III. Guidance and direction can also be found in the following: • National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 • Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 • Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations • Fish and Wildlife Service Manual • National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to • contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to the refuge’s purposes and goals; • conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; • monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; • manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation); and • ensure that visitor activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for the protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in Tennessee. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (http://www.state.tn.us/twra/) is charged with game enforcement responsibilities and management of the state’s wildlife resources. The TWRA manages approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges. It also coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management areas. An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is the integration of common mission objectives where appropriate. The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee. As previously mentioned, a joint interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the TWRA, in collaboration with the Service’s comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee. This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this cooperative planning effort would develop comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands. In order to perform this joint planning effort, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all significant management actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), state agencies are not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that dictate federal planning requirements do not apply to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. So the two agencies sought to combine their planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy for each agency to accomplish its desired objectives. A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2) to allow both agencies to accomplish their planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. This process will produce joint objectives for west Tennessee lands, and will allow the Service to plan according to its NEPA requirements, while providing the TWRA the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without NEPA provisions. A core group was formed to oversee the planning process. This group consists of TWRA and Service project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership of the core group, nine resource working groups were recruited and developed to study nine specific resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of experts from various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals with expertise in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species, critical habitats, and opportunities, and developed management strategies for the west Tennessee resource groups. 6 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process. Focus Area-Wide Goals/Objectives CCP Process NEPA Process Comprehensive Conservation Plans West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Land Acquisition Proposals Habitat Enhancement Resource Working Groups State Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Private Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Federal Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies West Tennessee Master Plan Core Group Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 The nine resource working groups developed a set of focus area-wide goals and objectives, which were then translated into a series of map overlays that rank the areas of specific interest and provide a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In addition, each working group developed a text describing the goals, objectives, and strategies for implementing the desired goals and objectives for each specific resource category. The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies for private, state, and federal lands, and then incorporated into the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002). The goals, objectives, and strategies developed for federal lands were used by the Service as the biological foundation for its refuge comprehensive conservation planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee lands, the planning process produced a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot/Lake Isom; Chickasaw; Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie. Once finalized, the refuge CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is expected to be compiled in 2006. It will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal managers alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative interagency management and administration of west Tennessee resources. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT OVERVIEW On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges are located within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3). The Service’s resource priorities for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are as follows: • Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened, and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. • Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Plan 2000). The Lower Mississippi Valley (which is a geographic subset of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem) once supported a vast complex of bottomland hardwood forests that extended along the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this bottomland hardwood forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or remains in scattered patches throughout the region (Figure 4). Floodwaters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower Mississippi Valley is fragmented by levees, and its water flows are restricted by flood control projects and agricultural diversions. Its water quality is heavily impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. 8 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Baton Rouge Vicksburg Monroe Little Rock Dyersburg Memphis Poplar Bluff TENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA ARKANSAS MISSOURI KENTUCKY Reelfoot NWR Lake Isom NWR Chickasaw NWR Lower Hatchie NWR 0 30 60 120 180 240 Miles Legend National Wildlife Refuges State Wildlife Management Areas Mississippi Alluvial Valley Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley ! " ! ## " ! ## ! $ $ % 10 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges The rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid, laden with pesticides; and support a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners, local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus its efforts on adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The biological objectives targeted in this plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally, nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously. THREATS AND PROBLEMS The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United States, and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern physiographic areas (Twedt et al. 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. The national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the remaining wildlife resources. Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include • the loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland hardwood forests; • the loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, i.e., fragmentation; • the effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of agricultural and timber harvesting practices; • the homogenization of remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem; and • the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct. Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alterations in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley have resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et al. 2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have decreased in the past several decades, and the availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance, distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al. 1994). The species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are those that are area-sensitive or dependent on special habitat requirements such as large, mature blocks of forest that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 bird species nest regularly in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting waterbirds, with at least 70 species occurring in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat (Twedt et al,.1999). Less than one percent of the remaining forest patches are large enough to support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al. 2000). Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic resource productivity. Despite efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other aquatic resources, a growing number are declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost 400 aquatic species either have or need special protection in some part of their natural or historic range (Williams et al. 1989; Moyle and Leidy 1992). The number of aquatic species listed in 2002 as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has increased to 19 amphibian species, 21 crustacean species, 70 mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these declines are linked largely to habitat loss or alteration (including flow changes, watershed modifications, sedimentation, and pollution) and the impacts of harmful exotic or transplanted species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES Conservation priorities for National Wildlife Refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. Working with others makes the Service more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. The Service and other agencies consider bottomland hardwood forests a high priority on which to focus management efforts. A combination of land protection and habitat management methods is used by the Service and others to compensate for bottomland hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared or common long-term goals established for this area. The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its associated Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive conservation plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering habitat for midcontinental waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of wetland habitats in North America. In addition, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan encompasses a regional approach with the same objectives: to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The joint venture has initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds, and has identified conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts. One of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for migratory bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than 100,000 acres. In addition, Partners in Flight has developed a Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation Plan that establishes habitat objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al. 1998). In order to meet population objectives for migratory land birds, this plan has identified 87 bird conservation areas (BCAs), broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases, which serve as priority areas for forest restoration, will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity. In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and/or protection of one each of the following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres. Three Tennessee bird conservation areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) were identified by Ford (1998) and are delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the Upper, Middle, and Lower Implementation Zones. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges are included within the Upper Implementation Zone, which extends from the Kentucky- Tennessee state line south to the northern boundary of Moss Island Wildlife Management Area 12 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas Shelby Dyer Fayette Tipton Haywoo Lauderdale Lake BCA 3 − Lower Implementation Zone BCA 1− Upper Implementation Zone Legend Bird Conservation Areas USFWS Lands USFWS Expansion Boundaries State Lands Mississippi Alluvial Valley 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 Miles Lower Hatchie NWR Chickasaw NWR Lake Isom NWR Reelfoot NWR BCA 2− Middle Implementation Zone Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 (TWRA and USFWS 2002). Future land acquisitions within the two refuges’ approved acquisition boundaries would contribute toward achieving these BCA goals. Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners in Flight Plan (Twedt et al. 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species (Bonney et al. 1999). Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat type from which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This list of focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuges. The Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b) has established five resource ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive conservation plan. These goals involve the protection, enhancement, and management of the following: migratory bird populations and habitats; wetlands; habitats and populations of endangered, threatened, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands in conjunction with public lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce redundancy and overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations. 14 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 II. The Planning Process OVERVIEW The west Tennessee planning effort included the preparation of four comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for five national wildlife refuges: Reelfoot and Lake Isom; Chickasaw; Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie. It also included the cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan, which identifies resources and management goals for approximately 10,000 square miles of federal, state, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the state, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan provided the main biological foundation for the four national wildlife refuge CCPs. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (in which four of the five west Tennessee national wildlife refuges are located), migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen 2001; TWRA and USFWS 2002; Twedt et al. 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the comprehensive planning effort that sufficient habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be provided on the national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective national wildlife refuge boundaries and incorporated any public and private lands that might be available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs for west Tennessee, and incorporated over 6 million acres of land. The final product of this west Tennessee planning effort will be a West Tennessee Master Plan that will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the four refuge CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats in the western third of the State of Tennessee. The planning process began in January, 2000, with initial core group meetings in which the Service and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The core group selected nine resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for specific resource categories on federal, state, and private lands within the west Tennessee planning area (Figure 1). Preplanning for the Reelfoot and Lake Isom draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment also began during early 2000. The identification of issues is a major factor in determining the management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans. To ensure that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series of meetings and interviews was conducted to guide the identification of issues for the planning effort. In September 2000, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge and the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex) began meeting to discuss the refuges’ issues and management opportunities. On November 14, 2000, a public scoping meeting was held in Tiptonville, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding their perceived issues and opportunities for management of the refuges. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by mailings, with additional comments received 16 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges by mail, telephone, and e-mail. The planning staff of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of management alternatives in the draft environmental assessment. Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations and the surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and the projects identified for the refuges. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Reelfoot and Lake Isom Planning Review Group, in which refuge neighbors, organizations, educators, government agencies, and local officials were invited to attend and share their thoughts in a focus group meeting. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom Planning Review Group included representatives from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency; Reelfoot State Park; Ducks Unlimited; Tennessee Ornithological Society; Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges; Dyersburg State Community College; the University of Tennessee at Martin; and the Reelfoot Lake Tourism Council, as well as local landowners, businessmen, and county officials from Tennessee and Kentucky. This group provided oversight during the planning process, and solicited suggestions from local individuals and private interests. Draft versions of the comprehensive conservation plan were routed to the Planning Review Group members periodically for review, and their comments were considered in plan revisions. The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January, 2002, the WTWR Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for much of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, as well as other relevant documents, the input received from the public, and the refuge staff’s professional judgment, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom Technical Team evaluated the two refuges’ issues and resource needs and developed various management alternatives which were then considered in the Draft Environmental Assessment. The alternatives addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The environmental assessment constituted the documentation and process by which the proposed action was selected. Once the proposed action was selected, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom Technical Team developed a set of goals, objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15 years. The goals, objectives, and strategies are described in Chapter IV, Management Direction. A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The public will be notified when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges is available. ISSUES The identification of issues provided the basis for initiating the development of management objectives and strategies. The identified issues play a role in determining the refuges’ future conditions and were considered in the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues and concerns described in the following pages were generated by the public, the Planning Review Group, and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 21 issues was consolidated into a list of 18 issue categories concerning the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. The 18 issues were grouped according to five broad management categories: (1) fish and wildlife population issues; (2) habitat issues; (3) visitor services and environmental education issues; (4) refuge administration and operation issues; and (5) land protection and conservation issues. Appendix VII provides a summary of the comments received during the public scoping process. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES Waterfowl Populations Because the refuges’ establishing purpose was specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” (see the “Refuge Purpose” section in Chapter III), all operations and management are considered in light of their impact on migratory birds, of which waterfowl are the most numerous. The refuge staff monitors the refuges’ waterfowl populations, and works to provide sufficient high quality habitat to fulfill the population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as established in Ford and Wathen (2001) and the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002). A portion of the refuges is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl (please refer to the following “Habitat Issues” section). In order to meet their objectives for waterfowl, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet the habitat needs of waterfowl and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. Songbird Populations Nearly every study examining the population trends of North America’s Neotropical migratory birds has reported declines in at least some species (Askins et al. 1990). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has been identified as experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel et al. 1994). Partners in Flight has developed conservation plans for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al. 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey et al. 1998) to address priority species and bird conservation issues. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and Neotropical migrant populations, in keeping with the refuges’ goals and establishing purposes. Threatened and Endangered Species A key function of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges is to enhance the survival of threatened and endangered species. Two federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to use or populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuges: the bald eagle and the interior least tern. As many as 200 bald eagles are known to winter annually in the vicinity of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges, and one known active nest is documented on Lake Isom. The refuges’ habitat restoration and protection activities continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles. Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars in close proximity to Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, and are regularly observed feeding on refuge lands. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’ protection of lands within approximately three miles of the Mississippi River provides protection to interior least tern feeding areas. This protection also includes the sandbars, which are used by least tern nesting colonies during the summer months. Resident Species Populations The two refuges’ resident wildlife include game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, rabbits, and furbearers, as well as numerous species of nongame mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The refuges monitor some resident wildlife populations through surveys such as the turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. Species groups that lend themselves to management (deer, turkey, etc.) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management goals, and refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored in order to identify potential 18 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges management issues. The benefits to resident species are one of the factors considered when opportunities arise for land acquisition within the refuges’ current approved acquisition boundaries. Shorebird Populations Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent inundation of fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Refuge waterfowl management activities may provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with management of impoundments and moist soil units. The staff monitors shorebird use on the refuges and looks for opportunities to support the priorities of the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird populations. HABITAT ISSUES Waterfowl Habitat Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the purpose for which the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges were established. Thus, the refuges’ management priorities must be directed toward providing quality wetland areas that are attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving ducks, and geese. Each management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for each group to complete its life cycle. A portion of the refuges is dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order to meet their objectives for waterfowl, the refuges must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl habitat needs, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. Songbird Habitat As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, the refuges’ priorities include providing quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migrant songbirds. The refuges’ land and forest management practices will continue to take into account the value of such practices to songbirds. The refuges will continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant populations. Forest Habitat Management The refuges protect more than 7,294 acres of bottomland hardwood and bald cypress forest habitat. The refuges’ bottomland hardwood forests provide invaluable habitat for a wide range of wildlife species and are critical to their preservation and perpetuation. Bottomland hardwood forests are important to migratory and wintering waterfowl, particularly mallards and wood ducks. The forested tracts provide crucial food resources such as hard mast, soft mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events in the fall and early spring. The refuges will complete their habitat and forest habitat management plans, and management decisions will be made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge purposes, with due consideration for all other environmental factors. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 Cooperative Farming Agricultural crops play an important role in the scheme of migratory bird management, as they provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the refuges supply corn and soybean crops, which are rotated with moist soil units or produced on the higher elevations to ensure a readily available source of food for wildlife, and to meet refuge objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The cropland operation on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges includes approximately 1,560 acres, which are managed in a combination of agricultural crops and moist soil foods. This acreage varies from year to year, based on management needs. Under a cooperative farming agreement, this acreage is divided by a 75-to-25 percent farmer-to- refuge ratio, with the refuges’ portion of the crops usually grown on the lower and wetter fields. These crops are left standing in the fields and provide supplemental forage for resident and migratory wildlife, specifically migratory waterfowl. Another farming option being used on the refuges is force-account farming, in which refuge personnel and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component in the overall management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a portion of the refuges. Force-account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that the Service must bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer, and chemicals. Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the cooperative farmer to bear the cost of production and leave a designated share of crops in the field as payment for renting the property. Thus, force-account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense but the advantage of greater flexibility and retains one hundred percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of agricultural products left in the field for use by wildlife. Approximately 385 acres of the refuges’ crop fields can be flooded for waterfowl use as part of the refuges’ impoundment systems. This, coupled with subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuges to make substantial contributions to the migratory bird objectives of the Mississippi Flyway. The refuges’ farming program will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. Moist Soil Habitat Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl, as these food resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges and the associated river floodplains are capable of supplying moist soil foods such as barnyard grass, sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous plants. As described previously, the refuges manage approximately 1,560 acres of a combination of agricultural crops and moist soil foods. This acreage varies from year to year, based on management needs. The refuges annually provide substantial acreages of these early successional moist soil habitats and play a key role in the migration patterns of midcontinental waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuges’ present and future resource management will in large part be influenced by practices that actively benefit waterfowl, including moist soil habitats. The management of the refuges’ moist soil units will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that hunting and fishing are two consumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In addition, hunting and 20 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges fishing are integral parts of the lifestyle and culture of west Tennessee. Due to this fact and the limited amount of public lands, it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding the refuges’ hunting and fishing opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. However, the refuges’ hunting opportunities could be expanded through additional land acquisitions from willing sellers within the current approved acquisition boundaries. The refuges will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance hunting and fishing opportunities, in keeping with their other resource needs and establishing purposes. Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are four nonconsumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In accordance with this legislation, the refuges will seek to increase opportunities for these priority public uses. Currently, hunting and fishing are the major public uses on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges. More exposure resulting from expanded nonconsumptive recreational uses and programs would increase public awareness and have a positive effect on other refuge programs. The refuges are located in Lake and Obion counties, Tennessee, and Fulton County, Kentucky (combined population 47,738) within six miles of Tiptonville, Tennessee (population 4,203), approximately 18 miles from Union City, Tennessee (population 10,770) and 107 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population 648,882) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). Better-developed visitor facilities would provide greatly enhanced wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreational opportunities to Lake and Obion counties, Tennessee, and Fulton County, Kentucky. The refuges will examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuges, in keeping with their other resource needs and establishing purposes. Public Access Reelfoot and Lake Isom are frequently visited national wildlife refuges with a high degree of public interest in the opportunities they offer for the enjoyment of natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the refuges to provide, when compatible with refuge purposes, opportunities for the “big six” wildlife-dependent types of public recreation. The “big six” are hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. Therefore, attention must be given to providing the appropriate amount and forms of visitor access on the refuges. Issues regarding the increasing or limiting of public access should be considered with respect to the refuges’ overall resource management goals and purposes. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION ISSUES Maintenance and Operations The budget for national wildlife refuges is limited because the available funds must be prioritized and divided among the 550 individual refuges that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. Operating within a fixed budget requires the prioritizing of programs and projects that compete for funding and staffing. The Service’s Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) are the processes used for the refuges to submit their budgetary requests. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’ management priorities include managing aquatic and forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species; cultural resources; public use; and law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance. Consideration should be given to providing Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 comprehensive maintenance of the refuges’ facilities, within the constraints of available resources and management priorities. Management decisions would continue to address the refuges’ priority operational needs, and budgetary requests would be made in keeping with the goals and purposes for which the refuges were established. Law Enforcement Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use and, unfortunately, in some cases, misuse; so the continual involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in order to protect the resources as well as the public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive law enforcement on refuge lands. As with other issues, refuge priorities must be established which compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should be considered and ways to improve law enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuges’ goals and purposes. LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES Land Acquisition The refuges’ land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources as well as additional wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge has a current approved acquisition boundary of 18,015 acres. As of June 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total of 10,428 acres within this approved acquisition boundary (Figure 6). Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge has a current approved acquisition boundary of 7,133 acres. As of June 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total of 1,850 acres within this approved acquisition boundary (Figure 7). Public perception of federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which eminent domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. It is the Service’s policy to acquire land only from willing sellers, and every effort should be made to provide effective information to the public in order to promote full understanding of the refuge acquisition process. Management decisions must include acquisition priorities as well as future management of acquired tracts in light of the refuges’ goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. Water Level Management Water level management has the potential to affect the resources on the refuges and their immediate vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and natural flooding induced by the Obion and Mississippi river systems and their immediate tributaries. Impacts from refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. (On a larger scale, water level management of Reelfoot Lake (most of which is not located on either refuge) involves the cooperation of several partners and has a lengthy history. A brief summary of the water level management of Reelfoot Lake and how it relates to this comprehensive conservation plan is described in Appendix VI.) The comprehensive planning process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a case-by-case basis, while keeping management decisions in line with the refuges’ management goals and purposes, as well as potential water level impacts on neighboring lands. 22 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary for Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge REELFOOT LAKE WMA Reelfoot State Park Phillippy Unit Mississippi River Hwy 21 Legend Boat Ramp Observation Tower Office Acquisition Boundary Refuge Boundary State Lands County Roads Reelfoot Lake Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 Figure 7. Approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Eagle Nest Trail Boundary Line Rd Bluff Rd Will Short Rd Grady Tolar Rd Madie Thompson Rd Peacock Rd Lake Rd Putnam Hill R d Free Bridge Rd Bradshaw Rd Minnick−Elbridge Rd Wynnburg−Keefe Rd Isom Lake Rd Bluff Rd Reelfoot Lake Legend County Roads Refuge Roads Lake Isom Boundary Landowner Tracts w/in Acquisition Boundary 24 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Protection of Unique Areas Significant archaeological surveys were conducted on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges in 1979 (Dickson and Campbell 1979) and 1997 (Brown et al. 1998). Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted throughout the nearby portions of west Tennessee. These archaeological surveys document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. The results of the archaeological surveys conducted on the refuges, as well as past history, indicate that many more cultural resource sites are likely to exist on refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas, in keeping with the refuges’ goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. All of the above issues were further addressed in the “Summary of Management Alternatives” section of Chapter IV, Environmental Consequences, in the Draft Environmental Assessment. In that section, the issues were analyzed within the context of the four different management alternatives that were considered and evaluated during the planning process. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 III. Refuge Description LAND ACQUISITION Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge is located within four miles of the Mississippi River in rural northwest Tennessee, about 35 miles north of the city of Dyersburg and 15 miles southwest of Union City. It encompasses parts of Lake and Obion counties in Tennessee, and extends northward into Fulton County, Kentucky. Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge is located in Lake County, Tennessee, about 2 miles south of Reelfoot Lake and five miles southeast of Tiptonville, Tennessee (Figure 8). Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004). This acreage includes 7,847 acres managed by the Service under a 1941 lease agreement with the State of Tennessee, as well as 2,581 acres owned in fee title. In addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion to the acquisition boundary was approved in 1989; it included an additional 7,587 acres adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). If funding and opportunities becomes available, the Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the total size of the Reelfoot refuge to 18,015 acres. The majority of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary is located in Kentucky and adjoins the Mississippi River at its northernmost point. At full expansion, the refuge boundary would encompass the bulk of the remaining bottomland hardwood forest on or surrounding Reelfoot Lake. The refuge lies within the Mississippi Flyway and is part of a 20,000+ acre migratory bird zone identified in the WTWR Conservation Plan. Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 1,850 acres (as of June 1, 2004). In addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion to the acquisition boundary was approved in 1989; it includes an additional 5,283 acres adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). If funding and opportunities become available, the Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the total size of the Lake Isom refuge to 7,133 acres. Most of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary is currently in agricultural production, although 788 acres of the approved acquisition boundary is upland woods along the Bluff Road. The Lake Isom refuge also lies within the Mississippi Flyway and is part of a 20,000+ acre migratory bird zone identified in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation, other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other areas. The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. Funding for acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). 26 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Figure 8. Vicinity map of Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions would be provided through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1). REFUGE PURPOSE The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges are administered under the National Wildlife Refuge System and thus are part of a larger national landscape conservation plan set forth by the Service. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). There are currently 545 national wildlife refuges encompassing more than 96 million acres of lands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The refuges are important components for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources within the National Wildlife Refuge System. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 28, 1941, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.715d). Subsequent lands for the refuge were # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # 20 Miles IL AR TN KY MO 45 Miles Farmington Cape Girardeau Poplar Bluff Paragould Blytheville Dyersburg Union C ity Jackson Brownsville Millington Bartlett Memphis West Memphis Murray Paducah Carbondale Marion Herrin Jonesboro Kennett Sikeston Reelfoot Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge Refuge National W ild life Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Vicinity Map N 20 0 20 40 Miles Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 acquired under the authority of the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534). The refuge was specifically authorized “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act), and is “... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ...” (Refuge Recreation Act). Further, lands acquired under the Endangered Species Act have additional purposes, described as “... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife, ... or (B) plants, ... which are listed as endangered species or threatened species ... ” (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1534, Endangered Species Act of 1973). Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 12, 1938, by Executive Order 7953. Subsequent lands were acquired under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d). The refuge was specifically authorized “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife ...” (Executive Order 7953), and also “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (Migratory Bird Conservation Act). The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) later declared national wildlife refuges to be “suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....” In conjunction with their primary establishing purposes, these refuges will provide inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds and preserve for the public benefit a representative portion of the bottomland hardwood forests of the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. The refuges would also help support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Team. These ecosystem priorities involve migratory bird populations and their habitats; wetlands; threatened and endangered species and their habitats; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000b). REFUGE ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges are located in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, within three and six miles, respectively, of the eastern shore of the Mississippi River. The Tennessee portion of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley is a subset of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The dominant land forms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River, downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley is a 24-million-acre, relatively flat, weakly dissected alluvial plain, comprised of natural levees, basins and flats, point bar formations, terraces, tributary floodplains, and depressional wetlands. It is among the most heavily modified physiographichillside0260! areas in the southeastern United States, but it still supports the largest forested floodplain in North America (Twedt et al. 1999). This portion of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley overlies the New Madrid fault line, with the potential for earthquakes. The most significant recent geological event, which shaped the present-day landscape of the Reelfoot Lake area, was the New Madrid earthquakes. This series of earthquakes, which shook the area from December 1811 through February 1812, is reported as being the most significant to hit the continental United States in recorded history. These earthquakes reportedly caused the Mississippi River to flow backwards when an area just south of the Reelfoot refuge, known as the Tiptonville Dome, was thrust 28 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges violently upwards into the path of the river. Likewise, an area as much as 30 miles long and 10 miles wide, by some accounts, sank up to 50 feet, creating a sunken forest and forming the present-day Reelfoot Lake. Over the history of Reelfoot Lake, altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. As a result of the construction of main line levees between the refuges and the Mississippi River, land and lake formation associated with Mississippi River meandering is no longer occurring, or is occurring on a very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs. Extensive drainage efforts that have occurred from the early twentieth century to the present day have resulted in significantly altered drainage patterns in the vicinity of both the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges. As recently as the early 1920s Lake Isom was a part of Reelfoot Lake, but construction of a ditch to drain Reelfoot Lake in 1921 effectively cut off the hydrological connection between Lake Isom and Reelfoot Lake. Actions to clear and settle the lands around Reelfoot Lake have seriously degraded the lake through accelerated siltation caused by farming the highly erodable soils around the lake and on the adjacent loess bluffs. In addition, ongoing sedimentation is gradually filling in many aquatic features on the refuge. Both the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges have elevations ranging from 275 to 285 feet above mean sea level, with the highest elevations occurring along existing or old channels of tributaries. The soils of the refuges are of the Swamp-Bowdre-Sharkey Association. All the soils in this association were formed in sediments deposited by the Mississippi River. Differences in elevation account for most of the differences among the soils; however, nearly two-thirds of this association is level, dominantly swampy terrain. It is ponded for long periods, and the lowest positions along Reelfoot Lake support only water-tolerant plants such as bald cypress. Fifteen soil series are found on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. Five major types, Bowdre, Convent, Iberia, Sharkey, and Tunica, represent approximately 80 percent of the soils on the refuges. The other types occur on a more localized basis. The Soil Survey of Lake County, Tennessee (Brown et al. 1969), the Soil Survey of Obion County, Tennessee (Brown et al. 1973), and the Soil Survey of Fulton County, Kentucky (Newton and Sims 1987), contain maps and descriptions of these soil types. The climate of the refuges is characterized by fairly mild winters, hot summers, and abundant rainfall. There are wide and frequent changes in weather, both from day to day and from season to season. The average annual temperature at Union City is 59 degrees Fahrenheit. Extremes of 109 degrees and a minus 23 were recorded during the period 1931-60, but prolonged periods of very cold or very hot weather are unusual. The average date of the last freezing temperature in the spring is March 31. The average date of the first freezing temperature in the fall is October 28. The growing season averages 210 days. The average annual rainfall is approximately 49 inches, with extremes of 31 inches (1941) and 72 inches (1950) having been recorded. Winter and early spring are the rainiest times of the year; summer and early fall are the driest (Brown et al. 1973). DEMOGRAPHY The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west Tennessee. The areas immediately surrounding the refuges are even less populated than most of west Tennessee, due to their locations adjacent to the Obion and Mississippi rivers and their floodplains. According to estimates based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), Lake County, Tennessee, had a population of approximately 7,793 people in 2002, a decrease of 2.0 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 percent since the 2000 census. Obion County, Tennessee, had approximately 32,394 in 2002, a decrease of 0.2 percent since 2000; and Fulton County, Kentucky, had approximately 7,551 in 2002, a decrease of 2.6 percent since 2000. The total estimated population for 2002 in the three counties that encompass the two refuges was 47,738. The per capita incomes of the states and counties recorded in 1999 are as follows: Tennessee, $19,393; Lake County, $10,794; Obion County, $17,409; Kentucky, $18,093; and Fulton County, $14,309. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic bases in the three counties. Several small to medium manufacturing companies are also located in the counties; some of the major private employers include Goodyear Tires, Tyson Foods, Lenox Fireplace, Wal-Mart, Baptist Memorial Hospital, county and city schools, and the utility companies. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitats for threatened and endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Two federally listed species, the endangered interior least tern and the threatened bald eagle, are found on or near the refuges. The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars within four miles of Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, and feed on refuge lands. As many as 200 bald eagles winter annually in the vicinity of Reelfoot Lake, with at least one known active nest documented on Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge. No federally listed flora are known on the refuges. A Section 7 Intra- Service Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V. AVIAN SPECIES Birds are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989a). Appendix IV contains a list of the avian species known to occur on the refuges and their residence status. The bottomland hardwood forests serve as important habitat for breeding birds and migrants in the spring and fall, and migratory birds occur seasonally in substantial numbers. For migratory forest-breeding songbirds and shorebirds, the ecological and biological significance is transcontinental, with the refuges providing breeding and migration habitat for Gulf of Mexico migrants returning from their wintering grounds in Central and South America. Recent studies indicate significant population declines in some species of Neotropical migrant birds (Askins et al. 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most Neotropical migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring on nearby Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge during 1985-87 and 1991. Additional research began in 1992 and is ongoing to assess the habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel et al. 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. Approximately 32 species of shorebirds (TWRA and USFWS 2002) are commonly found in west Tennessee, with the highest populations occurring during migration periods that typically peak from August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Shorebird species common to west Tennessee include the killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge lands that provide shorebird habitat include riverine mudbars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, the margins of reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges manage 30 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges approximately 245 acres of impoundments as shorebird habitat. Shorebird habitat is provided within the impoundments each spring (target 250 acres) and fall (target 60 acres). The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl populations that breed in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges and their adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population numbers in the vicinity of the two refuges may exceed 250,000. The value of Reelfoot and Lake Isom as waterfowl wintering areas is enhanced by their proximity to other refuges. The two refuges lie within 125 miles of numerous other national wildlife refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to the west; White River, Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie to the south; Tennessee to the east; and Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek and Mingo to the north. Other species of waterfowl known to use the areas include the black ducks; gadwall; pintail; green-winged teal; blue-winged teal; widgeon; wood duck; ring-necked ducks; and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and depend on refuge habitats for nesting and brood-rearing. The combined waterfowl objectives for the two refuges are 3.5 million goose-use days and 15.2 million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, impoundments, flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of the refuge expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Wild turkeys are also present on the refuges, although spring flooding sometimes impacts nesting success. Flocks consisting of upwards of 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, in which the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves and bobwhite quail are common on open lands within and adjacent to the refuges. Common raptors include the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, northern harrier, barred owl, and turkey and black vultures. Kestrels and broad-winged hawks are also present but occur less frequently. MAMMALS The diverse habitat types on the two refuges are very productive for a wide variety of game and nongame mammals, represented by seven taxonomic orders, including pouched mammals (opossums), insect-eaters (shrews and moles), bats, flesh-eaters (raccoon), gnawing mammals (squirrels and mice), rabbits, and even-toed hoofed mammals (white-tailed deer). Mammalian game species hunted on the refuges include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbits. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink. Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels. Providing a diversity of habitats on the refuges contributes to healthy populations of numerous mammalian species, as well as other resident animals. Habitat management practices that focus on providing habitat for migratory birds would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diversity of forest habitats would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats. Appendix IV provides a list of the mammalian species known to occur on the refuges. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES A diverse group of amphibians is found on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges, including salamanders, toads, and frogs. Most are well adapted to the aquatic and terrestrial environments found on the refuges, with moisture being typically important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and skinks, are common as well. Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most of the refuges’ freshwater and terrestrial habitats, and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the environmental health of an ecosystem. A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are declining. Loss and degradation of habitat are the main known causes of declines in reptile and amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alterations, and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee which negatively affect populations. The refuges’ land protection and management efforts serve these populations by protecting their existing habitats, as well as by restoring degraded habitats. Comprehensive inventories are planned to establish baseline information on the occurrence and habitat use of amphibian and reptilian species by 2009. Specific knowledge of which species occur on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area. The reptiles and amphibians known to exist in west Tennessee and their status are listed in Appendix IV. AQUATIC SPECIES The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes between the Obion and Mississippi rivers and their associated wetland habitats on the refuges provide a constant and renewable fishery. When flooding occurs in the spring, these areas provide good nurseries for juvenile fish. The sloughs, rivers, and lakes within the refuges support a diversity of game fish, including largemouth bass, black crappie, white crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, and channel catfish. Nongame species such as carp, buffalo, and drum are also present. Appendix IV provides a comprehensive listing of the fish likely to occur in the Mississippi River proper and its directly westward-flowing tributaries in western Tennessee, including the rivers on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges (TWRA and USFWS 2001). Although decades of hydrologic alteration and sedimentation have impacted the aquatic resources in the refuges’ vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for Fish and Wildlife, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Cropland Reserve Program, and Forest Legacy. MUSSELS A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuges, and few published surveys are available on the mussels of the Mississippi River and its major tributaries in west Tennessee. However, a survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported seven species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in Ortmann 1926) listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake. Don Manning (1989) later reported 33 species of mussels in the nearby Hatchie River. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels likely exist in 32 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges the vicinity of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges. Mussel species known to exist in the Obion and Forked Deer rivers of west Tennessee are listed in Appendix IV. As stated in the above Aquatic Resources section, hydrologic alterations and sedimentation have impacted the area’s aquatic resources, including mussels. Similarly, the refuges’ land protection and habitat restoration efforts result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and mussel species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use practices. In addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel populations should be conducted on the waters of the refuges and surrounding vicinity, when resources and opportunities become available. NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE SPECIES Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuges include a hybrid cocklebur, and hemp sesbania. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is resistant to flooding and wet soil conditions. This species is prolific and will outcompete native moist soil vegetation in moist soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will also outcompete the preferred moist soil plants. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges’ Habitat Management Plan includes plans and preferred methods for control and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species. HABITATS Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges provide a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife species. The habitats on the refuges consist of approximately 98 acres of open administrative land; 1,560 acres of agriculture and moist soil open lands (the agricultural/moist soil breakdown varies from year to year); 2,168 acres of bald cypress/tupelo forest; 5,126 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forest; 11 acres of upland forest; and 3,315 acres of open water. The total current deeded acreage being managed as Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge is 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004). The total current deeded acreage being managed as Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge is 1,850 acres (as of June 1, 2004). Figure 9 shows the existing habitat types on the two refuges. The refuges’ 5,126 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods consist of black willow, eastern cottonwood, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, bald cypress, sweet pecan, bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. Forest management practices are used in these areas to maintain an optimal diversity of forest habitat for wildlife. Mast production in the bottomland hardwood habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl, deer, squirrel, and turkey. During the winter and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat. The 11 acres of upland forest are dominated by southern red oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, post oak, white oak, various hickories, and American beech. There are approximately 1,560 acres of agriculture/moist soil open lands on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges. In any given year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for agricultural production and 50 percent are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year to year due to river flooding and other factors. The croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers, who grow corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is usually planted in corn, which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption. The refuges currently contain approximately 2,168 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is dominated by bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory, with buttonbush most abundant in the understory. In the 3,315 acres of open water habitat found on the refuges, dominant vegetation Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 Figure 9. Existing habitat types on Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Reelfoot NWR State HWY 78 Lake Isom NWR Reelfoot Lake State HWY 183 Kentucky Tennessee State HWY 78 State HWY 21 State HWY22 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Types Habitat Types Administrative Agriculture/Moist Soils Baldcypress Bottomland Forest Open Water Upland Forest Acres 98 1,560 2,168 5,126 3,315 11 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 Miles 34 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges includes submerged aquatics such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail, as well as emergents such as American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily. EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuges have adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses are management’s primary focuses for recreation, and over time programs will be developed to increase visitor awareness and appreciation of the refuges’ fish and wildlife resources. Wildlife-dependent recreation activities currently available on the refuges include wildlife observation (by hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation, hunting, and fishing. Hunting and fishing have been the primary uses on the refuges since their inception, and encompass the majority of public use. The refuge staff also provides a diversity of interpretive and environmental education programs, including tours to observe concentrations of up to 200 bald eagles, as well as concentration of ducks and geese, which winter in the Reelfoot Lake area. Currently, the refuges’ interpretive facilities include a visitor center with a 15- seat auditorium; three observation platforms (all of which are universally accessible); a boardwalk; and a 0.6-mile trail that is currently being constructed. In fiscal year 2003, the refuges received about 293,724 visitors, although visitor use data is limited. The refuges are open during some of the state hunting seasons, specifically squirrel, raccoon, and archery deer, as well as a limited quota hunt for firearms deer and turkey. Fishing is permitted when the refuges are open, but all public access is closed on Reelfoot from November 15 to March 15 on the Long Point unit and from November 15 to January 31 on the waters of the Grassy Island unit. Lake Isom is closed to all public entry from November 15 to March 15. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities unless those activities are expressly permitted; however, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography are permitted on most areas of the refuges. Numerous other public lands within commuting distance offer wildlife-dependent recreation experiences. Three other national wildlife refuges, including Chickasaw (25,006 acres), Lower Hatchie (9,451 acres), and Hatchie (11,556 acres), are located within a two-hour drive of Reelfoot and Lake Isom. Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, with facilities including fishing piers, boat ramps, and bank fishing areas. Reelfoot and Hatchie offer universally accessible fishing areas. Big and small game hunting are offered on each west Tennessee national wildlife refuge. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages approximately 250,000 acres of state wildlife management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee. All of these TWRA lands offer some fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby state wildlife management areas include Anderson-Tully (12,000 acres); Moss Island (3,400 acres); and Tigrett (7,000 acres). The State of Tennessee allows the use of both modern and primitive weapons. During the 2003-4 season, the state offered in west Tennessee a total of 39 days of modern gun deer hunting; 53 days of muzzleloader deer hunting; and 105 days of archery deer hunting. Most of west Tennessee’s wildlife management areas are also open to waterfowl and small game hunting. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 REFUGE ADMINISTRATION Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of five permanent employees. The staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially moist soil and agricultural habitats for waterfowl, as well as forest management and environmental education. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Habitat Management Plan provides an inventory of existing habitat resources and long term plans for management of these resources to maximize their value for a diversity of wildlife species. Of particular concern under management activities is providing quality habitats for migratory birds. The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies, and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on keeping the public informed regarding public use opportunities and refuge activities. The staff maintains three administrative sites, with one each in the Grassy Island unit, the Long Point unit, and the Lake Isom area. The Grassy Island unit includes the headquarters/visitor use complex, an enclosed maintenance shop, and an oil storage facility. The Long Point unit includes a maintenance shop and two pole sheds. The Lake Isom area includes an enclosed compound and a maintenance shop. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges are accessible through several state- and county-maintained roads (Figures 10 and 11). Reelfoot can be accessed via Tennessee State Highway 157 or Kentucky State Highway 311, with the Walnut Log Road (in Tennessee) and State Highway 1282 (in Kentucky) as the main refuge arteries. Lake Isom is accessible from Tennessee State Highway 22, via Greasy Lane, or from Tennessee State Highway 78 indirectly via Isom Lake Road. Another refuge facility is a boat ramp on Grassy Island Drive. It is located on Bayou DuChien, which is connected by a dug channel with Reelfoot Lake. Another boat ramp is located on Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge near the south end of the refuge. In addition to the refuges’ normal road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the Federal Lands Highway program. The Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuge staffs are coordinating with Federal Highway Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or improvements with TEA-21 funding. Congress requires that the projects must be compatible with comprehensive management plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal Highway Administration is available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract administration. One such project was completed in 2003 when the Visitor Center and Grassy Island roads and associated parking areas were rehabilitated. Projects proposed for work (2005-2010) under the TEA-21 grant funding process include the rehabilitation of Slough Road; Interior Refuge Road; Goose Pen Road; West Banding Site Road; West Boathouse Road; the Long Point Auto Tour Road and its associated parking areas; Lake Isom Boundary Line Road; Lake Isom Access Road; and the Lake Isom Public Access Road. In addition, the refuge staffs are working with the county to secure possible additional TEA-21 funding for other county and state roads that pass through the two refuges. 36 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES During the early historic period, the portion of western Tennessee that now includes the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges was a hunting territory claimed by the Chickasaw Indians of northern Mississippi, as well as certain Sioux peoples of the lower Midwest (Cotterhill 1954). Initial European explorations included visits by the Spanish explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made contact with the Chickasaw Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson 1995). After the American Revolution, the lands of northwestern Tennessee were ceded to the new United States government, which made peace with the Chickasaw residents in 1786. In 1818, the Chickasaw Nation ceded all claim to lands in Tennessee, and, in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw east of the Mississippi were removed to the West. Archaeological investigations on refuge lands consist of two significant surveys conducted on project-specific areas on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges. A survey of project-specific areas by Dickson and Campbell (1979) encountered a total of ten archaeological and historic sites. Eight of these were prehistoric sites and two were historic. Another survey by Brown et al. (1998) encountered a total of 25 cultural occurrences in the vicinity of proposed construction sites for the Reelfoot Lake spillway and a Lake Isom project area. Evidence of Woodland and Mississippian occupation was found as a result of these surveys. The surveys recommended that certain sites be tested and evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The locations of all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it was determined that certain site areas should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment. Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted in nearby portions of west Tennessee, including Mainfort (1994), in which archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River drainage. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been conducted in west Tennessee in conjunction with various federal development projects. These reports document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. Prior to refuge ownership, earthquakes, levee and road construction, and agricultural activities may have adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuges. However, it is likely that numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuges. Recommendations resulting from the surveys includeded that the Service develop a cultural resource management plan for both refuges to assist in future project management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth of information regarding the refuges and their surrounding vicinity. LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge currently encompasses 10,428 acres (as of June 1, 2004). This acreage includes 7,847 acres managed by the Service under a 1941 lease agreement with the State of Tennessee (Appendix VIII), as well as 2,581 acres owned by the Service in fee title. The total size of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary is 18,015 acres; of this, 7,587 acres remain in private ownership and may be acquired if funding and willing sellers become available. The approved acquisition boundary for Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge totals 7,133 acres. To date (as of June 1, 2004), the Service has acquired 1,850 acres for the Lake Isom refuge, leaving a balance of 5,283 acres in private ownership within the approved acquisition boundary. The land protection goals set for both refuges would support strategic growth in areas where there is greatest concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and songbirds. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls because federal government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service makes annual payments to Lake, Obion, and Fulton counties in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payments for acquired land are computed on whichever of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county. Of the 133,759 acres in Fulton County, Kentucky, in 1997, approximately 93,677 consisted of crop lands. There are approximately 162 farms in the county, with an average size of 578 acres. Of the 104,319 acres in Lake County, Tennessee, in 1997, approximately 89,635 consisted of crop lands. There are approximately 80 farms in the county, with an average size of 1,120 acres. Of the 348,798 acres in Obion County, Tennessee, in 1997, approximately 242,251 consisted of crop lands. There are approximately 705 farms in the county, with an average size of 344 acres. The remaining lands in all three counties consist primarily of forested lands and open lands associated with residential and commercial developments and transportation systems. The lands immediately adjacent to the refuges are privately owned and managed as farmlands and hunting clubs. The surrounding farmlands are cultivated primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn, and milo. Farm commodity prices, in general, have decreased since the mid-1980s, and more dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Poor farm production, droughts, and low commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many producers to sell their farms or enroll them in some kind of conservation program. Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. As of 2004, Fulton County claimed 2,662.9 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (Joan Jackson, pers. comm., Fulton County Farm Service Agency, Hickman, Kentucky) and 1,901 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program (Jackie Franklin, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fulton, Kentucky). Lake County claimed 110 acres in the CRP (Ann Perkins, pers. comm., Lake County Farm Service Agency, Tiptonville, Tennessee) and 4,930 acres in the WRP (Mike Williams, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee). Obion County claimed 10,042.5 acres in the CRP (Sally Cherry, pers. comm., Obion County Farm Service Agency, Union City, Tennessee) and 224 acres in the WRP (Jim Needham, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Union City, Tennessee). The Fish and Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private lands in these programs. Private land enrollment in conservation programs would continue to be encouraged to augment the Service’s program and mission requirements. A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al. 2001). Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex, endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge. However, on the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges, the total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below published levels for the protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species. Mixtures of multiple pesticides were often detected in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem refuges, and their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas production facilities, which do not occur on or near the Reelfoot and Lake 38 Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges Isom refuges. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (CUPs) (including the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge, water samples indicated the presence of four CUPs. On nearby lands outside the Reelfoot refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that exceeded aquatic life criteria—that is, they may endanger aquatic life. On Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuge, water samples indicated the presence of six CUPs. On nearby lands outside the Lake Isom refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that exceeded aquatic life criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al. 2001). In summary, the tests at both the Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuges indicated no likely hazard in regard to OCPs, PCBs, or PAHs, but further testing is needed to accurately determine the possible risks associated with current-use pesticides. REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS Prior to agricultural development, almost all of the area that surrounds Reelfoot Lake was covered with bottomland hardwood floodplain forests. Scattered openings dotted the forested landscape and were primarily created by fire, winds, beaver, Native Americans, or large flood events and river changes by the Mississippi River and its tributaries. These openings were generally comprised of early successional and shrub/scrub wetlands that created excellent waterfowl and other wetland wildlife habitat. The advent of agriculture brought cotton production, which was well developed in the area by the 1830s. Cotton was a profitable commodity and production doubled every five years until 1860. Continual cotton production began to deplete the soil, and farming practices abused the landscape. Soybeans eventually became a major cash crop by the end of World War II and were less susceptible to flooding, due to their short growing season. Additionally, extensive flood control efforts such as channelization were well underway during this period and contributed greatly to the increase of farmable lands. From 1947 until the late 1970s, land was still being cleared for farming operations. Of 24 million acres of forested wetlands originally in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, only about five million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al. 1979). Today, over 80 percent of the MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al. 1999). The remaining forested lands are typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley; of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than one percent are greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the vicinity of the Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife Refuges have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests, which equates to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat. Actions to clear, settle, and farm the lands around Reelfoot Lake have seriously degraded the lake through accelerated siltation of the highly erodable soils. The bluffs east of the lake consist of extremely erosive loessial soils, which are carried into the lake by its major tributaries in huge quantities. This silt deposition problem has been causing a sedimentation problem to the lake for numerous years and efforts to solve it are not new. Massive navigation and flood-control works have also severely impacted the natural hydrological processes of the rivers within and adjacent to the refuges. As a result, the physical and biological interaction between the rivers and floodplain has been impeded, and much of the system’s natural functions have been hindered significantly. Natural scouring and flushing out of the lake bed by river Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 floodwaters have been eliminated by the separation of the lake from the Mississippi River by mainline levees. As a result, Reelfoot Lake continues to silt in and become shallower, significantly reducing the quality and quantity of its aquatic habitats. Lake Isom is adjacent to Running Reelfoot Bayou, approximately four miles south of Reelfoot Lake. As recently as the early 1920s, Lake Isom was connected to Running Reelfoot Bayou, but construction of a ditch to drain Reelfoot Lake in 1921 effectively cut off the hydrological connection between Lake Isom and Running Reelfoot Bayou, and ultimately with Reelfoot Lake, which is upstream of Reelfoot Bayou. The impacts of river controls on Lake Isom have been similar to those experienced by Reelfoot Lake, in the form of limited natural flushing and scouring and increased sedimentation. Similarly, Lake Isom has for years experienced the same loss of aquatic habitat quantity and quality, as the lake is gradually being filled in by excessive silt. WATER LEVEL MANAGEMENT OF REELFOOT LAKE In 1929, the State of Tennessee enacted a law that authorized the construction of a spillway for Reelfoot Lake and established a uniform and constant lake level at 282.2 feet above mean sea level (msl). In 1941, a lease and cooperative agreement between the State of Tennessee and the Service established Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge’s current boundary includes approximately 3,278 acres of aquatic habitat that is part of 18,000-acre Reelfoot Lake. The 1941 lease agreement also gave the Service the responsibility to regulate the water level of Reelfoot Lake by operating the spillway and manipulating the water levels by as much as three feet above or below the elevation of 282.2 feet msl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989b). The Reelfoot Lake watershed consists of approximately 153,000 acres in west Tennessee and southwest Kentucky, and has three major tributaries: Reelfoot Creek, Indian Creek, and Bayou du Chien (Running Slough). The lake’s major outlet is Running Reelfoot Bayou (also called the Spillway Ditch), which is controlled via the Reelfoot Lake spillway and gate structures at the south end of Reelfoot Lake. As described in the preceding section, problems relating to the refuge and the lake are numerous, as a result of reduced hydrology, erosive soils, and high levels of sedimentation. In addition, various parties surrounding the lake, including sportsmen, farmers, and business owners, have conflicting interests and different ideologies about how Reelfoot Lake should be managed. Thus, water level management at Reelfoot Lake has been a source of conflict among various user groups for many years. Natural resource professionals recognize the hydrological and water chemistry problems and have been searching for a solution that would benefit all involved. As a result, a fifty-year management plan for Reelfoot Lake and its surrounding watershed was prepared in conjunction with Joint Senate Resolution 235 of the 1986 Tennessee General Assembly. The resolution, recognizing the urgency to resolve the immediate needs and long-term management problems of Reelfoot Lake, directed that a proposed comprehensive plan be prepared by January 6, 1987. Water level management at Reelfoot Lake then became the subject of a three-year study that resulted in the release |
| Tag | Library-Source-CCPs |
| Date created | 2012-10-05 |
|
|