Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              N W R C
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
2700 Refuge Headquarters Rd.
Decatur, AL 35603
Dwight Cooley - Project Leader
Phone: (256) 353-7243
FAX: (256) 340-9728
E-mail:wheeler@fws.gov
August 2007
USFWS Photo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wheeler
National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
Hooded Merganser
Copyrighted Photo by:
William R. Gates
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service's best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
August 2007
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Final Environmental Assessment
For
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison,
and Morgan Counties, Alabama
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
August 2007
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 5
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 7
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 7
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 8
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 9
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................... 10
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................13
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13
Wheeler NWR ................................................................................................................... 13
Key Cave NWR ................................................................................................................. 16
Sauta Cave NWR .............................................................................................................. 16
Fern Cave NWR ................................................................................................................ 21
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 21
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 21
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 24
Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan (2003) ................................................... 24
Lower Tennessee – Cumberland Ecosystem Strategic Plan (1995) ................................. 25
Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) ..................................... 26
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 26
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 27
Proliferation of Invasive Species (Plants and Animals) ..................................................... 27
Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems ................................................................................. 28
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 28
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 28
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 29
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 30
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 31
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 32
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 33
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 35
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 35
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 46
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 54
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 55
Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 55
Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 58
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 58
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 58
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 59
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 70
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
CHAPTER III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 75
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 75
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 76
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 79
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 81
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 84
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 88
CHAPTER IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................................... 89
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 89
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 91
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 91
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 92
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 107
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 112
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 119
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 126
CHAPTER V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................ 129
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 129
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 129
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 129
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 132
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 136
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 139
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 143
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 145
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................ 146
Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................ 147
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 147
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 147
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 148
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 149
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 149
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 150
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 150
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 150
Authority, Legal Compliance, Appropriate Uses, and Compatibility ......................................... 151
Appropriate Uses ............................................................................................................ 151
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 152
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 152
CHAPTER II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 155
Table of Contents iii
CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 157
Formulation Of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 157
Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 157
Alternative A - No Action (Current Management) ............................................................ 157
Alternative B - Maximize Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ............................. 159
Alternative C - Maximize Wildlife/Habitat Management .................................................. 160
Alternative D - (Proposed Action) Balance Wildlife/Habitat Management with
Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use .................................................................... 161
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 162
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 163
CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................... 177
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 177
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 177
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 177
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 177
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 178
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 178
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 178
Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments ............................................................................... 179
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 179
Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 179
Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 179
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 179
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 179
Alternative A: No Action (Current Management) ............................................................. 180
Alternative B: Maximize Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use .............................. 180
Alternative C: Maximize Wildlife/Habitat Management ................................................... 180
Alternative D: Balance Wildlife/Habitat Management and Compatible Wildlife
Dependent Public Use (Proposed Action) ....................................................................... 181
Unavoidable Impacts and Minimization Measures ................................................................... 194
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 194
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 194
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 195
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 195
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 195
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 195
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 196
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 197
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 197
CHAPTER V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................. 199
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 199
Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 199
Planning Team Members ......................................................................................................... 199
Biological and Habitat Review Team Members ........................................................................ 200
Visitor Services Review Team Members .................................................................................. 201
iv Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
SECTION C. APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 203
Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 213
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 215
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 221
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 233
Summary Of Public Scoping .................................................................................................... 233
Major Issues Identified .................................................................................................... 234
State Requests ............................................................................................................... 234
Tribal Issues ................................................................................................................... 234
Partnerships' Requests ................................................................................................... 234
Summary of Public Scoping Commments ...................................................................... 235
Priority Issues Addressed by Alternatives: ...................................................................... 236
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 236
Public Forums ................................................................................................................. 237
Affiliations of Respondents ............................................................................................. 237
Comment Media ............................................................................................................. 238
Geographic Origin of Respondents................................................................................. 238
Summary of Concerns and the Service’s Responses ..................................................... 238
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 251
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 269
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 289
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 295
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 297
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Bird List ............................................................... 297
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Mammal List ........................................................ 309
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Amphibian and Reptile List .................................. 311
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Fish Species List ................................................................ 314
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Adjacent Waters Freshwater Mussel List .................... 316
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Adjacent Waters Freshwater Snail List ........................ 318
Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Woody Plant Species List .................................... 319
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 325
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 325
Service Assest Maintenance and Management System (SAMMS) Needs .............................. 328
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 333
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 335
Table of Contents v
APPENDIX L. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES ................................................. 337
APPENDIX M. RELATIONSHIP OF THE WHEELER COMPLEX COOPERATIVE
CONSERVATION PLAN TO THE ALABAMA COMPREHENSIVE
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY .............................................................. 351
APPENDIX N. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 369
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 369
Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 369
Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ............................................................................... 369
Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 369
Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 370
Alternative D (Proposed Action) ...................................................................................... 370
Selection Rationale ................................................................................................................... 371
Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................... 371
Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 372
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 372
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 373
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 373
Land Ownership and Site Development ................................................................................... 373
Coordination ............................................................................................................................. 373
Findings ................................................................................................................................... 374
Supporting References ............................................................................................................. 374
Document Availability ............................................................................................................... 375
vi Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Locations of properties within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex ..................... 6
Figure 2. Land status map for the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex .................................. 14
Figure 3. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................ 17
Figure 4. Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 19
Figure 5. Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 20
Figure 6. Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................... 22
Figure 7. Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem ......................................................................... 23
Figure 8. Land use/land cover for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 37
Figure 9. Waterfowl impoundments managed at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 41
Figure 10. Habitat coverage for Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................. 44
Figure 11. Locations of public use facilities on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 61
Figure 12. Locations of hunting areas on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 63
Figure 13. Locations of public use facilities on Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ........................... 69
Figure 14. Locations of public use facilities on Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge ........................ 71
Figure 15. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex current staffing chart ..................................... 72
Figure 16. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ............ 85
Figure 17. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ......... 86
Figure 18. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex proposed future staffing chart ..................... 146
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Establishment date, establishment authority or legislation, and purpose(s) for each
refuge in the Wheeler Complex ........................................................................................................... 15
Table 2. Select data from Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list ...................................................................... 34
Table 3. Ground waterfowl survey results for the 2005 – 2006 season at Wheeler NWR ................... 47
Table 4. Wood ducks banded in 2005 at Wheeler NWR ..................................................................... 47
Table 5. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for Lauderdale,
Limestone, Jackson, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, and the USA .................................. 56
Table 6. Wildlife-dependent recreation by participants, 16 years old and older, across Alabama ..... 57
Table 7. North Alabama Birding Trail sites on Wheeler Complex ....................................................... 57
Table 8. Deer harvest summary (2005-2006) at Wheeler NWR ......................................................... 65
Table 9. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge funding for fiscal year 2005 ............................................. 73
Table 10. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex revenue payments in dollars for Jackson,
Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, for the last 5 years .................... 74
Table 11. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex step-down management plans and
associated completion dates ............................................................................................................. 148
Table 12. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wheeler National Wildlife
Refuge Complex ............................................................................................................................... 164
Table 13. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wheeler National Wildlife
Refuge Complex ............................................................................................................................... 182
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
and Final Environmental Assessment (EA) to guide the management of Wheeler National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) Complex with refuges located in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and
Morgan Counties, Alabama. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the
next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological and public use review of the wildlife,
habitat, and visitor services management programs at each refuge. Three public scoping meetings
were then held to solicit public opinion of the issues the plan should address.
The Service then developed and analyzed four alternatives (A, B, C, and D). Alternative A was a
proposal to maintain the status quo, which would continue current management practices with limited
baseline biological information. No significant changes would be initiated by the Service. All
management actions would be directed towards achieving the Complex’s primary purposes, including
(1) conserving wintering waterfowl habitat; (2) meeting the habitat conservation goals of national and
international plans; and (3) and conserving wetlands, all while contributing to other national, regional,
and state goals to protect and restore migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and
resident species. Hunting and fishing would continue to be a major focus of the public use program,
with no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions would remain intact.
Environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography would remain
at present levels.
Alternative B would provide for more public use recreational opportunities, while maintaining current
habitat and wildlife management programs. Most habitat management programs would continue.
However, habitat improvement projects that would benefit compatible wildlife-dependent public use
opportunities would be given a higher priority. At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for
small game would be increased within the state hunting season framework and two additional youth
fishing rodeos would be held annually. The 2,000-acre area around Garth Slough, presently closed
to all public entry from November 15 - January 15, would be evaluated for the possibility of opening
select portions of the upland areas to public access. In addition, the hunting of feral hogs would be
allowed during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, feral hogs would
be added to the hunting permit and other hunting opportunities would be explored annually.
Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of
nine new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (three photo blinds, three wildlife observation towers, a
wildlife viewing platform, a nature trail, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and
interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by
constructing a new environmental education center at Wheeler NWR. New informational brochures
would be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and visitor access would be
improved at Sauta Cave NWR. Personnel priorities would include hiring additional education
specialists, wildlife biologists, and at least one additional law enforcement (LE) officer.
Alternative C would maximize wildlife and habitat management while maintaining current public use
opportunities. At each NWR, extensive wildlife, plant, and habitat inventories would be initiated.
Studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, and plants would be initiated
and a complex-wide litter control program would be developed. Conservation efforts would increase
for threatened and endangered species and nuisance animal species control would be increased.
2 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Any areas within the Complex with pumping and water control capabilities would be managed for
moist-soil vegetation, or farmed (with 100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory
waterfowl. Cooperative farming would be eliminated and all farming activities would be conducted via
contracts or force account (using Complex staff and equipment). Protection of trust resources would
be intensified with increased LE activities and a study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way
on refuge resources would be initiated. Results would determine if current Complex policy
concerning easements should be altered and coordination with local planning departments would be
increased. Land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on acquiring land surrounding
the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land protection within the lower reaches of Piney and
Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave high-risk water recharge zone would be explored.
Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities would continue as currently scheduled, but only
where and when they did not detract from, or conflict with, wildlife management activities and
objectives. All Complex lands would be closed at night to the public and select areas of high
waterfowl use on Wheeler NWR would be closed from November-March, reducing acreages for
public use and eliminating all night bank fishing. Personnel priorities would include employing
additional wildlife biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, a LE officer, a
contamination specialist, and a forester.
The Service selected Alternative D as its preferred alternative, which strives for a balanced approach
to addressing key issues and refuge mandates, while improving wildlife and habitat management on
each refuge. It is designed to optimize habitat management, while providing a balance of appropriate
and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs for visitors.
Under Alternative D, cooperative farming will continue and areas with water control capabilities
will be managed for moist-soil vegetation or will be farmed (with 100 percent of crops left
standing) to benefit migratory waterfowl. Nuisance animal species control will be increased and
studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, and plants will be
developed. A complex-wide litter control program will be initiated and conservation efforts
increased for threatened and endangered species.
A large majority of Complex lands will be closed at night and select areas of high waterfowl use on
Wheeler NWR will be closed from November through March, slightly reducing acreages for public
use. However, all six improved boat launching facilities and several other designated night bank
fishing areas will remain open at night. A night fishing permit will be required.
Protection of trust resources and visitor safety will be intensified with increased LE activities and a
study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way on refuge resources would be initiated. Results
will determine if current Complex policy concerning easements should be altered. Coordination with
local planning departments will be increased and the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR
will remain focused on acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land
protection within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave
high-risk water recharge zone will be explored.
At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for small game will be increased within the State
hunting season framework and an additional youth fishing rodeo will be held annually. Feral hogs
will be hunted during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, the
hunting program will be evaluated annually and results will dictate if hunting should be expanded,
reduced or remain the same.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities will result from the construction of four
new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (a photo blind, a wildlife observation tower, a wildlife viewing
platform, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and interpretation will be expanded by
increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by constructing an environmental education center
at Wheeler. New informational brochures will be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern
Cave NWRs and visitor access will be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. Personnel priorities will include
employing additional wildlife biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, assistant
managers, an education coordinator, a law enforcement officer, and a contamination specialist.
4 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Chapter I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
Complex (Wheeler Complex or Complex), with refuges in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison,
and Morgan Counties. In addition, the Complex administers five Farm Service Agency (FSA) tracts in
conservation easements in Calhoun, Lamar, Limestone, and Marion Counties (Figure 1). This CCP
for Wheeler Complex was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the Complex over
the next 15 years and will strive to achieve the vision and purpose(s) of each refuge in the Complex.
This CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The actions described in this CCP also meet the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA is being achieved through the involvement of the
public and the inclusion of a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in Section B of this document.
The CCP's overriding consideration is to carry out the purpose(s) for which each refuge in the
Complex was established. 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 refuges or the purposes for which
they were established.
This CCP has been prepared by a planning team comprised of natural resource management
professionals, including the Project Leader, Deputy Project Leader, Assistant Refuge Manager,
Wildlife Biologist, Supervisory Park Ranger, and Natural Resource Planner from the Wheeler
Complex; biologists representing the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
(ADWFF); a recreation specialist from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); and the Chief of Natural
Resources from Redstone Arsenal, a military base in which 4,085 acres of Wheeler NWR reside. In
addition to the natural resource management professionals listed above, the planning team and
Complex staff have incorporated the input and contributions of other agencies, non-governmental
organizations, Native American tribes, conservation groups, local citizens, the general public, and
other stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described and
documented in Chapter III, Plan Development.
The CCP represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering
three other alternatives, as described in Section B. After reviewing public comments and
conservation management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an attempt
to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of the Wheeler Complex. The preferred
alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the management of the Complex,
and is embodied in this CCP. The Draft CCP and EA was made available to State and Federal
government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment in
April 2007. Comments received through this process were considered in the development of this
final document.
6 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 1. Locations of properties within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role the refuge will play in support of the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System mission and to provide guidance in refuge management and public
use activities. The plan describes the Service’s management direction (goals, objectives, and
strategies) for the next 15 years.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of Refuge Complex management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide Refuge Complex neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding
of Service management actions on and around each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to two historic events. In 1871, the Commission of Fisheries, involved
with research and fish culture, was established. The once independent commission was renamed
the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. In 1886, the
Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture was established.
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 Bureau of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the 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 is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 545 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, 69
national fish hatcheries, and 81 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.
8 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act (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 Improvement Act 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. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as guidelines for refuge
management for the 15-year life of those plans. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall
be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purpose(s) of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible wildlife-dependent public uses.
The following is just a few examples of your 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
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s "Dust Bowl@ severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Depression focused on Awaterfowl production areas" (i.e., protection of
prairie wetlands in America=s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today, but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 37 million people visited national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2004, most to observe
wildlife in their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, important economic benefits are
realized by local communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or
observed wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002, on 15 refuges, visitation had
grown 36 percent in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding
communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into
local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming);
Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira
(Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay
(California); Laguna Atascosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
(California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) B the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other
findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on
food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in
1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with
$4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Laughland and Caudill 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In fiscal year
2005, about 38,000 volunteers contributed nearly 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service
valued at nearly $26 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining Federal, State, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All units of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purpose(s). The plan will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including
Service compatibility standards, and with other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents
(Service Manual 602 FW 1.1 Refuge Planning Overview).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
In addition to serving the purposes of each refuge, 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.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist a refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research; and recreation on refuge lands, and provide a framework for cooperation between
Wheeler Complex and other partners, such as the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (ADCNR) and its Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF), The Nature
Conservancy (TNC), Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP), Land Trust of Huntsville and North
Alabama, Huntsville Grotto of the National Speleological Society, Ducks Unlimited (DU), Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of the Army at
Redstone Arsenal, Wildlife Habitat Council, Native American tribes and private landowners.
Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and management of the Wheeler Complex are provided in Appendix C.
10 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
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 appropriate and
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 purpose(s) of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on
mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purpose(s).
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the “biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution(s) to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound
professional judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of refuge resources and the refuge's
role within an ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science, including consultation with
others both inside and outside the Service (Service Manual 601 FW 3 Biological Integrity, Diversity,
and Environmental Health).
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 CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the Partners in Flight Conservation Plan,
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, the U.S. Woodcock Plan, Fisheries Vision for the Future,
and the Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation Plan (PARC).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). 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 (NAWMP), Partners in Flight, Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 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 habitats. 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, State/provincial, and municipal governments; non-governmental
organizations; private companies; and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland
habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. Plan projects
are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the
protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the
Interior Low Plateau physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation
planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds,
primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the Service's 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.
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. This initiative’s goal is “to restore northern bobwhite
populations range wide to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in
1980 [58,857,000].” Habitat management is the primary vehicle for accomplishing this goal with three
specific objectives in which the Wheeler Complex considered during the development of this CCP.
12 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
U.S. Woodcock Plan. This plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of
woodcock in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives
general guidance for habitat population management at the national level. Though habitat for
woodcock is limited throughout the Wheeler Complex, habitat practices that benefit woodcock were
considered during the development of this CCP.
Fisheries Vision for the Future. In 2001, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries
Program and develop a new fisheries vision for the future. Results indicate that the Service will “work
with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to
support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.” To achieve its vision, the
Fisheries Program in conjunction with its partners will strive to:
􀁹􇤠 Protect the health of aquatic habitats.
􀁹􇤠 Restore fish and other aquatic resources.
􀁹􇤠 Provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources.
Wheeler Complex can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal by providing quality
opportunities for fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources.
Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation (PARC) Plan. This plan was founded in 1998
to address the need for conservation of herpetofauna – amphibians and reptiles – and their habitats
(PARC 2004). Its mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of
the ecosystem and culture through proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships. Although
population and habitat data for amphibians and reptiles are limited throughout the Wheeler Complex,
habitat practices that benefit amphibians and reptiles were considered during the development of this
CCP.
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 State
fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species, contributing to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in
the State of Alabama.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) provides protection and
management for the State's fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in
each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The Department’s major goal is
to promote stewardship and enjoyment of Alabama’s natural resources, both for present and future
generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources, waterway safety, state
lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The Department manages 24 State parks, 23 fishing
lakes, three fish hatcheries, two waterfowl refuges, two wildlife sanctuaries, 34 wildlife management
areas, and a mariculture center. It has responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set
aside for wildlife purposes. Other departmental functions include maintenance of a State Land
Resource Information Center and administration of the Forever Wild land acquisition program.
The State’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provided an opportunity
for developing an open dialogue to help improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the
State of Alabama. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Chapter II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex is currently comprised of seven refuges
spread across 12,500 square miles of northern Alabama. In addition, the Wheeler Complex
administers five Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easement tracts. This CCP covers four of
the seven refuges: Wheeler (1938), Key Cave (1997), Sauta Cave (1978) (formerly known as Blowing
Wind Cave), and Fern Cave (1981). The other three refuges, Cahaba River (2002), Mountain
Longleaf (2003), and Watercress Darter (1980), will be addressed at a later date in a separate CCP.
For the purpose of this document, the term Wheeler Complex will refer only to Wheeler (37,200
acres), Key Cave (1,060 acres), Sauta Cave (264 acres), and Fern Cave (199 acres) NWRs; plus the
five FSA conservation easements (Coley Tract - 161 acres, Pepper Tract - 49 acres, Rollins Tract -
20 acres, Speed Tract #1 - 83 acres, and Speed Tract #2 - 63.43 acres). All together, properties in
the Wheeler Complex total approximately 38,900 acres (Figure 2).
The headquarters for the Wheeler Complex is located at Wheeler NWR in Decatur, Alabama. The
Complex currently has a staff of 15 full-time employees and one term employee. One of the full-time
positions is jointly funded by the Divisions of Refuges and Ecological Services. In 2006, more than
50 volunteers donated over 5,000 hours to the Wheeler Complex. The Complex headquarters has an
administrative office, maintenance facilities, a large Visitor Center, and a Waterfowl Observation
Building. Public use is heavy and an estimated 650,000 people visit the Complex each year. The
address for the Wheeler Complex is 2700 Refuge Headquarters Road, Decatur, Alabama 35603.
The telephone number for the headquarters administrative office is (256) 353-7243 and for the Visitor
Center (256) 350-6639. The headquarters administrative office is open Monday through Friday from
7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. The Visitor Center and Waterfowl Observation Building are open from 9:00
a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday (March through September), and seven days each
week (October through February) from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Although Wheeler Complex has an overriding focus of providing important habitat and protection for
migratory birds, with an emphasis on waterfowl, each refuge within the Complex has a unique
purpose and establishing legislation or authority (Table 1). This planning document identifies specific
goals, objectives, and overall strategies that are intended to support the purposes for each individual
refuge. Management activities for Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs have
been combined due to their close proximity to each other, the similarity of issues and habitats, and
shared personnel in order to manage the Wheeler Complex as a single unit within the Lower
Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (LTCE).
WHEELER NWR
Located among the cities of Athens, Decatur, and Huntsville, Wheeler NWR was established in 1938, by
Executive Order 7926, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Additional
purposes were added later under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. This 37,000-acre refuge is overlaid on the middle third of the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) Wheeler Reservoir with property located in Limestone, Madison, and Morgan
counties (Figure 3). Lands were acquired in 1934 and 1935 by TVA to serve as a buffer strip for the
Reservoir, which was impounded a year later in 1936.
14 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 2. Land status map for the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Table 1. Establishment date, establishment authority or legislation, and purpose(s) for each
refuge in the Wheeler Complex
Refuge Year
Established
Establishing Authority or
Establishing Legislation Refuge Purpose(s)
Wheeler 1938 Executive Order 7926 (July 7, 1938)
“…as a refuge and breeding
ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife...”
“...for use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other
management purposes, for
migratory birds...” a
“...suitable for (1) incidental fish
and wildlife-oriented recreation
development, (2) the protection of
natural resources, (3) the
conservation of endangered
species or threatened species...” b
Sauta
Cave
1978 Endangered Species Act (1973) “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife
which are listed as endangered
species or threatened species…”
Fern
Cave
1981 Endangered Species Act (1973) “…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife
which are listed as endangered
species or threatened species…”
Key
Cave
1997 National Wildlife Refuge
Administration Act (1966)
Fish and Wildlife Act (1956)
Endangered Species Act (1973)
“... for the development,
advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of
fish and wildlife resources ...”
“... for the benefit of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, in
performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may
be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant,
or condition of servitude ...”
“…to conserve (A) fish or wildlife
which are listed as endangered
species or threatened species…”
a Additional purpose(s) identified under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929
b Additional purpose(s) identified under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962
16 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Considered the eastern most national wildlife refuge in the Mississippi Flyway, Wheeler NWR
provides winter habitat for the State's largest duck population and formerly supported the
southernmost and Alabama's only major concentration of wintering Canada geese. In recent years,
the number of Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population, wintering on the refuge, has
declined due to a number of reasons. Snow geese are now the most prominent component of the
winter goose population.
Refuge habitats consist of bottomland hardwoods, mixed hardwoods, pine uplands, moist soil units,
and agricultural fields that support interesting flora, a bird list of 295 species, and a wide variety of
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes.
KEY CAVE NWR
Key Cave NWR was established in 1997 under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, to
ensure that the biological integrity of Key Cave, Collier Cave, Collier Bone Cave, and their common
aquifer remains intact (Figure 4). Key Cave is the only known location for the federally endangered
Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) and lies on the northern shore of Pickwick Lake in a
limestone karst area that contains numerous sinkholes and several underground cave systems. The
area’s sinkholes are an integral component of groundwater recharge to the caves.
Prior to 1992, the Monsanto Company owned a large 1,060-acre tract of land just north of Key Cave
and about five miles southwest of Florence, Lauderdale County, Alabama, in the high-hazard risk
area of the Key Cave aquifer. In 1992, the company sold this tract to The Conservation Fund, which
held the land until the Service acquired the land five years later to establish Key Cave NWR.
In addition to the Alabama cavefish, Key Cave also serves as a priority one maternity cave for the
federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), as well as habitat for two species of blind crayfish
(Procambarus pecki) and (Cambarus jonesi). Collier Cave, located approximately 1.5 miles upstream
from Key Cave, and Collier Bone Cave are also considered potential habitat for these cave species.
Cave entrances are located on TVA lands on the northern shore of Pickwick Lake. Furthermore, the
refuge provides habitat for a variety of migratory and resident wildlife species. Several priority bird
species commonly occurring on the refuge include: dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, field sparrow,
northern bobwhite, northern harrier, and short-eared owl.
SAUTA CAVE NWR
Sauta Cave NWR, known as Blowing Wind Cave NWR until 1999, lies just above the Sauty Creek
embayment of TVA’s Guntersville Reservoir, seven miles west of Scottsboro, Jackson County,
Alabama (Figure 5). The refuge established in 1978, under the authority of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 to provide protection for the federally endangered gray and Indiana (Myotis sodalis) bats
and their crucial habitat consisting of 264 acres of hardwood forest. The cave provides a summer
roosting site for about 300,000 - 400,000 gray bats and a winter hibernaculum for both bats.
Besides the endangered bats, many other species occur in the cave, including the Tennessee cave
salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus) and the cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga). Additionally a
relatively large (>250 individuals) population of Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana), a federally
threatened plant species, is found on the refuge. The cave has upper and lower gated entrances and
14,628 feet of mapped passage. Formations in the lower cave have been described as spectacular
and petroglyphs have been found on the cave ceilings. In the past, the cave was used as a saltpeter
mine during the Civil War, a nightclub during the 1920s, and a fallout shelter during the 1960s.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 3. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
18 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 4. Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge
20 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 5. Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
FERN CAVE NWR
Fern Cave NWR was established in 1981, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, to provide protection for the endangered gray and Indiana bats. The refuge is located 20 miles
west of Scottsboro and two miles northeast of Paint Rock in Jackson County, Alabama, and consists
of 199 acres of forested hillside underlain by a massive cave with many stalactite and stalagmite-filled
rooms. An additional 483 acres of land are included in the approved acquisition boundary of the
refuge (Figure 6).
The cave itself has five hidden entrances, with four of these currently occurring on the refuge. The
fifth entrance (Surprise Pit) is located within the approved acquisition boundary for the refuge.
Recent estimates indicate that one million gray bats hibernate in the cave, making it the largest
wintering colony of gray bats in the United States. In the past, the threatened American Hart’s-tongue
fern (Phyllitis scolopendrum var. americana) has been found on Fern Cave NWR. Two
decades ago, 20 individual plants were documented on the refuge; however, the most recent survey
was not able to find the American Hart's-tongue fern. The plant may still be present in the form of
spores in the soil and may produce plants in future years.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
In 1941, for reasons of national security, about 4,085 acres of Wheeler NWR were included inside the
boundary of Redstone Arsenal, a U.S. Army military installation. Currently, about 1,500 acres of the
original 4,085 acres are partially administered by the Marshall Space Flight Center, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Generally, the Complex does not actively manage
the refuge lands within the Arsenal’s boundary. For example, hunting and fishing programs in those
areas are administered by law enforcement personnel stationed at Redstone Arsenal.
Additionally, a 30-acre tupelo gum swamp, located on the north side of the Tennessee River along
Beaverdam Creek on Wheeler NWR, was officially designated as a National Natural Landmark in
1974. This habitat is unique because this tupelo gum swamp occurs in the Interior Low Plateau
physiographic region, rather than its usual occurrence in the Gulf Coastal Plain region.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Conservation of the Service's trust resources (i.e., endangered species, migratory birds,
interjurisdictional fisheries, and marine mammals) will require the long-term maintenance of healthy
ecosystems. An ecosystem approach will require a holistic view of resource conservation,
recognizing that all things are connected. To be effective, an ecosystem approach will not only mean
protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, but also
factoring in the impacts of and providing for sustainable socioeconomic activity (USFWS 1995).
Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located within a physiographic region known as the Lower
Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (LTCE) (Figure 7). The LTCE is composed of two large
watersheds, the lower half of the Tennessee River and the entire drainage of the Cumberland River.
The lower Tennessee River encompasses that portion of the river valley located in northern Alabama,
middle Tennessee, and west Tennessee. It is within the Tennessee River Valley of northern
Alabama that the refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located.
22 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Figure 6. Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 7. Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem
24 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Several regional conservation plans and initiatives relate to Wheeler Complex, including the Central
Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan (CHJVCP), the Lower Tennessee - Cumberland Ecosystem
Strategic Plan, and the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS).
CENTRAL HARDWOODS JOINT VENTURE CONCEPT PLAN (2003)
The Central Hardwoods is one of 67 bird conservation regions (BCRs) across North America
identified by the four major bird initiatives and their conservation partners under the auspices of the
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The boundary for the Central Hardwoods Bird
Conservation Regions (CHBCR) overlaps nine states (i.e., Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio); Regions 2, 3, and 4 of the Fish and Wildlife
Service; Regions 8 and 9 of the USDA Forest Service; and two other formally recognized Joint
Ventures, the Upper Mississippi/Great Lakes Joint Venture (UM/GLJV) and the Lower Mississippi
Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV).
Representatives of each overlapping Federal and State land-managing agency, Joint Venture, and
other conservation organizations attended a scoping meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, in May 2000,
to determine the level of interest in and support for a conservation partnership for the Central
Hardwoods BCR. The group endorsed the development of a Joint Venture partnership throughout
the CHBCR. This partnership was established to embrace the primary goal of the NABCI Initiative “to
deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based, biologically driven, landscape
oriented partnerships" (NABCI 2003).
In addition, the Joint Venture seeks to base conservation delivery upon sound science and the
principles of adaptive management, and to target conservation actions toward landscapes with the
greatest ecological and socioeconomic potential to support viable populations of priority birds in four
general habitat types: grasslands; grass-shrublands; forest-woodlands; and wetlands. This
partnership also seeks to strengthen the biological foundation upon which planning and evaluation
are based and to initiate projects and fund-raising for habitat and other work that will further the
conservation objectives of the various bird initiatives encompassed by NABCI.
The CHBCR boundary straddles the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri; the region to the
west is also known as the Ozarks or Interior Highlands, and the region to the east, the Interior Low
Plateaus. It lies within a transition zone between what were historically tallgrass prairie, oak savanna,
and woodlands to its north and west; pine forests and woodlands to the south; and oak and mixed
mesophytic forests to the east.
According to the CHJVCP the greatest future threat to existing bird habitat in the CHBCR is likely to
be the continuing expansion of urban sprawl into rural areas. Of the 318 counties associated with the
CHBCR, only 25 counties experienced a loss in population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2000). The counties in the CHBCR with population increases greater than 25 percent were
adjacent to urban areas (Fitzgerald et al., 2003).
Priority species and their conservation needs for the CHBCR have been identified by Partners in
Flight (Rich et al., 2005); the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al., 2001); the
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al., 2002); the 2004 North American
Waterfowl Management Plan Strengthening the Biological Foundations (NAWMP 2004), and the
Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (Dimmick et al., 2002). A list of priority species and their
general habitat affiliations for the Central Hardwoods BCR are presented in Appendix L.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
LOWER TENNESSEE – CUMBERLAND ECOSYSTEM STRATEGIC PLAN (1995)
The LTCE Team developed a strategic plan in 1995 for the conservation of the Tennessee River and
Cumberland River watersheds' natural animal and plant diversity through perpetuation of a dynamic,
healthy ecosystem. The purpose of this ecosystem management plan is to outline goals, objectives, and
strategies to protect and restore Service trust resources and ecological integrity within the LTCE. This
plan recognizes that ecosystem function, natural community structure, and species composition are
integral to the conservation of the Service's trust resources. It also recognizes that the Service is just one
of many partners, all of whom share responsibility for ecosystem health. These partners include Federal,
State, and local agencies; communities; organizations; and corporate and private landowners.
The LTCE strategic plan identified four goals which this CCP considered during the planning
process to ensure the Complex continues its overall contribution to Alabama wildlife
conservation and habitat integrity.
Goals:
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance habitats and essential processes necessary to maintain healthy
biological diversity;
􀁹􇤠 Promote and support compatible and sustainable uses of the resource found within the LTCE;
􀁹􇤠 Increase public knowledge and support for ecosystem resources and their management; and
􀁹􇤠 Increase coordination and cooperation among organizations to enhance effective and efficient
management of natural resources.
In addition to the strategic plan, the Migratory Bird Committee of the LCTE team developed a Bird
Conservation Plan (BCP) that covers many of the migratory bird groups. Categories include
waterfowl, forest-dependent migratory birds, grassland birds, and shorebirds. Specific objectives or
strategies related to Wheeler Complex are listed below:
􀁹􇤠 Provide adequate foraging habitat for 8.2 million duck-use-days and 2.8 million goose-use-days
in the three Alabama counties that include Wheeler NWR (i.e., Limestone, Madison, and
Morgan Counties).
􀁹􇤠 Establish and secure a 20,000-acre block of forested wetland within the Tennessee River
floodplains with its core around the refuge. Priority species include the wood thrush, cerulean
warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
􀁹􇤠 As a strategy to establish and/or maintain at least 55 areas of sustainable source populations
of mature hardwood forest birds, a management and monitoring plan needs to be developed
for areas such as Wheeler NWR. Each of the 55 areas is defined as “... a block of
approximately 7,500 to 10,000 acres that is at least 70 to 80 percent forested (preferably 85-
95 percent forested), within which a core of about 3,000 acres of mature hardwood forest is
managed for cerulean warblers.
􀁹􇤠 Establish a minimum of two “flagship” sites where joint management strategies and modeling
exercises will be developed for shorebirds. One possible site is Swan Creek Wildlife
Management Area/Wheeler NWR.
The BCP also includes objectives and strategies that generally may apply to Wheeler NWR.
Examples include those listed below:
􀁹􇤠 Along with partners, provide nesting and brooding habitat for cavity nesting ducks with wood
ducks being a priority.
26 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
􀁹􇤠 Inventory waterfowl populations at least monthly from October through March.
􀁹􇤠 Manage forested habitats on Service lands using sound silvicultural practices to improve
vertical structure and habitat diversity across all forest strata.
􀁹􇤠 Develop key educational messages about shorebirds that can be used to reach target
audiences.
ALABAMA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (2005)
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) Division of Wildlife and
Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF) Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was
completed in 2005. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for and coordination of
wildlife conservation efforts in Alabama for the next decade. The overall goal is to identify and
conserve those species in greatest need for conservation action, while also addressing the full array
of wildlife and habitats.
This publication identifies those wildlife species of greatest conservation need and actions needed to
conserve Alabama’s wildlife and their key habitats. Information relative to these species and those
habitats found on Refuge System lands will be evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts.
Upon review of the Alabama CWCS, the Service has identified four objectives that this CCP considered
during the planning process to ensure that the Complex continues its contribution and support for
Alabama wildlife conservation and habitat integrity. These four objectives are listed below:
􀁹􇤠 Provide habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all
species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act.
􀁹􇤠 Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for
the continued survival of species of conservation concern.
􀁹􇤠 Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and
conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and their related
habitats.
􀁹􇤠 Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships between ADWFF and State and
Federal natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental
groups, private industry, and academia.
Overarching statewide conservation actions were also developed, as many actions recurred for many
species and habitats, and in existing conservation plans. Alabama's conservation actions therefore
addressed needs at several levels and multiple scales (ADWFF 2005). Please see Appendix M for a
comparison of Statewide Conservation Actions in relation to each of the proposed alternatives for the
Wheeler Complex CCP. Differences are noted in a comprehensive table as either supporting or not
supporting statewide actions.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The Wheeler Complex faces a variety of ecological threats and problems. The most important of
these threats and problems are habitat loss and fragmentation, the proliferation of invasive species
(plant and animal), and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
One the primary threats to the Wheeler Complex is the historic and ongoing loss and degradation
of wildlife habitat, largely due to development pressures related to Alabama's increasing human
population. Alabama has a population in excess of 4.4 million, a 10 percent increase from 1990
to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by the year 2025
Alabamians will number 5.22 million, a 17 percent increase from 2000 (Campbell 1997). To make
matters worse, the Huntsville/Madison/Decatur area, which surrounds Wheeler NWR, is one of
the fastest growing areas in the State with a combined population in excess of 250,000 (U.S.
Census Bureau 2000).
Land clearing for agriculture, flood control projects, transportation corridors, and rights-of-way, and
more recently for residential development has had a tremendous effect on the biological diversity,
biological integrity, and environmental health of the LTCE. Large tracts of bottomland hardwood
forests have been reduced to forest fragments ranging from very small tracts of just a few acres in
size with limited functional value to a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained
many of the original functions and values of bottomland hardwood forest.
Bottomland hardwoods and associated wetlands support substantial wintering populations of
waterfowl species. They are also a high-priority nesting habitat for other migratory birds. Currently,
more than 70 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the area. Some of these species,
including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have
declined and need large forested blocks to recover, survive, and thrive.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES (PLANTS AND ANIMALS)
Each year in the United States, invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage. Estimated
damage and control cost of invasive species in the United States alone amount to more than $138
billion annually (Pimentel et al., 2005). In addition to these costs, economic losses can occur due to
loss from recreational and tourism revenues (Simberloff 2001). Wheeler Complex has several
documented invasive pest plant and animal species. These species impact the Complex’s ability to
carry out desired management objectives.
Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and
American lotus (Nelumbo luteas) are major invasive aquatic species. These species threaten natural
aquatic vegetation that is important to wetland systems and choke open waterways to a degree that
often prevents recreational use. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana),
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and to a lesser extent
wisteria (Wisteria venusta) and ornamental bamboo (Bambusa multiplex), are terrestrial invasive
plant species of concern throughout the Complex. Currently, the Complex implements control
measures when budgets and work force allows.
Invasive and nuisance animal species, such as feral hogs (Sus scrofa) and beavers (Castor
canadensis) destroy habitat. Beavers kill and damage stands of trees when dam and lodge
construction holds water in areas longer than normal that results in prolonged flooding. These events
cause massive die-offs of large tracts of mature bottomland hardwoods, which take decades to
recover. In addition, flooding events can back water up and flood adjacent landowners' properties.
Feral hogs compete with native wildlife for food and they prey on small vertebrates and invertebrates.
They destroy habitat at a rapid pace by rooting, which kills wetland vegetation and damages refuge
roads and dikes. These actions then provide favorable conditions for the spread of invasive plants.
28 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Another invasive species, the Zebra mussel, has been documented in the Tennessee River; however
it is not understood why this species has not expanded into large colonies. The absence of current
management problems does not mean future problems will not occur. Control will require efforts of
essentially all Federal, State, and local partners, including adjacent landowners.
DEGRADATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
The Tennessee River Valley is comprised of several aquatic ecosystems that have been greatly
deteriorated by human activities. Impacts to aquatic species and their habitat include:
impoundment of free flowing streams and rivers; habitat degradation from erosion and
sedimentation; misuse of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; toxic chemical discharges from
both point and non-point sources; and competition from exotic and/or invasive aquatic species.
All of these events have led to degradation of aquatic ecosystems within the Tennessee River
Valley and each refuge within the Wheeler Complex.
One on the most damaging events to aquatic ecosystems in the Tennessee River Valley has
been the historical use of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, PCB’s, toxaphene, dieldrine, and
lindane), which contain heavy metals, such as mercury. These chemicals were commonly used
in farming operations (especially cotton) prior to being banned in the 1970s. These persistent
chemicals were used throughout northern Alabama and can remain in the soil substrate for long
periods of time. These chemicals have been linked to an assortment of contamination issues and
continue to detrimentally impact fish and other aquatic-dependent resources, such as fish-eating
birds, wood ducks, and raccoons.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The climate of the Tennessee River Valley in northern Alabama is humid and temperate, with
temperatures ranging from -5 degrees to 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Summers are long and hot,
and generally the winters are mild and pleasant. The average summer temperature is 79 degrees F,
with an average maximum temperature of 89 degrees F. In winter, the average temperature is 42
degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is 32 degrees F. Temperatures at higher
elevations are generally 5 to 6 degrees lower. Occasionally, temperatures in the winter will drop
below freezing and will sometimes remain below freezing for one to four days.
Frost can be expected from the middle of October until the latter part of March. Prevailing winds
are normally from the northwest; however during the fall and winter months winds from the west
and northeast are common. The average wind velocity is highest during the winter and lowest
during the summer. The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent and
greater at night. The average humidity at dawn is about 80 percent. Humidity is normally 90
percent or greater in the summer months.
Rainfall is approximately 57 inches per year, and there is seldom extended accumulations of snow or
ice. Precipitation is highest during the winter and lowest during the fall. Rainfall events that produce
flooding are most common from mid-December to mid-April. However, heavy rainfall can be recorded
anytime throughout the year and records show that the heaviest floods have occurred during summer
months. Although prolonged droughts are rare, excessive dry periods in the late summer have
occurred (Sherard 1971; Swenson et al., 1958; and Swenson et al., 1954).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located within two physiographic provinces of the United
States: the Interior Low Plateau and the Appalachian Plateau. Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs reside
within the Highland Rim section of the Interior Low Plateau called the Tennessee Valley. The
Tennessee Valley is characterized by broad, gently sloping areas with semi-karst topography and is
underlain by 360 million-year-old Mississippian-aged limestone and shale. It is comprised of two
physiographic subdivisions: The Limestone Valley (Red Lands) and the Alluvial Plains. Red Lands
have undulating to rolling relief and Alluvial Plains have nearly level to undulating first bottoms and
stream terraces (second bottoms) along the Tennessee River (Swenson et al., 1958).
Sauta Cave and Fern Cave NWRs reside within the Cumberland Plateau section of the Appalachian
Plateau province. The surface is underlain by 330 million-year-old Pennsylvanian-aged sandstones,
conglomerates, coal, and shale. Side slopes found in the higher mountain elevations are composed of
older limestone and shale from the Mississippian System. Terrain features can be steep and difficult to
access by vehicle. Slopes greater than 25 percent are common (Swenson et al., 1954).
Wheeler NWR
Wheeler NWR exists along the Wheeler Reservoir of the Tennessee River and is located within the
Alluvial Plains physiographic subdivision. It is underlain by Tuscumbia Limestone, which is gray to
blue in color and contains some interstratified chert. Exposed surface rock is unusual, except in a
few isolated places. The weathering of the Tuscumbia limestone has given rise to many of the red
upland soils and has developed many caves and sinkholes in the area. The general topology of the
refuge is flat (0-2 percent slopes) to gently rolling (3-6 percent slopes), with a few abrupt hills
(Swenson et al., 1958). Land elevations range from 560 to about 575 feet above mean sea level
(MSL), except in the dewatering units where elevations may be as low as 552 feet MSL.
Key Cave NWR
Key Cave NWR exists along the northern shore of the Pickwick Reservoir of the Tennessee River and
resides within the Limestone Valley physiographic subdivision. It is also underlain by Tuscumbia
Limestone, whose weathering has produced many karst features, including numerous springs, sinkholes,
and several underground cave systems. There are very few exposures of bedrock except for locations
along the bluff line at the margin of the Tennessee River (Aley 1990). Topology is comprised of flat to
gently rolling upland terraces with slopes ranging from one to fifteen percent. Elevation of the land
surface generally ranges from about 500 to 580 feet above MSL (Kidd et al., 2001).
Sauta Cave NWR
Sauta Cave NWR exists along the northern shore of the Guntersville Reservoir of the Tennessee River. It
is underlain by the Bangor and Monteagle Limestone formations and parts of the Pennington formation.
Bangor Limestone is comprised of blue coarsely crystalline or oolitic finely granular limestone with
occasional lenses of shale. It is several hundred feet thick, occurs in beds or massive layers that outcrop
on mountain slopes, and provides the parent material for the hilly and rough types of limestone rockland
on the refuge. Monteagle Limestone is also comprised of oolitic limestone, but contains more shale. Both
the Bangor and Monteagle Limestones are well known for forming caves. The Pennington formation is a
caprock for the area and consists of shale with sandstone, thin dolomite and limestone beds (Swenson et
al., 1954). Elevations range from 1,140 feet MSL at the highest point on the refuge and falls to 600 feet
MSL at the lowest portion near the bottom entrance to Sauta Cave.
30 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Fern Cave NWR
Fern Cave NWR exists along the eastern edge of the Paint Rock River valley just north of the
Guntersville Reservoir of the Tennessee River. It is underlain by the Bangor and Monteagle
Limestone formations and parts of the Pottsville formation. The Pottsville formation is of
Pennsylvanian age and is made up of a sandstone cap and an underlying bed of shale. The terrain is
difficult and slopes are steep. Slopes greater than 35 percent are common (Swenson et al., 1954).
The eastern-most section of the refuge starts at about 1,500 feet MSL in elevation and the
northwestern edge that borders the Paint Rock River falls to about 590 feet MSL.
SOILS
The majority of the soils located on lands within the Wheeler Complex have developed from the
weathering of high-grade limestone, the deposition of alluvial material from the Tennessee River, or
the deposition of colluvium from weathering sandstones in the higher elevations. Soils are generally
acidic, low in organic matter, and are usually fertile.
Wheeler NWR
Upland, terrace, colluvial, and bottomland soils are found on Wheeler NWR. Upland soils that occupy
positions above the adjacent stream bottoms and river terraces consist of material derived directly
through the decay of limestone rock in place. The properties of these soils are closely related to
those of the parent rock and are underlain with clay or limestone. These soils are well to moderately
drained and make up approximately 14 percent of the land acreage on the refuge. The Decatur and
Dewey soil series, derived from high-grade limestone, are the reddest of the upland soils and most
fertile (Swenson et al., 1958).
Terrace soils (old general alluvium) are frequently called second bottoms or benches. These soils
are more mature than soils on first bottoms and have more distinct surface-soil and subsoil layers.
The Capshaw, Captina, Wolftever, and Holston soil series are moderately well-drained in the upper
levels but drain much slower at lower elevations (Swenson et al., 1958). These soils make up about
36 percent of the land acreage on the refuge.
Colluvial soils (young and old local alluvium/colluvium) are the sloping fans and benches at the base of
slopes. They consist of a mixture of local alluvium and colluvium that has been washed or has been
sloughed from higher elevations. The Abernathy, Allen, Greendale, Hermitage, and Jefferson soil series
are well-drained. The Ooltewah and Guthrie soil series are somewhat poorly to poorly drained (Swenson
et al., 1958). These soils only make up about eight percent of the land acreage on the refuge.
The bottomlands (floodplains) or first bottoms are nearly level areas along stream channels that are
subject to frequent flooding. These soils are young and undeveloped and make up approximately 41
percent of the land acreage on the refuge. Parent material from which these soils are developing has not
been deposited long enough to permit the development of surface and subsoil layers (Swenson et al.,
1958). Bottomland soils found within Wheeler’s dewatering/impoundment units have silt loam textures
that drain very slowly. These soils may be too wet in spring to plant corn, but are usually dry enough for
planting late season crops, including soybeans. The majority of these soils belong to the Melvin series,
which consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in silty alluvium on flood plains and in upland
depressions. Slopes range from zero to two percent (USFWS 1944).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Key Cave NWR
Upland soils derived from the decay of high-grade limestone rock are found on Key Cave NWR. The
properties of these soils are closely related to those of the parent rock and are underlain with clay or
limestone. The Decatur, Dewey, and Fullerton soil series make up approximately 80 percent of the
land acreage on the refuge and have silt loam to silty clay loam textures (Sherard 1971). These soils
are moderately to well drained, and depth to bedrock average between 25 and 50 feet deep (Moser
and Hyde 1974). Small pockets of the Grasmere series can be found along small drainage ways and
in shallow depressions. Soils in the Grasmere series drain moderately to poor and have silty-clay
loam textures (Sherard 1971).
Sauta Cave NWR
Soils on Sauta Cave NWR are dominated by rough stony land, limestone rockland (rough), and
limestone rockland (hilly). These soils make up over 85 percent of the land acreage on the refuge.
Rough stony land (Muskingum soil material) occurs on the upper one-third of the area between
sandstone plateaus and limestone valleys. Slopes (>20) are steep and soil material consists largely
of colluvial accumulations of sandstone material on top of limestone.
Areas classified as limestone rockland (rough) occur in wide nearly continuous belts that include
rocky slopes (>25 percent) that occur on the bottom two-thirds of the area between sandstone
plateaus and limestone valleys. Soil material among the rocks consists of residue from limestone
weathered in place and wash from higher elevations. External drainage is rapid except in areas
where level benches are located. Small to large limestone sinks and caves are common.
The limestone rockland (hilly) series includes area of hilly land (11-25 percent slopes) with numerous
limestone outcrops and large limestone boulders. This series occurs on limestone ridges below areas of
limestone rockland (rough). External drainage is very rapid and internal drainage is slow. The soil
material among the rocks consists of weathered limestone and shale. The depth of the soil material
varies form a few inches to several feet (Swenson et al., 1954). The remaining 15 percent of the land
base is composed of young soils consisting of alluvial material deposited from weathering limestone.
Fern Cave NWR
Soils on Fern Cave NWR are dominated by limestone rockland (rough) and rough stony land. These
two soil series make up over 90 percent of the land on the refuge (Swenson et al., 1954). The
remaining 10 percent of the land base is composed of young soils consisting of alluvial material
deposited from weathering limestone. (Please see the section above for individual descriptions of
each of these soil series.)
HYDROLOGY
The Tennessee River and its tributaries comprise the drainage system for the four refuges in the Wheeler
Complex. The Alabama portion of the Tennessee River basin is located along what is called the “Great
Bend.” The name Great Bend was an Native American term adopted by early settlers to describe the arc
of the Tennessee River as it reached its southern most bend in what is today Alabama (McDonald 1989).
The Tennessee River basin in Alabama drains roughly 13 percent of the state’s 51,705 square miles and
is by far the largest river system to pass through the State of Alabama (McDonald 1989).
32 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Wheeler NWR
The Tennessee River flows through the center of the refuge from east to west. Several tributaries
flow across refuge lands into the river. The main tributaries include Flint and Cotaco Creeks on the
south side and Piney, Limestone, Beaver Dam, and Indian Creeks on the north side of the
Tennessee River. There are numerous other small branches. The normal pool elevation of the
Wheeler Reservoir in the summer is 556 feet MSL (169.5 m). At this level, approximately 15,500
acres of open water flow within the boundary of Wheeler NWR.
Key Cave NWR
Key Cave NWR does not have any perennial streams that currently flow across the refuge. Before
the Service took ownership of the land, several large erosion ditches were present. Complex
management installed three shallow water areas and rehabilitated drainage channels to reduce
erosion, thus enhancing the water quality for endangered species inhabiting Key Cave. A 38-acre
sinkhole lake once held water on the refuge; however it has been dry since September 2000.
Numerous sinkholes are found in close proximity to the refuge and are an integral component of
groundwater recharge to Key Cave, Collier Cave, and Collier Bone Cave.
In 1990, the Ozark Underground Laboratory conducted a study to determine the underground
recharge area for the cave system. The recharge area was divided into four potential risk areas: high
hazard, moderately high hazard, moderate hazard, and low hazard (Aley 1990). The refuge resides
in the high hazard risk area of the Key Cave aquifer Recharge Zone.
The recharge zone is approximately 16 square miles and is located in karst topology underlain by
Tuscumbia limestone. Surface drainage is poor and essentially all runoff water enters the
groundwater system by sub-surface drainage. Only a portion of the water in the Key Cave aquifer
passes through Key Cave. The estimated mean annual discharge from the entire Key Cave aquifer
is approximately 15 to 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow rate is subject to precipitation events
and can fluctuate greatly (Aley 1990). Waters from Pickwick Lake seldom, if ever, flow into Key
Cave. Instead, waters from Key Cave discharge into the Lake through Coffee Slough.
Sauta Cave NWR
Surface runoff and groundwater discharge from lands within the refuge's boundaries drain into North
Sauty Creek, a tributary of the Tennessee River on the Lake Guntersville Reservoir.
Fern Cave NWR
Surface runoff and groundwater discharge from lands within the refuge's boundaries drain into the
Paint Rock River, a tributary of the Tennessee River on the Lake Wheeler Reservoir.
AIR QUALITY
Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary
and secondary air quality standards to protect public health and public welfare. Primary standards
are designed to prevent the public from dangerous particulates in the air that can cause health
related problems. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and
animals, from harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops,
vegetation, and buildings.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air pollutants (referred to
as “criteria pollutants”): Particulate Matter (PM), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Ground-Level Ozone (O3), Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead (Pb). Areas of the country that are as of yet unable to
meet these federal clean air standards are referred to as “non-attainment” areas (TVA 2003).
The Air Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) monitors all of
these pollutants for counties in the State of Alabama. The closest monitoring stations located near
refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located in Colbert, Madison, and Morgan Counties. In
general, data from 2004 indicate that the Alabama counties within the Tennessee River Valley are
meeting all of the NAAQS and have recently been designated in attainment with the new 8-hour
ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards (TVA 2003). In fact, Huntsville is
presently an attainment area for all federal air quality standards (City of Huntsville 2004).
However, the Huntsville area remains close to the 8-hour ozone and fine particle standards, which
were promulgated by EPA in 1997. The revised ozone standard is more stringent than the former 1-
hour standard, and attainment of the new fine particulate matter standard (the PM2.5 NAAQS) is
similarly far more difficult than attainment of the PM10 standard. In the Huntsville area, ongoing
pollution control efforts and favorable meteorological conditions over the past three years have
resulted in ambient pollutant concentrations below the levels specified in the new federal standards
(City of Huntsville 2004).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
The Water Division of ADEM is responsible for monitoring and maintaining water quality and
controlling water pollution in the State. Its 2006 Integrated Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring
Report indicated that overall Alabama’s surface water is of high quality (ADEM 2006). This report
also stated that water management programs are conducted on a basin-wide scale and that water
quality monitoring of lakes of the Tennessee River system are conducted by the Tennessee Valley
Authority Reservoir Vital Signs Monitoring Program. This program provides monitoring results to
ADEM on an annual basis (ADEM 2006). Open water is controlled entirely by TVA in its flood control
and power production operations; however water confined to dewatering/impoundment units on
Wheeler NWR are controlled by the Service.
Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located within the Wheeler, Pickwick, and Guntersville
Reservoirs of the Tennessee River. Wheeler Reservoir was monitored annually by TVA from 1991
through 1995 to establish baseline data on the Reservoir’s ecological health under a range of
weather and flow conditions. Wheeler Reservoir is now monitored every other year. The ecological
health condition of Wheeler Reservoir was rated “good” in 2005 and “fair” in 2003. The rating in 2003
was only one point below a rating of good (TVA 2006). Although the overall ecological condition of
Wheeler Reservoir also was fair in 1999 and 2001, the 2003 score was notably higher. Generally,
lower ecological health scores occur during years with lower flows as a result of higher chlorophyll
concentrations and lower dissolved oxygen levels (TVA 2006).
Pickwick and Guntersville reservoirs were monitored annually by TVA from 1991 through 1994 to also
establish baseline data. Pickwick and Guntersville Reservoirs are now evaluated every other year.
The overall ecological condition of both Pickwick and Guntersville Reservoirs was rated as good in
2004 (TVA 2006). As in past years, the ecological health indicator scores for Guntersville Reservoir
were among the highest observed for all TVA reservoirs (Dycus and Baker 2000).
34 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
The Clean Water Act of 2001 requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently
support designated uses and establish a priority ranking of these waters by taking into account
the severity of the pollution and the designated uses of such waters. The result of this
requirement is the development of Alabama’s §303(d) list, which includes segments of rivers,
streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries that do not fully support their currently designated use
or uses. The 2002 ADEM §303(d) list identified 63 stream segments, comprising 650 miles in the
Tennessee River Basin with impaired water quality. This amount far exceeds any other river
basin in Alabama. Most impairment has been attributed to organic enrichment, siltation and
pathogens, all from an agricultural origin (ADWFF 2005).
Wheeler NWR
Activities impacting both water quality and quantity are increasing on Wheeler NWR. Water quality is
a major human and wildlife concern because of the number of people in the area who depend on
drinking water from the Tennessee River or its tributaries and because of the number of fish and
wildlife species that are directly dependent on high water quality.
Since the late 1980s, the Tennessee River has been considered one of the ten most polluted rivers in
the country. Its status was related to point source pollution from industries and non-point source
pollution from residential development and agricultural practices. Four water bodies that flow through
Wheeler NWR are currently found on Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list: Huntsville Spring Branch, Indian
Creek, Cotaco Creek, and Beaverdam Creek (ADEM 2006). See Table 2 for a complete description
of causes and sources of impairment.
Table 2. Select data from Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list
Assessment
Unit ID
Waterbody
Name County Uses Causes Sources Date*
AL06030002-
0306-100
Beaverdam
Creek Madison Fish and
Wildlife Siltation
Non-irrigated crop
production and land
development
1994 -
1995
AL06030002-
0502-101
Huntsville
Spring
Branch
Madison Fish and
Wildlife
Priority
Organics
Contaminated
sediments 1993
AL06030002-
0505-101
Indian
Creek Madison Fish and
Wildlife
Pesticides
(DDT)
Contaminated
sediments
1991-
1993
AL06030002-
0603-102
Cotaco
Creek Morgan
Swimming
Fish and
Wildlife
Pathogens Agriculture 1997
*Date corresponds to the year in which the waterbody was placed on the §303(d) list (Source: Alabama Department of
Environmental Management 2006)
To monitor water quality at Wheeler NWR, water samples are taken semi-annually (in April and
September/October) at nine sites, which are then subjected to biochemical analysis. Samples
are analyzed in the spring for specific conductivity, hardness, sulfate, alkalinity, pH, turbidity,
phosphorus, and nitrate. In addition, cadmium, copper, zinc, nickel, and manganese analyses
are conducted on fall samples.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Water quantity/water rights issues continue to be discussed by local farmers and local municipalities.
The introduction of irrigation into a once dryland farming system in the Tennessee River Valley has
increased. Ten years ago, large scale irrigation was virtually nonexistent. Over the past five years,
there have been four requests from area farmers for permission to place irrigation systems within
refuge waters to irrigate their adjacent crops. In addition, population levels have exploded in local
cities surrounding the refuge. Several requests have been made to cross the refuge and extract
water out of the Tennessee River for public consumption.
Key Cave NWR
In 2001, the Service installed semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) for water sampling inside Key
Cave. These devices consist of low-density polyethylene tubes filled with triolein (fish lipid). The device
sequesters lipid-soluble contaminants (i.e., organochlorines, PAH, pyrethroids, and several herbicides)
from the water column. They may be left in place for extended periods of time; therefore the devices are
effective in detecting contaminants at very low concentrations and at capturing episodic events (e.g.,
temporary increases in contaminant concentrations due to stormwater runoff). The SPMDs were
retrieved and replaced in the Cave every two months (six times per year) in order to develop baseline
water quality data. At the time of this publication, the samples have not yet been analyzed.
Water quantity measurements for the Key Cave aquifer have been conducted in the past by other
agencies; however accurate data are unavailable at this time.
Sauta Cave NWR
Water quality assessments and monitoring are not conducted on Sauta Cave NWR at this time.
Water quantity measurements for local aquifers have been conducted in the past by other agencies;
however, accurate data are unavailable at this time.
Fern Cave NWR
Water quality assessments and monitoring are not conducted on Fern Cave NWR at this time. Water
quantity measurements for local aquifers have been conducted in the past by other agencies;
however, accurate data are unavailable at this time.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located in the Tennessee River basin of Alabama. According to
The Nature Conservancy, the Tennessee River basin is the most biologically diverse river basin for
aquatic species in North America (ADWFF 2005). In fact, 163 fish species have been documented in
the Alabama portion of the Tennessee River basin, 73 of which do not occur in other Alabama
drainages. Furthermore, 90 species of freshwater mussels and 66 species of aquatic snails are
found in the Alabama reaches of the Tennessee River basin. Of those, 73 mussels and 51 snails
occur in no other Alabama drainage system (Boschung and Maden 2004).
HABITAT
The Wheeler Complex is home to a variety of valuable habitats that support migratory birds, resident
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, threatened and endangered species, and imperiled species. Some
of the habitats include: the Tennessee River and its tributaries, where listed mussels and snails
occur; karst/cave systems that support many rare and imperiled species both inside and at their
entrances; wetlands that support a variety of migratory waterfowl; and, forests that provide nesting
36 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
and breeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds. Most of the land base surrounding each refuge
is devoted to farming, forestry, and/or industry. When compared to other areas of Alabama, relatively
little natural habitat remains in the Tennessee River basin. For example, impoundments on the
Tennessee River, such as the Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville Reservoirs, have virtually eliminated
all free-flowing riverine habitats (ADWFF 2005). The following section describes each of the habitats
found at the individual refuges.
Wheeler NWR
Many different types of habitats are found on Wheeler NWR. Because the Tennessee River runs
directly through the middle of the refuge, almost all habitats are influenced by water or have been
influenced by the river in the past. Currently, Wheeler NWR consists of approximately 37,200 acres,
including 25,950 acres of land and 11,250 acres of open water, streams, and creeks.
The land acreage consists of approximately 14,000 acres of forested wetlands and 3,000 acres of
upland or mesic hardwoods, with the main tree species consisting of red and white oaks, hickories,
poplar, ash, and tupelo gum; 2,000 acres of swamp; 1,000 acres of pine plantations, much of this was
subjected to sanitation cuts in the mid-1990s; 3,800 acres of managed cropland; 2,000 acres of
wetlands (impoundments), in which water levels are manually controlled; and 150 acres of old fields,
with the remainder including native warm-season grass fields, karst formations (caves), open shelves,
mudflats, backwater embayments, ephemeral ponds, rocket test ranges, and other areas (Figure 8).
All of these habitats help provide for a large diversity of wildlife on the refuge.
Cropland
Cooperative farming is a mutually beneficial arrangement where the farmer is allowed to farm refuge
land under certain guidelines and restrictions, including location of crops, techniques, crops planted,
and chemicals used. Title 50, Part 29, of the Code of Federal Regulations and Service policies
require that the value of a refuge’s share of cooperatively grown crops be set at rates that reflect the
fees and charges received by private landowners in the vicinity for similar privileges. The value can
be established through the use of competition in selecting cooperators or through an analysis of local
market conditions to establish the prevailing rates in the nearest comparable area.
Wheeler NWR has an active cooperative farming program in which about 3,000-3,900 acres are
planted annually. The goal of the program is to provide food and cover for migratory birds and other
resident wildlife. The program supplements natural foods with grain foods, such as corn, milo, small
seeded millets, and green browse. It is designed for farmers to buy the seed, plant, grow, and
harvest the crop and leave a certain portion or share for the wildlife. Corn is usually chosen for
refuge shares, although millet is planted in areas that remain wet too long for corn production.
Recently, refuge shares have been about 20 percent of the crop, however in 2007 the refuge
share was changed to 18 percent. Yearly averages of 4,150 acres have been planted in the last
five years by seven cooperative farmers, including some acreage by force account (using staff
labor and equipment). Force account farming has included planting wheat in harvested corn
fields for green browse.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 8. Land use/land cover for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge
38 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Waterfowl Impoundments
Wheeler NWR manages 16 impoundments to provide approximately 2,000 acres of waterfowl habitat
in open water, moist soil, and in areas where agricultural crops can be flooded (Figure 9).
Management consists of manipulating water flows through 20 water control structures (WCS)
consisting of concrete and/or corrugated metal pipes with flash board riser or screwgate structures.
By adjusting the height of the control mechanism (screwgates and riser stoplogs), water levels are set
and gravity-induced water flows can be created. In addition, many of the impoundments are located
within two large dewatering units (White Springs and Rockhouse Buckeye) that utilize mechanical
pumps to remove water.
Generally, impoundments are filled in the fall by rainfall or through spring seepage. Rarely can the
refuge open WCSs and allow water to flow from the Wheeler Reservoir into the impoundments
because the reservoir's water level has dropped (early to mid-September) prior to the time when
filling is needed (late September or early October). Impoundments are not filled with water until
farmers harvest crops and just prior to the time birds begin to arrive at the refuge.
Most impoundments, with the exception of the Display Pool at the Visitor Center, can usually be
drained or partially drained by gravity into the reservoir or its tributaries before the water level is
raised in the spring (early to mid-April) by opening various WCS. A portable pump is used to empty
the Display Pool. Impoundment drawdown is initiated after waterfowl leave, generally in late
February or March, depending on the impoundment and yearly conditions. In typical years, water has
to be pumped out of the impoundments after the reservoir is raised in mid-April.
In the spring, pumps are used to draw down the White Springs Dewatering Unit (Whiteside Pump
Station) and the Rockhouse Buckeye Dewatering Unit (Rockhouse Pump Station). These pumps
are operated by TVA in cooperation with the refuge and the State of Alabama (the pumps also
affect management units on the Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area just west of the White
Springs unit) via a cooperative agreement. The costs are paid by the Service or cost-shared as
follows: Whiteside Pump Station - May 1 to September 1 - State 20 percent, TVA 50 percent, and
Service 30 percent; Rockhouse Pump Station - May 1 to September 1 - TVA 50 percent and
Service 50 percent. The refuge pays 100 percent of pumping costs during the rest of the year
when pumps are operated to dewater the units.
Impoundments and related structures are maintained annually as resources and conditions permit.
When soil conditions are dry enough, unwanted vegetation (especially woody vegetation) is mowed,
disced, or removed. Roadsides and the upper, dryer portion of the dikes are mowed annually. Areas
that are farmed do not require as much maintenance.
Swamps
Swamps are regularly flooded forested areas dominated by cypress, tupelo, and wetland oaks, often
with substantial shrub or herbaceous vegetation. Approximately 2,000 acres of swamp habitat is
located on Wheeler NWR. The largest swamp on the refuge, Blackwell Swamp is located on the
north side of the river just west of the Redstone Military Installation boundary. As stated earlier, a 30-
acre tupelo gum swamp, located on the north side of the Tennessee River along Beaverdam Creek
on Wheeler NWR, was officially designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1974. This habitat is
unique because this tupelo gum swamp occurs in the Interior Low Plateau physiographic region,
rather than its usual occurrence in the Gulf Coastal Plain region.
40 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex
Forested Wetlands/Floodplain Forest
Forested wetlands or floodplain forests differ from true swamps in that they lack continuously
standing water, although repeated flooding is common. Differences in the length of inundation give
rise to a variety of community types within this classification. For example, large timbered areas
bordering rivers with frequent flooding often have a poorly developed, very open understory. Red
maple, sycamore, and cottonwood are common, and the forest floor is littered with rotting logs and
woody debris deposited by flood w