Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TENNESSEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Henry, Benton, Decatur, and Humphreys Counties, Tennessee
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
May 2010
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 12
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem ...................................................................... 15
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. 16
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 18
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 19
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 19
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 20
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 21
Contaminants .................................................................................................................... 22
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 23
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 23
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 34
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 53
Brief History of the Area .................................................................................................... 54
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 57
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 59
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 59
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 60
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 67
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 69
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 69
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 69
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 70
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 71
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 72
ii Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 72
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 74
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 76
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 77
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 77
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 77
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 77
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 78
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 92
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 102
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 104
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 111
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 115
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 115
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 115
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 115
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 116
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 118
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 118
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 120
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 120
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................. 122
Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 122
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 123
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 123
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 125
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 125
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 125
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 126
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 126
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 126
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 126
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 127
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 129
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................... 131
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 131
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 131
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 131
Alternative B: Public Use Emphasis ................................................................................ 133
Alternative C: Wildlife Management Emphasis ............................................................... 135
Table of Contents iii
Alternative D: Enhanced Wildlife Management and Public Use Program (Proposed
Alternative) ...................................................................................................................... 138
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................ 141
Pre-settlement Conditions ............................................................................................... 141
Custodial Management of Upland and Wetland Habitat ................................................. 142
Control of Kentucky Lake Water Levels .......................................................................... 142
Substantial Expansion of Recreational Opportunities ..................................................... 142
Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 142
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 155
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 155
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 155
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 155
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 155
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 156
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 156
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 156
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 157
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 157
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 157
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 157
Alternative B: Public Use Emphasis ................................................................................ 158
Alternative C: Wildlife Management Emphasis ............................................................... 160
Alternative D: Enhanced Wildlife Management and Public Use Program (Proposed
Alternative) ...................................................................................................................... 161
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 171
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 171
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 171
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 172
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 172
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 172
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 172
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 173
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 173
Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources, Environmental
Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ............................... 177
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 179
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 180
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 181
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 181
iv Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 183
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 193
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 199
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 213
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 213
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 221
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 231
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 259
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 265
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 267
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 289
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 289
Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) .................................................. 296
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 315
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge. .......................................................... 8
Figure 2. Big Sandy Unit. .................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Duck River Unit. ................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 4. Busseltown Unit. ................................................................................................................ 10
Figure 4. Busseltown Unit. ................................................................................................................ 11
Figure 5. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the
Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (#28) highlighted. ......................................... 13
Figure 6. General habitat types of the Big Sandy Unit. ..................................................................... 24
Figure 7. General habitat types of the Duck River Unit. .................................................................... 25
Figure 8. General habitat types of the Busseltown Unit. ................................................................... 26
Figure 9. Peak duck populations on Tennessee NWR, 1970–2009. ................................................ 36
Figure 10. Peak goose populations on Tennessee NWR, 1970–2009. .............................................. 37
Figure 11. Annual visitation figures for Tennessee NWR, 1999-2008. ............................................... 60
Figure 12. Visitor use facilities on the Big Sandy Unit. ....................................................................... 61
Figure 13. Visitor use facilities on the Duck River Unit. ...................................................................... 61
Figure 13. Visitor use facilities on the Duck River Unit. ...................................................................... 62
Figure 14. Visitor use facilities on the Busseltown Unit. ..................................................................... 63
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Habitat acreage at Tennessee NWR. ................................................................................... 7
Table 2. NOx, SO2, and CO2 emissions from Johnsonville Plant. ..................................................... 21
Table 3. Ecological health indicators at Kentucky Lake, 2007. ......................................................... 22
Table 4. MAPS cumulative breeding status list, 1993–2003. ............................................................ 42
Table 5. Demographic data for the counties in which Tennessee NWR is located. .......................... 57
Table 6. Current Tennessee NWR staff positions. ............................................................................ 67
Table 7. Summary of projects. ........................................................................................................ 121
Table 8. Tennessee NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and
objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan. ........................................................ 123
Table 9. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Tennessee NWR. ....................... 143
Table 10. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge. . 163
vi Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge to guide the refuge’s management actions and direction
over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This draft comprehensive
conservation plan and the accompanying environmental assessment (Section B) describe the
Service’s proposed plan, as well as three other alternatives that were considered and their effects on
the environment. Both the draft plan and environmental assessment are being made available to
state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and
comment. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service traces its roots to 1871 through the establishment of the Commission
of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the
Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 with the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Department of
Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs
relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats
within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines
for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
 fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 consider the needs of wildlife first;
 fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of the
Refuge System;
 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following are just a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands. Pelican
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial
nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were
established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn
sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted breeding
populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on
protecting waterfowl production areas, such as the prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The
emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to
a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
National wildlife refuges connect visitors to their natural resource heritage and provide them with an
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology to help them understand their role in the
environment. Wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges also generates economic benefits to local
communities. According to the report, Banking on Nature 2006: The Economic Benefits to Local
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, approximately 34.8 million people visited national
wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2006, generating almost $1.7 billion in total economic activity and
creating almost 27,000 private sector jobs, producing about $542.8 million in employment income
(Carver and Caudill 2007).
Additionally, recreational spending on national wildlife refuges generated nearly $185.3 million in tax
revenues at the local, county, state, and federal levels (Carver and Caudill 2007). As the number of
visitors grows, significant economic benefits are realized by local communities. In 2006, nearly 71
million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, spending $45.7 billion and
generating $122.6 billion (Leonard 2008).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2005,
approximately 38,000 volunteers donated more than 1.4 million hours on the refuges nationwide, a
service valued at more than $25 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive
conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners
and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public
involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. A selected number of legal treaties and laws relevant to the administration
of the National Wildlife Refuge System and management of Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge are
summarized in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to the refuge’s soils, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources;
historical and cultural resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework
for cooperation between the refuge and other partners, such as the Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and private landowners.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A
compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the
purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
 contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuge’s contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge’s role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this draft comprehensive conservation plan.
This draft plan supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments, nongovernmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. The plan’s projects are
international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection
of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the
Interior Low Plateaus physiographic area represents a scientifically-based landbird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds,
primarily nongame landbirds. Nongame landbirds have been vastly underrepresented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and
nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can
be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
6 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the 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 protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the
overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in the State of Tennessee.
In Tennessee, the Service partners with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA,
http://www.state.tn.us/twra/). The TWRA is the state agency charged with game enforcement
responsibilities and management of state natural resources in Tennessee. The TWRA manages
approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas (WMAs) and state wildlife
refuges, coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program, and provides public recreation
opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management
areas.
The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive planning process will
provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish
and wildlife in the State of Tennessee. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is
the integration of common mission objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
On December 28, 1945, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order No. 9670 establishing
the Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or refuge). The following day, the Department of the
Interior and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) entered into an agreement that the lands would
henceforth be reserved for use as a wildlife refuge.
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge runs along 65 miles of the Tennessee River (Figure 1). The
refuge is comprised of three units: the Duck River Unit (26,738 acres), Big Sandy Unit (21,348 acres),
and Busseltown Unit (3,272 acres), for a total acreage of 51,358 acres.
The Big Sandy Unit is the northernmost unit (Figure 2), located at the junction of the Big Sandy and
Tennessee rivers, about 12 miles north of the town of Big Sandy. Most of the lands on this unit are
upland and forested with little wetland management capabilities. Waterfowl management activities
primarily consist of providing sanctuary on the waters and mudflats of Kentucky Lake and agricultural
crops for foraging habitats.
The Duck River Unit is located at the junction of the Duck and Tennessee rivers in Humphreys and
Benton counties (Figure 3). This unit has the best wetland management potential of all units. A wide
variety of habitats are available for waterfowl and other waterbirds, including agriculture, moist soil,
mudflats, forested wetlands and scrub-shrub.
The Busseltown Unit is located along the western bank of the Tennessee River in Decatur
County, roughly five miles northeast of Parsons, Tennessee (Figure 4). It is primarily managed
for waterfowl by providing agricultural crops for foraging habitats. Some moist soil and scrub-shrub
habitats are also available.
All three units were used extensively for agriculture in the 1800s and early 1900s. The two northern units
were named for the rivers that run through them, while the much smaller Busseltown Unit was named
after Johnse Bussel, an earlier settler to the area who established a store and home in the area that later
became known as Busseltown. The mixture of open water, wetlands, woodlands, croplands, and
grasslands creates a mosaic of wildlife-rich habitats (USFWS no date-b). Table 1 shows figures for
current estimated habitat acreage by type at Tennessee NWR (USFWS no date-c). The refuge provides
valuable wintering habitat for migrating waterfowl. It also provides habitat and protection for endangered
and threatened species such as the gray bat, Indiana bat, least tern, pink mucket pearlymussel, ring pink
mussel, orangefoot pimpleback pearlymussel, rough pigtoe, and pigmy madtom.
Table 1. Habitat acreage at Tennessee NWR.
Habitat Type Acres
Farmland 3,100
Native Wetland Plants 1,400
Forested 19,700
Open Water 26,400
Total 51,000
8 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Big Sandy Unit.
10 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Duck River Unit.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 4. Busseltown Unit.
12 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Tennessee NWR lies in the central portion of the Mississippi Flyway. Peak wintering populations of
ducks have reached over 320,000 in particularly cold winters, and average approximately 200,000 in
a typical winter. Peak wintering populations of Canada geese have reached almost 20,000 once
since 2000. However, recent wintering Canada goose populations averaged 7,500 from 2004-2009
(USFWS unpub. data).
Bald eagles have made a comeback nationwide and this is evidenced by their recent removal from
the Endangered Species List. The success of the bald eagle recovery can also be seen on the
Tennessee NWR, where there are bald eagles year-round, with at least 10 nesting pairs and dozens
of others using the refuge during the winter (USFWS unpub. data).
The refuge also supports an abundance of wildlife, including over 650 species of plants, 303 species of
birds, and 280 species of mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians (USFWS 2007a; USFWS 2007b).
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to
fulfill the purpose for which it was established but also the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System. If there is a conflict between the two, the purposes for which the refuge was established
takes precedence.
The establishing and acquisition authorities for Tennessee NWR include the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667).
These documents state that the refuge:
 “… [be] for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.”
 “…shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with
cooperative agreements … and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the
conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat
thereon …”
In addition, Public Land Order 4560 identified the purposes of the refuge to be “… to build, operate
and maintain sub-impoundment structures; produce food crops or cover for wildlife; to regulate and
restrict hunting, trapping and fishing and to otherwise manage said lands and impoundment areas for
the protection and production of wildlife and fish populations …” (Public Land Order, 1962).
Specifically, the objectives for Tennessee NWR are:
 To provide habitat for migratory birds, especially waterfowl.
 To provide habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species such as the pink
mucket pearlymussel, ring pink mussel, orangefoot pimpleback pearlymussel, rough pigtoe,
pigmy madtom, piping plover, least tern, gray bat, Indiana bat.
 To provide recreation and environmental education opportunities for the public (USFWS no
date-d).
Tennessee NWR was established to provide feeding and resting habitat for migratory birds in the
central portion of the Mississippi Flyway, with an emphasis placed on providing habitat for wintering
waterfowl. Objectives are achieved through a water management program for waterfowl, wading bird
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
rookeries, and neotropical migratory landbirds. Other methods are cultivation of about 3,150 acres of
agricultural land and management of about 1,400 acres of moist soil habitat. Management of the
moist soils and impoundments uses a network of levees and water control structures to adjust water
levels to provide food and habitat, as well as manage water levels for agriculture. The cooperative
and staff farming programs leave a portion of the crops grown to provide food and shelter for
waterfowl and other wildlife (USFWS 2005).
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge does not include any lands under special designation. That is, it
does not contain congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas, federally-designated Wild and Scenic
Rivers, demonstration areas, or research natural areas. In addition, oil and gas activities do not occur
on the refuge.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the entire contiguous United States into 53 distinct
ecosystems, drawn primarily along watershed boundaries (Figure 5). Tennessee National Wildlife
Refuge lies within the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem, which spans portions of
Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky. This ecosystem is further divided into two subunits, the Lower
Tennessee River watershed and the Cumberland River watershed. The refuge is in the Tennessee
River watershed (LTCE no date-a).
Figure 5. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the Lower
Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (#28) highlighted.
14 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
The Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem team (LTCE) has developed a strategic planning
approach to outline goals, objectives, and strategies to protect and restore the Service’s trust
resources and ecological integrity within the LTCE (LTCE 1995). The LTCE team formed three
subgroups – Aquatics, Migratory Birds, and Land Acquisition – to help achieve these plans. The first
two subgroups identify priority watersheds, determine research needs, and develop projects for the
restoration and protection of marine life and migratory birds respectively (LTCE no date-b; LTCE no
date-c). The last subgroup focuses on providing recommendations for land purchases for the
USFWS (LTCE no date-d). The LTCE team collaborates with other agencies and concerned groups
to help accomplish team objectives. Tennessee NWR has contributed to meeting the biological goals
and objectives of the LTCE.
Tennessee NWR has a special role to play in the conservation of migratory birds. The refuge serves
as an important wintering ground for thousands of migratory waterfowl using the Mississippi Flyway
and provides a significant contribution to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP).
Suitable wintering or nesting habitat occurs on the refuge for species including American black duck,
mallard, gadwall, American wigeon, blue-winged teal, American green-winged teal, northern pintail,
wood duck, ring-necked duck, canvasback, lesser scaup, bufflehead, common goldeneye, and ruddy
duck, Canada geese, great blue heron, bald eagle, and others.
At least 10 pairs of bald eagles nest on the refuge. The refuge also provides stopover habitat for at
least 30 shorebird species. The abundance and diversity of managed wetlands at Tennessee NWR
supports over 40 species of herons, egrets, rails, gulls, terns, and other waterbirds (USFWS, 2005).
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Tennessee Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tennessee’s State Wildlife Grants
(SWG) program began in fiscal year 2002. Under this new program, Congress provided an historic
opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and implement a more
comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement of SWG was that
each state complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005.
Development of the CWCS was intended to identify and focus management on “species in greatest
need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be used to manage and conserve declining
species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Tennessee’s CWCS effort began in 2003. In late 2003, the TWRA contracted with The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) for the services of its state conservation planning manager to establish and lead
a core planning team. The result of this team’s work, as well as the collaboration of Tennessee’s
conservation partners, resulted in the production of the first edition of the Tennessee CWCS. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the Tennessee CWCS in 2005. The CWCS uses a
consolidated geographic information system (GIS) as a component for identifying wildlife species in
the greatest need of conservation. The plan also describes the actions necessary for these species’
restoration (TWRA 2005).
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning
process provides for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological health and
diversity of fish and wildlife. A vital part of the comprehensive planning process is integrating
common mission objectives where appropriate.
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives. To ensure that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
“putting science in the right places,” the Directorate determined in April 2009 that the agency needed
a national geographic framework for implementing landscape conservation. Just as migratory bird
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
flyways have provided an effective spatial frame of reference to build capacity and partnerships for
international, national, state and local waterfowl conservation, this geographic framework will provide
a continental platform upon which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can work with partners to
connect site-specific efforts to larger biological goals and outcomes. In its meeting on August 4-6,
2009, the Directorate approved a map of the geographic framework developed by a team of USFWS
and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) experts from across the country. The map defines Geographic
Areas that provide a spatial frame of reference for building and targeting science capacity that will
support the Service and partners in planning and designing conservation strategies at landscape
scales. It also allows us to more precisely explain to partners, Congress, and the American public
why, where, and how the Service targets conservation resources and how the Service’s science-based
efforts connect to a greater whole. Currently, Tennessee NWR falls within the Appalachians
Landscape Conservation Cooperative.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
LOWER TENNESSEE-CUMBERLAND ECOSYSTEM
Much of the region's economic activity – agriculture, lumbering, mining, and recreation – is based on
using the watershed's natural resources. Sustaining most of these activities requires maintenance of a
healthy ecosystem. Stress from human activities has adversely affected the ecological integrity of the
LTCE, and there are indications that this stress is increasing. The exceptionally diverse but damaged
mussel fauna illustrates the extent of these adverse impacts. This unique faunal group evolved and
flourished in response to a free-flowing riverine ecosystem that was spared the periodic ravages of
glaciation. However, since Euro-American settlement, and especially during the 20th century, this vast
riverine ecosystem was profoundly altered by impoundments (over 2,000 miles of its rivers are
impounded), channelization, siltation, and water pollution. Historically, about 100 distinct mussel taxa
existed in the LTCE. This once diverse and abundant fauna has been so decimated that nearly half
(46 percent) of the species are either extinct (8 percent), classified as endangered (24 percent), or
under review for federal protection (14 percent). During the twentieth century, no other wide-ranging
faunal group within the continental United States experienced this degree of loss (LTCE 1995).
Other taxonomic groups are also in jeopardy. There are 74 species in the LTCE that are federally
listed as threatened or endangered or are proposed for listing: 28 species of mussels, 19 species of
plants, 10 species of fish, eight species of mammals, two species of birds, four species of snails, and
one arachnid. Additionally, based on data from the Breeding Bird Survey, 74 percent of the
neotropical migratory bird species breeding in Tennessee suffered declining populations between
1980 and 1989 (LTCE 1995).
Environmental alteration and degradation are continuing challenges to the maintenance of a
productive and healthy LTCE. Indigenous biological resources of the area are threatened by land
conversion, poor land use practices, direct and indirect physical alteration of the area's rivers and
streams, and both point- and nonpoint-source discharges of pollutants. Herbicides, insecticides,
nutrients, and sediment are significant components of the agricultural runoff that adversely affects
aquatic systems throughout the area. Acid precipitation and other airborne pollutants are having
dramatic impacts on aquatic and terrestrial communities, particularly at high elevations. An
expanding human population and its increasing demand for renewable and nonrenewable resources
further threaten natural resources. Contamination of both aquatic and terrestrial systems through the
accidental release of toxic chemicals is a continuing threat. The expansion of urban and suburban
areas within the ecosystem and the concurrent loss of forest, agricultural, and other types of open
space associated with this expansion have reduced the quantity and quality of natural habitats
available to fish and wildlife (LTCE 1995).
16 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Given the abundance of ecosystem-altering influences past and present, a coordinated landscape-scale
effort is necessary to reverse and prevent further declines in biological resources. A healthy
ecosystem will provide much more than diverse flora and fauna. It will provide clean air and water,
healthy soil, sustainable harvests from forests and fields, and abundant outdoor recreational
opportunities for this and future generations (LTCE 1995).
TENNESSEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Current challenges and ecological threats facing the refuge include: increased development of
adjacent forested lands (sale of Mead/Westvaco forest lands); increase in residential development
next to or near the refuge; incompatible use of shoreline on the Big Sandy Unit (interest by refuge
neighbors to clear vegetation due to perceived disease threat from mosquitoes and ticks and to
improve access and view lake); limitation of waterfowl management capability from an increase in the
number of waterfowl hunt clubs along the refuge boundary; growing interest by county governments
for increased public use activities on the refuge to boost eco-tourism in a depressed economy;
commercial development (e.g., Benton/Decatur County Sewer project); commercial sand and gravel
dredging in the Tennessee River adjacent to the refuge; shoreline erosion; battling invasive species;
and working with the TVA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) on addressing possible
wildlife impacts to potential changes in Kentucky Lake levels during late summer and early fall.
The Kentucky Lake area of west Tennessee has experienced an increase in development as more
people retire in the area. Large blocks of forestlands once owned and managed by Mead/Westvaco
are now being sold to private individuals. Loss of forestlands adjacent to the refuge will negatively
impact forest bird species. The refuge staff is actively collaborating with the Central Hardwoods Joint
Venture to develop management plans to protect this valuable habitat type.
The refuge’s role as a sanctuary enhances waterfowl hunting on nearby public and private lands, as
well as providing opportunities for wildlife observation. Tennessee NWR is the only sanctuary locally,
while six state wildlife management areas (WMAs) within a 10-mile radius are open to waterfowl
hunting. Providing waterfowl sanctuaries is a critical part of annual waterfowl conservation and
management. Sanctuaries provide areas where birds can rest, gain fat, and develop pair bonds that
improve the likelihood of successful nesting in the spring and summer.
Nearby private waterfowl hunt areas are becoming larger and more developed with increased
emphasis placed on maintaining flooded food sources that support several thousand waterfowl. The
popularity in waterfowl hunting is resulting in an increase in the number of hunt clubs adjoining the
refuge. Farms are being bought by waterfowl hunters that are developing impoundments and hunt
blinds for personal and commercial hunting opportunities. Due to legal concerns, the increase of hunt
clubs adjacent to refuge agriculture fields is hampering the refuge’s ability to manipulate crops in
these fields. This is resulting in the refuge having to take shares in less desirable fields.
The construction of dams on the Tennessee River has resulted in the disruption of the natural fluvial
processes that replenish sand and gravel bars. The refuge has historically permitted sand and gravel
dredging. The USACE continues to issue permits for commercial dredging within the refuge
boundary, however the refuge has not issued permits to dredge within the last several years. The
refuge staff has conducted a compatibility review and determined that commercial dredging is not
compatible with the ecosystem plan for protecting these endangered mussels.
Dam construction and operation, wastewater outfalls, navigation-related dredging, contaminants, and
commercial sand and gravel dredging are likely contributors to the degradation of water quality and
substrate habitat in and around the refuge. Habitat fragmentation, habitat degradation, contamination
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
and human disturbance cause declines of wildlife populations, especially shorebirds, waterbirds, and
mollusks. With increasing human population and development in the area, these pressures will only
intensify (USFWS 2005).
The refuge encompasses portions of a navigable waterway in which the refuge does not have
jurisdiction to manage activities, and there are many uses of the river that are inappropriate and/or
incompatible with the mission of the refuge. These uses include commercial activities such as the
above-mentioned dredging and other recreational activities such as pleasure boating, use of jet skis,
and water skiing.
Wave action and wakes from large boats have increased shoreline erosion. This in turn has resulted
in a loss of refuge habitat, exposure of sensitive archeological sites, and a decrease in water quality.
Refuge personnel have partnered with the TVA to stabilize some eroded areas. Funding and lack of
personnel are the greatest challenge the refuge is facing in not protecting other areas.
The refuge has no control over the water level schedule in Kentucky Lake, which is not managed
primarily for the benefit of wildlife. Historically, the operating schedule for Kentucky Lake called for
the fall drawdown to be initiated on June 15, but it was delayed to July 1 in 1980 for recreational
boating activities. Typically the drawdown is unofficially delayed until July 5 to maintain a higher lake
level through the Fourth of July holiday. The drawdown results in the reservoir’s water levels
dropping five feet, exposing vast areas of mudflats. These habitats are extremely important to
shorebirds, waterfowl, and other waterbirds (Wirwa 2009). The change in the operating schedule that
occurred in 1980 likely had significant impacts on the mudflat habitat. Any future delays in the fall
drawdown could potentially eliminate mudflat availability to most shorebird species that migrate
through this region in August and September. Waterfowl heavily utilize the mudflats as a source of
forage. Canada geese and American wigeon browse on the leafy vegetation of annual plants that
become established on the flats and teal forage on the seeds produced by these plants. The
drawdown timing is essential to the establishment and growth of these annual plants.
The refuge is battling numerous invasive species in all habitat types. Invasive species occurring at
Tennessee NWR include alligatorweed, parrotfeather, Paspalum spp., Sesbania spp., kudzu,
Japanese honeysuckle, mimosa, tree of heaven, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, and Japanese stilt
plant. All of these invasive plants compete with native vegetation that provides food and nesting
cover for wildlife. Other invasive species issues that impact the productivity of agricultural crops
include Johnson grass, broadleaf signal grass, sicklepod, and cocklebur.
Aquatic invasive plants clog pipes, inhibit water flow, and out-compete beneficial plants that provide
food and cover. Thus, invasive species present a significant obstacle to water management and to
migratory bird utilization of wetlands. Through competition for water nutrients, and space, invasive
species contribute to the less than maximum productivity of the agricultural fields for waterfowl food.
One of the biggest challenges involves managing alligatorweed in moist soil units. Alligatorweed out-competes
native wetland plant species.
Little of the original bottomland hardwood forest remains from the conversion to agriculture, open
lake, and waterfowl impoundments. This results in less habitat for forest-dependent species such as
the prothonotary warbler. This is a top species of conservation concern by the Central Hardwoods
Joint Venture (CHJV) and the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (PIF).
Other species of concern in this habitat are wood thrush, cerulean warbler, and Swainson’s warbler
(USFWS 2005). The refuge does have a forest management plan but the refuge forester position
has been lost, and with it, forest and fire management capability.
18 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
A network of levees and water control structures at Tennessee NWR allows water levels to be
controlled for optimum habitat for many species of wildlife and especially for waterfowl. The primary
objectives of flood control and hydroelectric power dictate the schedule for Kentucky Lake’s water
level operation, which occurs too late for moist soil management. Thus, the refuge has to use
pumping to manage the water levels, which invasive species and beaver hinder (USFWS 2005).
Regular maintenance and replacement of water control structures, especially on the Duck River Unit,
is crucial to ensuring water management capabilities in the refuge’s impoundments and pools.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "warming of the climate
system is unequivocal." Global climate change poses risks not only to human health but also to
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The abundance and distribution of wildlife and fish will change,
particularly affecting those species already "at risk." Important economic resources such as agriculture,
forestry, and water resources also can be affected. Warmer temperatures, more severe droughts and
floods, and sea level rise will have a wide range of impacts. All these stresses, added to existing
stresses on resources caused by other influences such as population growth, land-use changes, and
pollution, pose a significant challenge for fish and wildlife conservation.
According to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Earth's average surface temperature has
increased by about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The ten warmest years in the 20th century have all
occurred within the past 15 years. Some climate models, based on emissions of greenhouse gases,
primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, predict that average surface temperatures
could increase from 2.5 to 10.4oF by the end of the 21st century. The frequency of extremely hot
summer days is expected to increase, along with this general warming trend. Increases in
atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) are attributed largely to human activities, which have grown rapidly
since the 1940s. The burning of fossil fuels adds 5.6 billion tons of carbon, and deforestation
contributes another 0.4 to 2.5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year.
The effects of climate change and global warming will be changes in weather/rainfall patterns,
decreases in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed ecosystems. For the southeastern
U.S. and the Tennessee region, this could mean extreme precipitation events; greater likelihood of
warmer/drier summers and wetter/reduced winter cold; and alterations of ecosystems and habitats
due to these changes in weather patterns. For Tennessee NWR, warmer conditions would favor
increased densities of vegetation and wetter conditions would favor trees and vegetation that are
better adapted to these conditions. If conditions become drier, the current range and density of
forests would be reduced and replaced by grasslands and the probability of wildfires would increase.
A recent study of the effects of climate change on eastern U.S. bird species concluded that as many
as 78 bird species could decrease by at least 25%, while as many as 33 species could increase in
abundance by at least 25% due to climate and habitat changes (Matthews et al. 2004). In short,
global warming could increase storm intensity, negatively change ecologically important plant
species, alter the spread of invasive species, increase drought-induced fires, and further imperil
already threatened and endangered species. Tennessee NWR will need to monitor for these
changes on the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate for the refuge region is described as having warm, humid summers and mild winters (NOAA
1980, 1993). However, summer temperatures in the 90s and winter lows well below freezing are not
uncommon (Owenby and Ezell 1992). January is the coldest month, with an average temperature of 34.2
degrees Fahrenheit. July is normally the hottest, with an average temperature 77.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
Winters are mild with most snow occurring in January and February (NOAA 2004).
The average yearly rainfall is over 53 inches, with rainfall well distributed throughout all seasons and
the wettest season is spring. March is the wettest month at 5.40 inches, and October is the driest at
3.51 inches (NOAA 2004). Yearly floods in bottomlands and along the shoreline of Kentucky Lake
are common during winter and spring.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The majority of the refuge lands are located on the Western Highland Rim of the Interior Low Plateau
Physiographic Province (Fenneman 1938; Thornburg 1965). Smalley (1980) describes the
topography of the uplands of this region as "narrow winding to moderately broad undulating ridges
flanked by steep side slopes" with narrow V-shaped valleys in the upper reaches of the intermittent
streams, gradually becoming U-shaped and broader as the streams approach the major river
bottoms. Land elevations range from approximately 640 to 354 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Over 5,000 acres of the refuge lie within the major river bottom floodplain of the Duck River. These
lands are nearly flat to gently sloping, with well-drained to poorly-drained soils. A small portion of the
Big Sandy Unit is within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Province, where the topography is
characterized as undulating and rolling with gentle to moderate slopes (Fenneman 1938).
The remainder of the refuge acreage encompasses the hillsides surrounding the Tennessee River
valley, with a mixture of rolling hills and rocky high bluffs.
SOILS
Most of the lands on Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge fall within four soil associations as
described by Springer and Elder (1980). The soils of the upland sites within the Western Highland
Rim are classified in the Bodine-Mountview-Dickson (D11) soil association. The western edge of the
Big Sandy Unit, which is in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, is included in the Ruston-Lexington-
Providence (C11) soil association. The hills just north of the Duck River Bottoms are classified in the
Pickwick-Paden (C31) soil association. The Duck River Bottoms are included in the Wolftever-Egam-
Beason-Lindside (A41) soil association.
Springer and Elder (1980) describe the D11 soil association as consisting of “hilly and steep, excessively
drained, cherty soils from limestone, and undulating, well-drained and moderately well-drained, silty soils
from thin loess and limestone.” Most of the upland forests on the refuge are of this association. The soils
of the hillsides are pale, deep, very cherty, droughty, strongly acidic, and low in fertility. The cherty, well-drained
to excessively drained Bodine soils cover the majority of the hills, especially on the steepest sites.
Well-drained Mountview soils occur on the wider ridgetops. The soils of the narrow tracts of bottom land
and foot slopes commonly are deep, well-drained, and strongly acidic, with variable amounts of chert
washed from the nearby hills. These areas on the refuge are dominated by the moderately well-drained
Paden soils and well-drained Humphreys soils of stream terraces.
20 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
The C11 soil association is described by Springer and Elder (1980) as “undulating and rolling, brown,
well-drained and moderately well-drained, silty soils from loess over coastal plain sediment; with
bottoms of loamy and silty soils.” The only location on the refuge that this association occurs is on
the Big Sandy Unit west of the Big Sandy River. These soils are generally well-drained, highly
leached, low in natural fertility, and strongly acidic. The dominant soils that occur within the forested
areas are the well-drained Dexter soils and moderately well-drained Freeland soils.
The C31 soil association is characterized as ”undulating and rolling, well-drained, silty soils from thin
loess and alluvium” (Springer and Elder 1980). The soils are generally deep, well-drained to
moderately well-drained, low in fertility, and strongly acidic. This association is represented on the
hillsides adjacent to the Duck River Bottoms. The moderately well-drained Paden soils dominate this
area on the refuge.
Springer and Elder (1980) describe the A41 soil association as “moderately well-drained and
somewhat poorly drained, clayey and silty soils.” These soils are found on first bottoms and low
terraces of the Tennessee River and are nearly level. They are deep, moderately well-drained to
somewhat poorly drained, moderate in fertility, and moderately acidic. The moderately well-drained
Wolftever soils occupy the low terraces or second bottoms. Silty, imperfectly drained, Lindside soils
dominate the first bottoms. Well-drained loamy Huntington soils are near the river bank. The poorly
drained Melvin soils are found in the sloughs.
HYDROLOGY
Tennessee NWR lies within the Tennessee River Valley. In 1944, the construction of Kentucky Dam
across the Tennessee River near Gilbertsville, Kentucky, was completed, forming Kentucky Lake.
The excess waters of Kentucky Lake are discharged into the Tennessee River, which flows into the
Ohio River.
Drainage within much the bottomlands of the refuge is dependent upon the water level of Kentucky
Lake. Under normal water flows, the TVA has sole control over the water management of Kentucky
Lake for its primary objectives of flood control and hydroelectric power production. Lake levels are
typically higher in the summer, reaching 359 MSL and lowered to a winter pool level of 354 MSL for
floodwater storage. Uncontrolled flooding of the bottom lands on the refuge occurs when heavy rains
fall within the Tennessee River Valley or when the Ohio and/or Mississippi rivers exceed flood stage,
prompting the Corps of Engineers to order the TVA to reduce discharges from Kentucky Lake.
Site-specific drainage varies considerably throughout the refuge. Drainage within the bottom lands
ranges from good to poor depending on the soil type. Upland sites have well to excessive drainage,
primarily related to topographic position.
AIR QUALITY
Implementation of clean air legislation through the years has resulted in emission reductions and
significant improvements in outdoor air quality for the Tennessee Valley. However, ozone and
fine particle pollution will continue to be a challenge and remain a concern, even though progress
has been made.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Of some concern for the refuge area is the TVA’s coal-fired Johnsonville Fossil Plant, located on the
east bank of the Tennessee River in New Johnsonville, Tennessee, in the vicinity of the Duck River
Unit. There has been some public controversy over its emissions and the smog and acid rain to
which these may contribute. Table 2 shows the plant’s emissions from 1996 through 2007. The TVA
provides emissions information about the Johnsonville Plant and steps they are taking to improve the
situations on their website (http://tva.com/environment/air/johnson.htm).
Table 2. NOx, SO2, and CO2 emissions from Johnsonville Plant.
Thousands of tons per year
Year NOx SO2 CO2
2007 18.2 65.0 9,300
2006 18.1 86.8 9,000
2005 17.7 74.6 8,500
2004 20.0 95.7 8,100
2003 23.6 100.0 8,900
2002 24.4 108.8 9,400
2001 20.4 94.2 8,400
2000 22.6 118.4 9,600
1999 20.4 119.8 7,800
1998 18.0 114.6 7,600
1997 18.6 115.9 7,300
1996 20.7 126.4 8,600
Source: TVA, no date.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) exist for six contaminants, referred to as criteria
pollutants, and apply to the ambient air. Ambient air is the air that the general public is exposed to
every day (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2002). These criteria pollutants
include carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
lead. Air quality monitoring across the country indicates which are in attainment of the NAAQS and
which areas are nonattainment. The four counties in which Tennessee NWR is located are all in
attainment for each of the criteria pollutants’ NAAQS (USEPA 2008).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
In Tennessee, the most common causes of pollution in rivers and streams are sediment/silt, habitat
alteration, pathogens, and nutrients. The main sources of these pollutants are agriculture, hydrologic
modification, municipal dischargers, and construction. The leading causes of pollution in reservoirs
and lakes are organic substances, like PCBs, dioxins, and chlordane, plus nutrients, sediment/silt,
and low dissolved oxygen (DO). The principal source of problems in reservoirs and lakes is the
22 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
historical discharge of pollutants that have accumulated in sediment and fish flesh. Other sources
include agriculture, hydrologic modifications, municipal dischargers, and construction (Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation [TDEC] 2006).
The TVA monitored Kentucky Lake annually from 1991 through 1995 to establish baseline data on
the reservoir’s ecological health under a range of weather and flow conditions. It is now monitored
every other year. The ecological health of Kentucky Lake was rated good in 2007 (TVA no date-a).
Since 1991, the rating for the lake has been either fair or good, with only small changes among
indicators. Ecological health indicators at Kentucky Lake in 2007 were all listed as fair to good with
the exceptions of the DO and chlorophyll indicators of the Big Sandy embayment and the chlorophyll
indicator of the forebay (at Kentucky Dam). The poor rating for the Big Sandy embayment was due to
low DO levels near the bottom in mid-summer (Table 3). Chlorophyll levels were actually elevated at
the forebay and Big Sandy embayment monitoring locations in 2007. The refuge does not currently
conduct any water quality sampling, although the Duck River Unit impoundment pools may be an
option for future sampling.
As noted in the above Hydrology section, drainage within much of the bottomlands on the refuge is
dependent upon the water level of Kentucky Lake. The lake’s levels are typically higher in the summer,
reaching 359 feet MSL, and are lowered to a winter pool level of 354 MSL for floodwater storage.
Table 3. Ecological health indicators at Kentucky Lake, 2007.
Monitoring
locations
Dissolved
oxygen Chlorophyll Fish Bottom life Sediment
Forebay Fair Poor Good Good Good
Mid-reservoir Good Good Good Good Good
Big Sandy
embayment Poor Poor Fair Fair Good
Inflow Fair Good
CONTAMINANTS
In September 1996, an Environmental Quality Assessment of Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge was
begun (USFWS 2003). Fish and sediment samples were collected at the Big Sandy, Duck River, and
Busseltown units of the refuge from 1996 to 1998. Wood duck eggs were collected at the Duck River
Unit. In summary, based on the whole-body fish sample results, none were expected to exceed any
applicable action levels established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Overall, there did not
appear to be any immediate need for mitigation or cleanup of environmental contamination at the three
refuge units sampled in the study. There were elevated concentrations of various inorganic
contaminants in sediment within the Busseltown Unit. To date there has been no follow-up monitoring.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
There is an annual average of 3,150 acres of cropland on all three units, with approximately 750
acres on the Big Sandy Unit, 1,700 on the Duck River Unit, and 700 acres on the Busseltown Unit.
Most of this land is farmed each year through cooperative farming agreements to provide
supplemental food and cover for the thousands of waterfowl. In addition, approximately 1,400 acres
in the Duck River Bottoms are managed for moist soil vegetation. These bottoms are
compartmentalized by a series of levees and water control structures that allow water levels to be
controlled for optimum waterfowl food production. The refuge contains approximately 20,000 acres of
forest, with the majority being comprised of upland stands that are predominantly oak-hickory. Small
isolated blocks of bottomland hardwoods occur on the Duck River and Busseltown units. Most of
these stands are dominated by light seeded species such as maples, sweetgum, and green ash. The
remainder of the refuge not falling into the forested, agricultural, or moist soil categories primarily
consists of open water habitats (USFWS 2005).
Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the distribution of habitat types among the three refuge units discussed below.
Cropland and Farming
Farming has been a significant component of the waterfowl management program since the refuge
was established. Initially, nearly 9,000 acres of the refuge were farmed; however, in 1979 the farmed
acreage was reduced to around 5,500 acres. During the early 1990s the farmed acreage reached an
all-time low of approximately 1,700 acres in row crops. This acreage has since steadily increased to
the current level of about 3,100 acres.
The goal of the refuge’s farming program is to provide food and cover for migratory birds and other
resident wildlife. It supplements natural foods with grains such as corn, milo, and millet, and winter
wheat for green browse. Like many national wildlife refuges, Tennessee NWR has a cooperative
farming program, under which five farmers have contracts with the refuge to cultivate crops, typically
harvesting 75 percent for themselves and leaving 25 percent behind for wildlife on the refuge. Corn
is the preferred crop for the refuge shares, although millet is planted in areas that remain too wet for
corn production. Between about 3,000 and 3,500 acres have been planted annually in the last five
years, including some acreage by force-account farming (planted by refuge staff). Force-account
farming has included planting wheat in harvested row crop fields and fallow fields for green browse,
Japanese and brown-top millet in refurbished moist soil areas, and occasionally corn and milo.
The refuge requires the cooperative farmers to follow best management practices as they relate to crop
rotations, conservation tillage, and pesticide use. The refuge has an approved Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) Plan that addresses pesticide use requirements, as well as best management practices
to reduce the amount of pesticides needed and measures to protect nontarget plants and animals.
In the past, many small fields, mainly in upland areas, have been farmed on the refuge in order to
increase the acreage so additional refuge shares could be taken in fields utilized by waterfowl. Due
to the small numbers of Canada geese now migrating to the refuge, utilization of some of the refuge
share of corn has been minimal. Cooperative farmers express some concern regarding the large
amounts of waste corn sprouting in the fields presenting “weed” problems the following year. They
have also expressed a possible interest in abandoning unprofitable farmlands in some areas. Minor
adjustments were made in the Duck River Bottoms that included planting some corn force-account
24 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. General habitat types of the Big Sandy Unit.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 7. General habitat types of the Duck River Unit.
26 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. General habitat types of the Busseltown Unit.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
and retiring poor and highly flood-prone farmland from the cooperative farming program. Some
potential adjustments can be made on the Big Sandy Peninsula with increased force-account
farming, but staff and funding limitations are an issue. Most of the remaining farmland is needed to
meet objectives unless force-account farming is increased significantly beyond current capabilities.
The cooperative farming program enables the refuge to better meet its objectives without much of
the expense associated with a farming program. Essentially, the only cost to the Service is
administering the program. However, a price has to be paid in order to produce the agricultural
foods at such a low cost. There is no doubt that if funds and/or personnel were not limited, the
agricultural habitats on the refuge would be managed under a different program. Contract
farming (private farmers contracted to plant all crops) or force-account farming (refuge staff
planting all crops) would greatly reduce the acres under cultivation. Some positive results would
be (1) more land available for other habitats; (2) less fragmentation of forested habitats; (3)
reduction in the amount of pesticides and other agricultural inputs used on the refuge; (4) more
control on when the crops are planted; (5) greater ability to follow best management practices;
and (6) greater ability to plant more wildlife-desirable crop varieties (such as dwarf corn).
A few problems exist with the croplands. First, healthy populations of turkey, resident Canada geese,
and deer eat the crops leaving less for the migratory birds. In addition, the amount of crops eaten
during the growing season threatens the profitability of the cooperative farming. The proliferation of
private hunting clubs near the refuge boundary limit the area where crops can be left for waterfowl by
the cooperative farming program because of the necessary barrier needed to provide a sanctuary
and the legal aspects of the refuge manipulating crops during the waterfowl hunting season. Lastly,
flooding of the crops is much more desirable. The TVA controls the water levels, which mandates the
flooding of the croplands by pumps and other methods. By damaging the levees and ditches,
beavers and invasive species are obstacles to maintenance of this ecosystem (USFWS 2005).
Water Management
The TVA reserves all rights on flood control, navigation, and power production for Kentucky Lake.
Water management within refuge-controlled impoundments is impacted by the water levels of the
reservoir. Kentucky Lake has an annual water fluctuation, which is exactly the opposite of what is
needed for water management within the refuge impoundments. The lake’s normal summer pool is
359 feet MSL, with a drawdown to 354 feet MSL during the winter months. The reservoir’s drawdown
begins July 5, gradually dropping to winter pool by December 1. The lake begins to rise again on
April 1, reaching summer pool by May 1. Even though the water management schedule for Kentucky
Lake presents difficulties in managing the water within the refuge impoundments, the benefits of the
habitats produced on the reservoir greatly outweigh the negative impacts.
The refuge manages 26 impoundments. Most of these impoundments were constructed during the
1980s and many of the levees and water control structures (WCS) are in need of repair or
replacement. The refuge’s Annual Habitat Management Plan provides water management details,
which are updated yearly. The primary purpose for managing the water levels within these
impoundments is to enhance food production and to make it available to waterfowl during migration
and wintering periods. Other migratory waterbirds such as shorebirds, herons, and rails greatly
benefit from this management practice. Agriculture and moist soil are the primary habitats for which
these impoundments are managed. When an impoundment or portion of an impoundment is to be
planted in row crops, such as corn and soybeans, the drawdown is planned to initiate in early March
to allow sufficient drying time. Moist soil drawdowns occur later during the growing season and vary
from mid-April to mid-July. The drawdown timing and levels for each impoundment varies from year-
28 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
to-year, as much as possible, to reduce the impacts of undesirable and invasive plants. Water
management plans have to be altered during most years due to flooding from Kentucky Lake.
Three small impoundments, totaling 39 acres, are located on the Big Sandy Peninsula (USFWS
unpub. data). These impoundments represent the only managed waters on the Big Sandy Unit. The
topography of this unit is too rolling to be conducive to large-scale impoundment construction.
However, there are other potential areas where additional impoundments could be developed. The
existing impoundments are independent of one another and are solely dependant upon rainwater
during flooding. These impoundments are managed in a moist soil/agriculture rotation to provide a
diversity of flooded habitats and to keep the fields in an early successional state. A project with the
assistance of Ducks Unlimited (DU) refurbished these levees and replaced the WCS in 2006.
The Duck River Bottoms contain 19 impoundments totaling 4,758 surface acres of water. These
impoundments range in size from less than an acre to 1,046 acres (USFWS unpub. data). Much of
the bottoms that can have water management capabilities are already developed. However, a
potential to construct small impoundments or subdivide some existing impoundments still exists. The
existing impoundments are somewhat interconnected and water movement can and does occur
between some of the impoundments. A 50,000 gallons per minute (GPM) electric pump that is
located in the lowest end of the bottoms is available to pump water out of (not into) all of the
impoundments. Typically, it is only used to pump water out of the lower six impoundments due to
time and budget constraints.
Much of the water from the remaining impoundments in the Duck River Bottoms is drained by gravity
flow into Kentucky Lake prior to April 1, when the reservoir levels begin to rise towards summer pool.
Only a few impoundments are small enough to be efficiently pumped using the portable pumps.
Flooding of the impoundments begins on a small scale in August in order to provide habitat for early
migrating waterfowl and rails. The timing of fall flooding in some impoundments is sometimes
delayed until the cooperative farmer’s harvest is complete. For the most part, fall filling is dependent
upon rainfall. Rarely can the refuge open WCS to move water from the reservoir into any
impoundment because the reservoir water level has dropped to the winter pool. With the assistance
of Ducks Unlimited, a project to install a 17,000-GPM pump in the upper bottoms was initiated in
2008. This pump will be strategically positioned along the bank of the Duck River to lift water out of
Kentucky Lake in order to assist in flooding most of the impoundments throughout the Duck River
Bottoms. This pump is planned to be operational in the fall of 2010.
The Busseltown Unit has four impoundments totaling 369 acres (USFWS unpub. data). The
drawdown of these impoundments generally occurs in early March. This unit is primarily managed for
agriculture through the cooperative farming program, with only the lowest fringe of the impoundments
producing moist soil habitat. There are possibilities for increased water management capabilities.
Ducks Unlimited was contracted in 2008 to survey about 300 acres within this unit and develop a
design to impound as much of the area as possible. This project identified six potential
impoundments, totaling 95 acres of flooded habitat. Currently, funds are not available to construct
these impoundments but efforts to secure funding are underway. Fall filling of most of the unit occurs
by rainfall. A few small impoundments are typically filled by the use of portable pumps.
Moist Soil Management
Tennessee NWR manages moist soil habitats to provide food and cover for a wide variety of
waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge attempts to meet as much of the waterfowl forage
objective through the moist soil management program as feasible. Additionally, several other
migratory bird groups, including rails, wading birds, shorebirds and some species of landbirds, benefit
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
from the refuge’s moist soil management practices. On occasion, management efforts within
individual impoundments are focused towards species groups other than waterfowl.
The refuge’s moist soil program essentially began in the mid-1980s when most of the impoundments
were constructed. The management program that exists today has largely resulted from the use of
moist soil management methods identified by Fredrickson and Taylor (1982). Under the current
management strategy, the refuge has the capability to manage for approximately 1,600 acres of
moist soil habitats (1,500 acres on the Duck River Unit and 50 acres each on the Big Sandy and
Busseltown units). An average of 1,400 acres, with varying levels of quality, is produced each year.
Capabilities of expanding the moist soil program do exist, but additional impoundments will be
needed and/or the farming program will be impacted.
The most significant issues the refuge staff faces with managing moist soil habitats are (1) invasive
exotic plants; (2) limited personnel time to properly manage all units; (3) impacts of growing season
floods; and (4) deteriorating infrastructure (levees, spillways, and water control structures).
Forested Uplands
Prior to the establishment of the refuge, most of the forestlands had been used and altered by Euro-
American settlement for well over a hundred years. Forests were cleared for farming, resulting in
thousands of acres of agricultural lands. Some of the cleared land was marginal but farmed for years
and then grazed. Much of this agricultural land was eventually abandoned, producing various stages
of poorly stocked timber stands throughout the refuge. Some of the abandoned fields were planted in
pine by the TVA in the 1940s and by the refuge in the 1970s, and a few were planted in oaks in the
1980s and 90s. Where the topography was not conducive to clearing for agriculture, forest stands
were heavily cut for sawtimber and then burned to encourage browse growth for livestock. In the
early 1900s the iron ore industry clearcut forests in the region to produce charcoal. Much of the
refuge’s forest stands were generally even-aged with closed canopies and a sparse midstory and
understory as a result of these practices.
There have not been any large-scale forest habitat management activities since the harvest in
Compartment 4 of the Big Sandy Unit in 2001. Several attempts were made at using prescribed
burns on the refuge, but it proved logistically difficult to coordinate weather conditions with the fire
teams’ availability. Harvest of Compartment 4 was conducted in a manner that would be conducive
to conduction research that would determine the impacts of the forest management activities. Until
this research project was complete, all harvest activities were suspended until the results of the
research project were available. The research was completed and the results demonstrated that the
management activity had positive effects on several landbird species (Thatcher 2007).
Upland Habitat Management
The 1962 Forest Management Plan for the Tennessee NWR had as its primary objective “to improve
the forest condition so as to develop and maintain optimum game populations, primarily for wild
turkey, white-tailed deer, and waterfowl, through sound forest management practices.” The
secondary objective listed by this plan was “the application of good silvicultural practices aimed
toward obtaining and maintaining optimum stocked timber stands of desired species, size classes
and quality to best meet both wildlife requirements and commercial purposes.” In spite of the plan,
little forest habitat management took place in the following decades.
A forest habitat management evaluation was conducted at Tennessee NWR in 1996 (USFWS 1996).
In 1998, refuge staff began preparing a new Forest Management Plan (FMP) based on the findings of
30 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
this evaluation. The evaluation recommended a refuge forest management program concentrating
on the upland forested areas and their potential as habitat for a selected assemblage of migratory
landbirds. The bird list of priority species was developed based on the Partners in Flight Bird
Conservation Plan for the Interior Low Plateau (Ford et al. 2000). The refuge forest is similar to many
of the forests in the region in that it is generally even-aged with near-completely closed canopies,
small individual crowns and lacking midstory and understory vegetation/structure. The FMP sought to
create more openings in the canopy, increased groundcover, understory and midstory presence, and
larger, more developed canopy crowns. In 1999, with the aid of a new Refuge Forester, the refuge’s
updated FMP was completed to final draft form and approved at the Service’s Southeast Regional
Office in January 2000.
The refuge’s first forest inventory in nearly 40 years was conducted in the summer of 2000 as
directed by the approved FMP. The cruise inventoried timber volumes and forest habitat conditions
on 922 acres of the Big Sandy Peninsula identified as Compartment 4. The cruise data reinforced
the conclusions of the 1996 forest habitat review. In nine of the ten delineated mature upland stands,
the canopy closures were estimated to be ninety-three percent or more. These nine stands
comprised over eighty percent of the refuge’s mature forested area (USFWS unpub. data).
A forest prescription plan was written and approved in 2001 for Compartment 4. The prescribed
actions included timber harvesting and controlled burning. Prescribed fire was suggested in order to
enhance the habitat by promoting grasses and forbs that attract invertebrates, which are a critical
component in the diet of many migratory landbirds. The primary target species of these management
actions are the cerulean warbler, wood thrush, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warbler, and hooded
warbler. In addition to migratory landbirds, game species such as wild turkey and white-tailed deer,
which are valued by refuge hunters and visitors, will benefit from a more diverse forest structure. A
study designed in conjunction with Dr. David Buehler of the University of Tennessee was established
to test the results of a planned selective timber harvest and prescribed burn. The objectives of this
research project were to evaluate the impacts of the refuge’s forest management activities on (1)
habitat structure and composition; (2) breeding bird use; and (3) avian breeding productivity.
Harvesting of the compartment began in 2001 and was conducted with a coordinated system of a
track-mounted feller-buncher, followed by a track-mounted stroke de-limber, followed by either a
traditional skidder or clam bunk. These machines allow precision directional felling and bunching
which reduces the damage to the crowns and bark of remaining trees that is otherwise common in
selective harvests.
A prescription for the controlled burn areas was developed and approved in 2002. Attempts were
made on several occasions to conduct the burn. Due to weather conditions and problems associated
with having a qualified burn crew available at the appropriate time when conditions were within
prescription, the refuge was unsuccessful conducting this burn. No large-scale forest habitat
management activities have been conducted since the harvest in 2001. The harvest of Compartment
4 was conducted in a manner that would be conducive to conduction research that would determine
the impacts of the forest management activities. Until this research project was complete, all harvest
activities were suspended until the results of the research project were available. The research was
completed and the results demonstrated that the management activity had positive effects on several
landbird species (Thatcher 2007).
Invasive Exotic Upland Plant Control
Various species of pest plants exist on the refuge’s forested areas. Chinese privet (Ligustrum spp.),
Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineusm), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
(Pueraria montana), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), multifloral rose
(Rosa multiflora), and musk thistle (Cardus nutans) are species of concern. At this time, these pest
species are not greatly impacting the management objectives of the refuge. The refuge is monitoring
some areas with kudzu and privet. Forest management actions on Big Sandy plots will be monitored
for an increase in exotic or invasive species. The refuge is continuing to look for potential partners to
help with this activity. The refuge is working with the Wild Turkey Federation and the TVA to manage
power line rights-of-way to provide quality habitat for resident species and federal trust resources.
Bottomland Hardwoods
Bottomland hardwood stands on the refuge are primarily limited to small isolated blocks within the
Duck River and Busseltown Dewatering Areas and low-lying areas along the shore of Kentucky Lake,
primarily along the Duck River and Cub Creek. Many of these stands have resulted from the natural
succession of abandoned agricultural and moist soil areas. The tree species composition consists
mostly of lightly seeded species, such as black willow (Salix nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), silver maple (Acer saccharinum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Very few
stands contain a good composition of hard mast-producing trees. Only a few areas that were
abandoned have been planted to oaks. Within some more remote areas of the refuge, loss of quality
bottomland hardwoods have resulted from beaver activities. Currently, the refuge has no large-scale
active forest management activities planned within any bottomland hardwood stands.
Open Water
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge has many open water areas, among them the Tennessee River,
Duck River, Big Sandy River, and Kentucky Lake. Some of the water impoundments also have open
water. The open waters of the refuge attract large numbers of common loons, grebes, gulls, terns,
white pelicans, double-crested cormorants, and coots. As many as 700 common loons and 500
horned grebes have been observed by birders during the fall on the Big Sandy River embayment of
the refuge. Gulls and terns are abundant throughout Kentucky Lake.
Natural Habitat Protection
In addition to the managed habitats addressed above, there are several naturally occurring habitats
(or at least habitats not actively managed by the refuge) that are extremely important to many species
of wetland wildlife. The primary role the refuge plays with these habitats is protecting them.
Most of these habitats are outside the main levees of Duck River and Busseltown Dewatering Areas
and are influenced by the TVA’s Kentucky Lake operation schedule. Under the current water control
schedule, the drawdown of Kentucky Lake from summer pool (359 feet MSL) toward winter pool
starts around July 5 and steadily drops to winter pool (354 feet MSL) by December 1. By mid- to late
August, the level typically drops approximately two feet. At this level water is completely off the
willow-buttonbush zone, allowing woody plants and herbaceous perennials an opportunity to
“breathe” and seedlings to germinate. Annual plants such as yellow nutsedge germinate in areas
where the sunlight is sufficient. Shorebirds and early migrating blue-winged teal readily utilize the
newly exposed mudflats that are free of dense woody vegetation (Wirwa 2009).
The water level continues to drop throughout the fall, exposing vast areas of mudflats. Normally,
during the fall the only habitat available to shorebirds on the refuge are the flats associated with
Kentucky Lake. Annual grasses and sedges carpet these flats, providing browse for geese and some
species of ducks. This habitat is critical for early migrating geese that start arriving in late September
because it is typically the only habitat available at this time of the year, because crop harvest has not
32 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
yet been initiated. Throughout the fall and winter, tens of thousands of green-winged teal, wigeon,
and gadwall forage on these flats (Wirwa 2009).
During the winter and early spring flood events, many of the mallards, black ducks, and wood ducks
will vacate the managed habitats in the bottoms to utilize the newly flooded moist soil, willow-buttonbush,
and bottomland hardwood habitats along the shoreline of the reservoir (Wirwa 2009).
Over 55 percent of the duck use and 48 percent of the goose use on the refuge is found to occur in
the reservoir as opposed to the more intensively managed impoundments (USFWS unpub. data).
The water schedule reverses on April 1 and the reservoir is allowed to quickly rise to summer pool by
May 1. The willow-buttonbush zone is again flooded, providing excellent wood duck brood habitat, as
well as habitat for many other species of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. This habitat is
also essential for spawning and fry survival for many species of fish.
Submersed and free-floating aquatic plant communities are found in scattered locations within the
impoundments and on the reservoir throughout the refuge where conditions are favorable. These
plant communities consist of both native and exotic species, including Eurasian watermilfoil
(Myriophyllum spicatum), spinyleaf naiad (Najas minor), southern naiad (N. guadalupensis), coontail
(Ceratophyllum demersum), and duckweeds (Lemna spp.). Waterfowl commonly utilize these
habitats especially during the early fall. The refuge does not specifically manage for or against the
aquatic plant species listed above.
Diving ducks and mergansers utilize the open deep water habitats that primarily occur on Kentucky
Lake. The Big Sandy Unit holds a greater number and diversity of these species than the other two
units combined. Diving ducks and mergansers make up approximately 20 percent of the ducks on
this unit (USFWS unpub. data). The only management the refuge practices in these habitats is
protection from disturbance and unintentional take with commercial fishing nets. During the early
1990's the refuge documented a problem with diving ducks getting entangled in commercial fishing
gear within high use areas of the Big Sandy Unit. The refuge staff worked with the TWRA to change
commercial fishing regulations for the refuge during the wintering period. Since the new regulations
have been in place, no further kills have been documented on the refuge. The refuge has also closed
some of the highest use areas to boats to reduce disturbance.
Bottomland hardwood stands on the refuge are primarily limited to small isolated fragments within the
Duck River and Busseltown Dewatering Areas and low-lying areas along the shore of Kentucky Lake,
especially along the Duck River and Cub Creek. Many of these stands have resulted from natural
succession of abandoned agricultural and moist soil areas. Tree species composition consists mostly
of light seeded species, such as black willow (Salix nigra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), silver
maple (Acer saccharinum), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). There are very few stands that
contain a good composition of hard mast producing trees. Only a few areas that were abandoned
have been planted to oaks. Within some more remote areas of the refuge, loss of quality bottomland
hardwoods have resulted from beaver activities. Currently, no active forest management activities
are planned within any bottomland hardwood stands.
Disturbance Management - Closed Areas
Selected roads, lands, and waters are closed to public access from November 15 - March 15 to reduce
disturbance to eagles, waterfowl and other water birds in high use areas of the refuge. Outside of the
closed period most of the levees and field roads remain closed to vehicle access but foot and bicycle
traffic is allowed. These roads are closed primarily for public safety and facility protection. Major roads
within each unit remain open to allow the public opportunities to observe wildlife. The seasonally closed
areas on the Big Sandy Unit consist of three large segments of Kentucky Lake and the adjacent lands
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
and access roads. Of the total duck use that occurs on this unit, over 80 percent occurs within these
closed areas (USFWS, unpub. data). Most of the roads and all of the lands and waters within the
impounded areas of the Duck River Bottoms and Busseltown are at least closed seasonally.
In 2005, the beginning of the closed period was moved back to November 15 in an effort to have the
regulations on all the refuges within Tennessee as consistent as possible. The refuge staff does not
feel this change will have significant impacts to waterfowl since populations are typically very low
during early November.
Great blue herons have nested in a 10-acre cypress stand of Grassy Lake in the Duck River Bottoms
since before the Service accumulated data in 1949. Because sportfishing is so prevalent within the
impoundments, the immediate area, within about a 100-yard radius, has historically been restricted to
boat traffic during the herons’ nesting season. The closed radius around the heron rookery was
extended to a 0.5-mile radius in 1984 and access was denied year-around. In the mid-1990s, the
period the rookery area was closed was relaxed to allow access after August 31. The rookery area
would then close on November 1 associated with the normal seasonal closures. Starting in the fall of
2005, the period of closure changed to November 15 - August 31. When the great blue herons
abandoned this rookery in 2005, public assess was no longer restricted other than the normal
November 15 – March 15 closure period.
Invasive Exotic Aquatic Plant Control
Some of the invasive exotic plants known to occur in the wetland habitats on the refuge include
alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), purple
loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Paspalum spp., and Sesbania spp. Currently, only a few species are
creating significant problems on the refuge, but the potential exists for others to become major
problems. Control of these species can be extremely difficult, and in many cases, will only be
temporary due to the extremely invasive nature of these pests. Even if species are controlled on the
refuge, they can easily be re-introduced from adjacent river system during flood events. The refuge
staff has not conducted a complete inventory of all known invasive species and their locations within
the refuge boundaries. Monitoring has been limited to the intensively managed wetland habitats.
The invasive nature, adaptability to various soil moisture conditions, and resistance to mechanical and
chemical control of alligatorweed have resulted in a significant impact on wetland management activities
within the impoundments in Duck River Bottoms. Alligatorweed was first documented in the Duck River
Bottoms in 1988 with a total of four acres found within four separate impoundments. Currently, it is
impacting about 400 acres within the bottoms. Alligatorweed also occurs in small patches within
Busseltown Bottoms and in one impoundment on the Big Sandy Unit. Several locations of heavy and
light infestations occur on Kentucky Lake, both on and off the refuge (USFWS unpub. data).
Most of the refuge’s invasive exotic plant monitoring and control efforts are focused on alligatorweed
within the impoundments on the refuge. Control efforts began in 1989 and continue to this date.
Experiments have been conducted to evaluate mechanical (disking), water level management
(keeping it as dry as possible), and herbicide (several different chemicals) treatments. Mechanical
control efforts have been ruled out because disking spreads the plant, due to its ability to sprout from
cuttings. Dry conditions do stress alligatorweed and allow competition from other plants, but will not
eliminate it and the resulting habitat conditions are poor waterfowl habitat. Most locations where
alligatorweed thrives cannot be dried sufficiently to have long-term effects. Frequent herbicide
treatments appear to be the only means to gain any control over this plant. Of the herbicides tested,
aquatic-labeled imazapyr products (i.e., Habitat) produce the best results (USFWS unpub. data).
34 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
Applications of herbicide have been done using ground equipment (backpack sprayers, tractor and
ATV-mounted boom sprayers) and aerially (helicopter). When possible, aerial treatments are the
most feasible, due to access issues and the amount of area covered relative to the effort applied.
Aerial treatments were initiated in 2002 when 320 acres of alligatorweed was sprayed with
glyphosate. Aerial treatments of alligatorweed with glyphosate continued through 2005 with about
200 acres sprayed each year. Control of alligatorweed by glyphosate was limited and short-lived. In
2005 a new herbicide, Habitat, was tested on 50 acres. Treatment results were promising and the
acres treated more than doubled the next year. Currently, about 150 acres of alligatorweed is aerially
sprayed with Habitat herbicide and progress is being made to control this invasive plant. In addition
to the aerial treatments, several acres are also sprayed using ground methods during each year. The
preliminary results of this intensive effort seem to be reducing the density of alligatorweed but not
eliminating the threat of reestablishment if control efforts are relaxed (USFWS unpub. data).
Parrotfeather, known to be extremely invasive in aquatic environments, was first located in 2002
on two acres within two impoundments in the Duck River Bottoms. Parrotfeather was first treated
with 2,4-D in 2003, which did not prove to be effective. Renovate (an aquatic herbicide labeled
Garlon) was used in 2004 and control was not achieved. In 2005, Habitat herbicide was tested at
a low rate and the results showed minimal control. The application rate for Habitat was increased
to the maximum level in the 2007 treatments and control was much improved. The refuge hopes
to eliminate this plant before it becomes well established.
A small colony of purple loosestrife exists on the Busseltown Unit. This colony has been present
there for a number of years with little indication of expansion. Herbicide treatment with
glyphosate has been attempted for several years prior to 2003. This practice may have reduced
the expansion of the colony but appeared to have no other long-term impacts. In 2003, a
biological control agent was released in the purple loosestrife colony – approximately 2,500
Galerucella beetles were released after the flood waters had receded on June 16, which was an
unusual late release date. The beetles have been released most years since the first release.
This treatment appears to be containing the colony.
Paspalum spp. and Sesbania spp. are present in isolated patches within some of the moist soil areas
in the Duck River and Busseltown bottoms. They have not currently reached unmanageable levels,
but do impact moist soil production where they occur. The refuge has made some effort towards
controlling these plants, but with the focus on alligatorweed this effort has been limited. Where
practicable, Paspalum spp. can be controlled by prolonged deep flooding during the growing season.
Herbicide treatment with glyphosate is also effective. Sesbania spp. can be controlled through
mechanical means (late summer disking or mowing) or herbicide treatments with 2,4-D.
WILDLIFE
The diversity of aquatic and terrestrial habitats enables a variety of wildlife species to make the refuge
their home either during the entire year, during the winter months as many waterfowl do, or during
temporary stopovers as do some migratory songbirds. The refuge focuses most of its efforts on
waterfowl habitat management, but a variety of these habitat management practices benefit
numerous other species. More than 300 species of birds have been observed on the refuge; of this
total, 28 species have been observed and are listed as “accidental” birds (USFWS 2007a). The
abundance and diversity of managed and natural wetlands support over 100 species of waterfowl,
shorebirds, herons, egrets, rails, gulls, terns, and other waterbirds. The large bodies of water
scattered along the refuge host a diversity of waterbirds associated with lacustrine (lake-related)
habitats. In addition, up to 230 species of mammals, fish, reptiles, and amphibians may use the
refuge for part or all of their life cycles (USFWS 2007b).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Waterfowl
Tennessee NWR serves as an important wintering ground for thousands of migratory waterfowl using
the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge winters approximately 200,000 ducks and 7,500 geese. In some
cold winters, the refuge has been known to exceed a peak of 250,000 ducks. During the last ten
years, geese have peaked at 19,000 and ducks have peaked at more than 320,000 (Figures 9 and
10) (USFWS unpub. data).
The refuge is a significant wintering area for American black ducks in Tennessee, accounting for 50
to 75 percent of the population observed during the Mid-winter Survey (Tennessee NWR and TWRA,
unpub. data). Over 40 percent of the black ducks in the Mississippi Flyway observed during the Mid-winter
Survey from the 1970s through the mid-1990s occurred in Tennessee (Sanders et al. 1995).
Thus, during normal winters the refuge winters 20-30 percent of the black ducks occurring in the
Mississippi Flyway; however, the refuge has exceeded 30 percent the last few years. Other duck
species present in significant numbers during the fall and winter include the mallard, gadwall, wigeon,
blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, pintail, ring-necked duck, canvasback, lesser scaup, bufflehead,
goldeneye, and ruddy duck.
Tennessee NWR is one of the three critical terminal wintering regions for those migrant Canada
geese showing fidelity for Deep South wintering sites (Orr et al. 1998). It is important that the refuge
provide sufficiently for the life-history needs for South James Bay (SJB) and Mississippi Valley Goose
populations (MVP), in order to ensure the southeast can retain wild migrant populations and their
traditional migration patterns (Combs et al. 2001). In the 1980s, the Tennessee Refuge often
wintered more than 40,000 migrant Canada geese, but recent numbers have ranged between 5,000
and 13,000 (USFWS unpub. data). Very mild winters and/or numerous management actions in more
northern states and Canada could be limiting factors. However, history has shown that very harsh
winters may double or even triple overwintering densities.
Tennessee NWR is part of the larger seven-county Kentucky Lake Area (KLA), one of the state’s
top three waterfowl sites. Numerous state WMAs and private land waterfowl impoundments are
within this seven-county landscape, all with the potential to provide duck foraging and sanctuary
requirements. A biological review conducted in 2004 (USFWS 2005) recommended the refuge
should provide 60% of the KLA foraging needs for 202,000 ducks for 110 days (22.2 million duck-use
days [DUDs]) and 75% of the 10-year average (1992-2001) refuge peak Canada goose
population of 21,000 for 90 days (1.9 million goose-use days [GUDs]). This would result in refuge
foraging habitat objectives of 121,000 ducks for 110 days and 16,000 geese for 90 days. The
duck population objective was derived from the 1970-79 average KLA Midwinter Inventory for
nine species of ducks, plus a separate wood duck objective added to create the total. Under this
objective, the foraging needs of the remaining 40% of the duck population and 25% of the
Canada goose population will be provided on state WMAs, TVA properties, and private lands.
An expanding population of resident Canada geese (Branta canadensis maxima) is adversely
impacting the refuge’s ability to manage for migratory waterfowl by damaging habitat during the
growing season. Impacts on agricultural crops are threatening the profitability of the cooperative
farming program and reducing the quantity of grain available to migrants. Damage to moist soil
vegetation likely decreases the quality of this habitat in some locations. The refuge is currently
attempting to control resident Canada goose numbers through refuge hunts to avoid excessive
competition for forage and to reduce off-refuge depredation. The Kentucky Lake Waterfowl
Management Plan calls for an interim population objective of 6,000 resident Canada geese, as
36 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
1973-74
1974-75
1975-76
1976-77
1977-78
1978-79
1979-80
1980-81
1981-82
1982-83
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Figure 9. Peak duck populations on Tennessee NWR, 1970–2009.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-81
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
Figure 10. Peak goose populations on Tennessee NWR, 1970–2009.
38 Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge
measured by the TWRA’s annual spring survey. The refuge currently does not have a population
objective, but may consider establishing one in the future for management purposes.
The refuge’s role as a sanctuary enhances waterfowl hunting on nearby public and private lands, as
well as providing opportunities for wildlife observation. Waterfowl sanctuaries are a critical part of
annual waterfowl conservation and management. Sanctuaries provide areas where birds can rest,
gain fat, and develop pair bonds that improve the likelihood of successful nesting in the spring and
summer. Waterfowl hunting, with the exception of a September goose season, is not currently
allowed on the refuge. However, private waterfowl hunting areas are becoming larger and more
developed with increased emphases placed on maintaining flooded food sources that support several
thousand waterfowl. A wider buffer would greatly decrease disturbances along the boundaries and
further enhance the refuge’s ability to meet its intended purposes (USFWS 2005).
Wood Duck Nest Boxes and Banding
Tennessee NWR has a wood duck nest box program that has been active since 1988. Currently,
there are around 160 boxes available each year. The vast majority of these boxes are in the Duck
River Bottoms, where the quality and quantity of brood habitat is superior to that of the other units
and the proximity to the Duck River Work Base maximizes staff efficiency. A few boxes are located
on a couple of small farm ponds on the Big Sandy Unit with a primary purpose of environmental
education. Good brood habitat on the Big Sandy Unit is limited to the willow and buttonbush plant
communities that occur in the riparian zone along the shoreline of Kentucky Lake. There is a
potential for additional nest boxes in locations where creeks enter the reservoir creating large areas
of quality habitat. There are no boxes on the Busseltown Unit, even though good habitat is present in
several locations throughout this unit. The refuge staff would like to expand the nest box program to
the Busseltown Unit and the Big Sandy Unit, but personnel limitations have constrained this
commitment. Maintaining the wood duck nest box program at the current level requires 13 man-days
of effort. This includes box maintenance, data collection, and data entry and reporting.
All boxes are checked and maintained on at least an annual basis. A total of 50 boxes are checked
monthly to provide more accurate data relative to the number of times a box was used during a
season, the number of eggs laid, the number hatched, etc. Use rates and success rates have varied
somewhat over the years, with the last five years averaging 60-70 percent used by wood ducks, 10-
30 percent used by hooded mergansers, 65-80 percent successful wood duck nests, and 50-75
percent successful merganser nests. Even though predator guards are used on all boxes, 30 percent
of the nests are predated, with woodpeckers being the most common culprits (USFWS unpub. data).
Tennessee NWR bands more wood ducks that any other refuge within the Service’s Southeast
Region and possibly in the entire Refuge System. Historically, the refuge bands an average of 925
wood ducks annually, but this number has declined to 567 with the start of the resident goose season
on the refuge (USFWS unpub. data). Due to the potential of a baiting problem, banding operations
have been significantly reduced due to the resident goose hunt. The refuge banded 1,124 wood
ducks in 2009. This represents the highest number banded since the start of the resident goose
hunt. Since the duck trap that is located in the Duck River Bottoms was constructed in 1987, all the
wood duck