Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              N W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
6772 Highway 76 South - Stanton, TN 38069 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Manager: Alan Schriver
6772 Highway 76 South
Stanton, TN 38069
E-mail: hatchie@fws.gov
Phone Number: (731) 772-0501
FAX: (731) 772-7839
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
April 2006
W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuge
Wood Duck - USFWS Photo
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
April, 2006
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.
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Haywood County, Tennessee
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
April 2006
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................................1
Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
Refuge Overview ..........................................................................................................................1
Purpose of and Need for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan................................................1
Fish and Wildlife Service ..............................................................................................................2
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................2
Legal and Policy Guidance...........................................................................................................3
Existing Partnerships...................................................................................................................4
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................8
Overview .............................................................................................................................8
Threats and Problems ..................................................................................................................9
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ........................................................................................10
II. THE PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................................13
Description of the Planning Process...........................................................................................13
Planning Issues ..........................................................................................................................15
Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................16
Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................17
Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................18
Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................19
Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................19
III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................21
Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................21
Topography and Climate ............................................................................................................21
Demography ...............................................................................................................................23
Threatened and Endangered Species........................................................................................23
Avian Species............................................................................................................................23
Mammals...................................................................................................................................24
Amphibians and Reptiles............................................................................................................24
Aquatic Species.........................................................................................................................25
Mussels .....................................................................................................................................25
Noxious and Invasive Species....................................................................................................25
Habitats .....................................................................................................................................26
Education and Visitor Services...................................................................................................27
Refuge Administration ................................................................................................................28
Archaeological or Cultural Resources ........................................................................................30
Land Protection and Conservation .............................................................................................30
Refuge-Related Problems ..........................................................................................................31
Conservation Priorities ...............................................................................................................32
Special Management Areas .......................................................................................................33
Wilderness Review .....................................................................................................................33
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.....................................................................................................35
Introduction................................................................................................................................35
ii Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Vision .............................................................................................................................35
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................35
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Summary Statement........................................................36
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................37
Goal 1 -- (Waterfowl).........................................................................................................37
Goal 2 -- (Endangered and Threatened Species).............................................................38
Goal 3 -- (Migratory Landbirds).........................................................................................38
Goal 4 -- (Shorebirds and Waterbirds)..............................................................................39
Goal 5 -- (Aquatic Resources) ..........................................................................................40
Goal 6 -- (Resident Wildlife)..............................................................................................40
Goal 7 -- (Public Use) .......................................................................................................41
Goal 8 -- (Administration and Operation) ..........................................................................42
Goal 9 -- (Land Protection and Conservation) ..................................................................42
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................45
Background ...............................................................................................................................45
Proposed Projects ......................................................................................................................45
Project Descriptions ..........................................................................................................45
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................52
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................52
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................55
Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................55
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................55
SECTION B. APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................57
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................63
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................67
APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................71
APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ..................................................................................91
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation.............................................................................91
Compatibility Determinations......................................................................................................95
APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES...................................................131
APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................137
Public Scoping Comments .......................................................................................................137
Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................138
APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS ...........................................................................................145
APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION.................................................................147
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT..................................................................151
Table of Contents iii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................6
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................7
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.....................................................................................14
Figure 4. Vicinity map of Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge.................................................................22
Figure 5. Habitat types on Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge ..............................................................27
Figure 6. Public use facilities on Hatchie Refuge................................................................................29
Figure 7. Proposed staffing plan for Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge ...............................................56
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects .....................................................................................53
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) was prepared for the Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge.
The CCP is a management tool to be used by the refuge staff. It will help guide management decisions
over the next 15 years, and sets forth strategies for achieving refuge goals and objectives within that
timeframe. When fully implemented, this CCP will strive to achieve the refuge vision, goals, objectives,
and strategies, which were developed by a planning team of federal, state, local, nongovernmental, and
private individuals. Overriding considerations reflected in the CCP are that fish and wildlife conservation
requires first priority in refuge management and that wildlife-dependent recreation is allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System or the purpose for which the refuge was established. This chapter discusses the following
topics: a brief description of the Hatchie Refuge and how it came into existence; the purpose of and need
for the plan; the purpose and vision of the refuge; the National Wildlife Refuge System mission, goals, and
guiding principles, including the legal context, which guides management; and other relevant plans and
partnerships that affect refuge management.
REFUGE OVERVIEW
The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended [16 USC 742f (a) (4) (5)], is the specific law granting
authority for acquiring lands for national wildlife refuges. Under this Act, the Secretary of the Interior
is authorized to take steps, as may be required, for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources, including, but not limited to, research,
development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and water or
interests therein. The Act also authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept gifts of real or
personal property for its benefit and use in performing its activities and services.
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge was established on November 16, 1964, at a meeting of the
Migratory Bird Commission, under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The first staff
was assigned in November 1965 and about 6,700 acres were under the administration of the “Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.” The refuge now totals 11,556 acres, and all land acquisition within
the original boundary is complete.
It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions, if a boundary expansion is approved, would
be provided through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these funds
for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the Refuge
Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1).
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role the refuge will play in support of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities for the next 15 years. Under the
provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Fish and Wildlife Service
is required to develop comprehensive conservation plans for all lands and waters of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) also ensures that the Service assesses
the environmental impacts of any actions taken as a result of implementing the CCP.
2 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
The plan is also needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of the desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife, facilities, and people;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with a clear understanding of the
reasons for management actions on and around the refuge;
• Ensure that management of the refuge reflects the policies and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System;
• Ensure the compatibility of current and future uses of the refuge;
• Provide long-term continuity in refuge management; and
• Provide a basis for refuge operations, maintenance, and capital improvement requests.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, protecting,
and enhancing the nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service also has
specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, anadramous
fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the
management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding migratory birds,
see the website http: //birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares conservation responsibilities with
other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities.
The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is:
“...working with others, to conserve, protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for
the continuing benefit of the American people.”
As part of its mission, the Service manages nearly 550 national wildlife refuges covering over 96
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands with a “Wildlife First” emphasis, with 77 million acres in Alaska and the remaining
19 million acres spread across the other 49 states and several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57)
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were
initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with extensive
public involvement, help guide the management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purpose of each refuge;
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
• Consider the needs of wildlife first;
• Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
• Allow refuge managers authority to determine compatible public uses.
Approximately 40 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2004, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As visitation grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related pursuits
in 1996, according to the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(USDI 1996). Volunteers also continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge
System. In 2004, volunteers contributed more than 1.3 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service
valued at more than $23 million.
In more recent studies (October 2003), economists published “Banking on Nature,” an updated
version of an original 1997 report on the economic benefit of national wildlife refuges. The report
found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809
million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging, transportation, and other expenditures. That
figure is more than double the $401.1 million generated in 1995, the last time the study was
conducted. (http://refuges.fws.gov/policyMakers/pdfs/BankingOnNature_091703c.pdf)
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife come first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy; that growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model
for habitat management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE
Directives from Service and National Wildlife Refuge System policy, Congressional legislation,
Presidential executive orders, and international treaties guide administration of national wildlife
refuges. Policies for management options of the refuge are further refined by administrative
guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior. Management options of the refuge’s
establishing authorities, Public Law 104, (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338), and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the legal and policy guidance for the operation of
national wildlife refuges, are contained in documents and acts listed in Appendix III.
Guidance and direction can also be found in the following:
• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to permit uses of a refuge “whenever he determines that such uses are compatible
with the major purposes for which such areas were established;”
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, which requires that any recreational use of refuge lands can
be an appropriate incidental or secondary use if it is practicable and not inconsistent with the
primary objectives for which a refuge was established, and that these uses not interfere with
other previously authorized operations;
• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and
4 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, which is the “organic” law for the
National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act was passed in 1997. This legislation
established a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining compatible
public use activities on refuges, and the requirements to prepare comprehensive conservation plans
for each refuge. The Refuge Improvement Act states that, first and foremost, the refuge system must
focus on wildlife conservation. It further states that the national mission, coupled with the purpose(s)
for which each refuge was established, will provide the principal management direction.
Regarding public use, the Refuge Improvement Act declared that all existing or proposed public uses
must be “compatible” with each refuge’s purpose. Six wildlife-dependent public uses were highlighted in
the legislation as priorities to evaluate in comprehensive conservation plans. The six uses are: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Refuge
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 (these uses include
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS
In an effort to better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues
to work cooperatively and develop relationships with numerous agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, educational institutions, and businesses. In keeping with this partnering concept, this
comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant regional, national, and international resource
management plans, including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Lower Mississippi
River Joint Venture Project, the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetlands Conservation Initiative,
the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Initiative, the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, the Hatchie River
Plan, and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan.
A provision of the Refuge Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall
ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish
and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife
management areas and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for protection of
species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of fish and
wildlife species in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) (http://www.state.tn.us/twra) is the state
agency charged with management responsibilities relating to fish and wildlife resources within the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
state. TWRA manages approximately 1.35 million acres of state wildlife management areas,
coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program, and provides public recreation opportunities,
including an extensive hunting and fishing program on state wildlife management areas.
An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate. The State’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue
to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee.
In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning
process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee beginning in 1999. This joint
planning study area included all of west Tennessee, from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee
River, and from border-to-border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi, encompassing
approximately 10,000 square miles of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife
refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this cooperative planning effort would develop
comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands.
In order to perform planning jointly, certain distinctions had to be made between the cooperating
agencies. Whereas the Service is required in all “significant” management actions to satisfy the
mandates of the NEPA (including opportunities for public comment and participation, and required
documentation), state agencies are not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that
dictate federal planning requirements do not apply to TWRA. Plans were made to combine planning
to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within the process for each
agency to accomplish its desired objectives.
A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2), which allowed both agencies to accomplish their
planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. The process would produce joint objectives for west
Tennessee lands and allow the Service to plan according to NEPA requirements, while providing TWRA
the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without being encumbered by NEPA provisions.
A Core Group was formed to oversee the planning process in 1999. This group consisted of TWRA
and Service project leaders, planners, and biologists who served to guide the overall effort. Under
the leadership of the Core Group, nine Resource Working Groups were developed to study specific
resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, other aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of
individuals from various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals
with expertise in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species and critical
habitats and developed management strategies for west Tennessee resource groups. These groups
developed focus area-wide goals and objectives that were then translated into a series of map
overlays, which ranked areas of specific interest and provided a simple means of interrelating the
various types of resource information included in each map. In addition, each working group
developed a text describing goals, objectives, and strategies for implementing the desired goals and
objectives for each specific resource category.
The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies for
private, state, and federal lands and were incorporated into the Draft West Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Conservation Plan (2004). The Service then used these goals, objectives, and strategies
for federal lands as the biological foundation for the comprehensive conservation planning process.
Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee lands, this planning process resulted in
the production of this comprehensive conservation plan for Hatchie Refuge, as well as plans for
Reelfoot, Lake Isom, Chickasaw, and Lower Hatchie Refuges.
6 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort
This cooperative planning effort with the State of Tennessee and other partners was recognized by a
national “Customer Service Excellence Award” in 2003 from the Department of the Interior.
Once finalized, the comprehensive conservation plan will be combined with the map overlays and text
of the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the
entire west Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Gilt Edge
LOWER HATCHIE
NWR
FORT PILLOW
STATE PARK
JIM TULLEY
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AREA
STATE OF
TENNESSEE
(TDOC)
FORT PILLOW
SUNK LAKE PUNA
CHICKASAW
NWR
LAKE ISOM
NWR
§¤ƒI-155
§¤ƒI-40
£ 51
£ 64
£ 45
£ 45
£ 70
£ 79
Eva
Lucy
Eads
Cuba
Troy
Guys
Como
Dyer
Yuma
Atoka Mason
Locke
Rives
Obion
Medon
Bemis
Ramer
Halls
Gates
Paris
Henry
Luray
Huron
Crump
Toone
Milan
Eaton
Macon
Lenox
Bells
Alamo
Leach
Sharon
Martin
Tipton
Kenton
Mercer Pinson
Selmer
Michie
Finger
Ripley
Sardis
Reagan
Darden
Shiloh
Counce
Medina
Gibson
Moscow
Braden
Miston
Finley
Bogota
Atwood
Camden
Gleason
Dukedom
Dresden
Clifton
Munford
Memphis
Cordova
Samburg
Jackson
Denmark
Henning
Ridgely
Puryear
Stanton
Hornsby
Bolivar
Trenton
Oakland
Laconia
Trimble
Tigrett
Newbern
Parsons
Gadsden
Enville
Lavinia
Randolph
Burlison
Brighton
Rosemark
Lakeland
Bartlett
Hornbeak
Elbridge
Oakfield
Chewalla
Wynnburg
Savannah
Saltillo
Silerton
Idlewild
Humboldt
Bradford
Gallaway
Westport
Bruceton
Holladay
Drummonds
Covington
Woodstock
Kerrville
Ellendale
Brunswick
Arlington
Mansfield
Lexington
Olivehill
Saulsbury
Middleton
Yorkville
Williston
Rossville La Grange
Dyersburg
Fruitvale
Henderson
Trezevant
Big Sandy
Greenfield
Millington
Germantown
Union City
Adamsville
Whiteville
Pocahontas
Rutherford
Somerville
Maury City Sugar Tree
Friendship
Huntingdon
Clarksburg
Fisherville
Barretville
Beech Bluff
Tiptonville
Springville
Scotts Hill
Brownsville
Jacks Creek
Hollow Rock
Cedar Grove
Buena Vista
Palmersville
Collierville
South Fulton
Spring Creek
Stantonville
Wildersville
Decaturville
Bath Springs
Milledgeville
Cottage Grove
Morris Chapel
Hickory Withe
Woodland Mills
Bethel Springs
Hickory Valley
Grand Junction
Essary Springs
Crockett
Mills
McLemoresville
Parker Crossroads
CHICKASAW
STATE
FOREST
NATCHEZ TRACE
STATE PARK &
FOREST WMA
HATCHIE NWR
REELFOOT LAKE WMA
TIGRETT WMA
MOSS ISLAND
MEEMAN SHELBY
STATE PARK WMA
BIG HILL POND
STATE PARK
ERNEST RICE WMA
HARTS MILL
REFUGE
HORNS BLUFF
REGUGE
LAKE
GRAHAM
WHITE LAKE REFUGE
BEAN SWITCH
REFUGE
MUSTARD BOTTOMS
WILDLIFE REFUGE
BLACK BAYOU REFUGE
PINSON MOUNDS
STATE PARK
FORT RIDGE
T.O. FULLER
STATE PARK
CHICKASAW STATE PARK
GARRETT LAKE
LAKE
LAUDERDALE
REFUGE
TIGRETT REFUGE
SPRING CREEK
JARRELL
SWITCH
PHILLIPY UNIT-REELFOOT
MANESS
SWAMP
REFUGE
REELFOOT NWR
CARROLL LAKE
OAK DRAIN
WETLAND
WHITEVILLE
LAKE
OBION RIVER WMA
WEST BANK-REELFOOT
GOOCH WMA
West Tennessee Focus Area
0 35 70
Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley
T e n n e s s e e R i v e r
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
East Gulf Coastal Plain
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process
Focus Area-Wide
Goals/Objectives
CCP Process
NEPA Process
Comprehensive
Conservation Plans
West Tennessee
Wildlife Resources
Conservation
Plan
Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation
Plans
Land
Acquisition
Proposals
Habitat
Enhancement
Resource Working Groups
State Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Private Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Federal Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
West Tennessee Master Plan
Core Group
8 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
expected to be compiled in 2005 and will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal managers
alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative, interagency management, and administration of
west Tennessee resources.
Hatchie PRIDE (Protection, Restoration, Information, Development, and Education in an Ecosystem
approach) was established in 1991 as a group of governmental and non-governmental agencies and
organizations formed to deal with the amount of sediment entering the Hatchie River. Hatchie PRIDE
cooperators included: Tennessee Conservation League, Haywood County Soil Conservation District,
Hardeman County Soil Conservation District, Fayette County Conservation District, University of Tennessee
Extension Service, Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Tennessee Farm Bureau, Tennessee Division of
Forestry, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, USDA Soil Conservation Service (now Natural Resources Conservation Service), U.S.
Weather Service, Chickasaw-Shiloh Resource Conservation and Development Council, N.A.S.A., and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1999, this group became the Hatchie River Alliance and The Nature
Conservancy’s Hatchie River Project has taken the lead in this effort.
The Haywood County Bass Club has sponsored numerous fishing events at Oneal Lake over the past
13 years for youth, senior citizens, and anglers with disabilities.
Tennessee Partners Project is an assistance program for landowner management of waterfowl habitat. In
addition to local landowners, the partners include Ducks Unlimited, Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Office,
Tennessee Department of Agriculture, and the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Tennessee Partners
Project is implemented in support of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation maintains an air quality monitoring station on
the refuge.
The project leader for Hatchie Refuge is a member of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Team.
This team consists of Fish and Wildlife Service employees from across various program areas, such
as refuges, ecological services, fisheries, migratory birds, and law enforcement.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
OVERVIEW
On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and
has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States (USFWS 1994). Hatchie Refuge is located within
the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3). Service resource priorities for the Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem are:
• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all threatened, endangered,
and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated
with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.
• Restore, manage, and protect National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries
(USFWS Ecosystem Plan 2000).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The Lower Mississippi Valley (the Lower Mississippi Valley is a subset geographically of the Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem) once supported a vast bottomland hardwood forest complex that
extended along the Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this
bottomland hardwood forest remains and most is fragmented or remains in scattered patches
throughout the region (Figure 4). Floodwaters once recharged wildlife habitats and created rich,
dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower
Mississippi Valley is bisected by levees and its hydrology is restricted by flood control projects and
agricultural diversion. Water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff.
Rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid, laden with pesticides, and support a small
fraction of the once abundant aquatic resources.
Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners,
local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus efforts on
adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trends of fish and wildlife
populations and biological diversity, establish conservation priorities, clarify goals, and solve common
threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. Biological objectives targeted in this
plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments, non-governmental
organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally,
nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United
States and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern
physiographic areas (Twedt et al., 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in
irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. National wildlife refuges in
the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the
remaining wildlife resources.
Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include:
• The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland
hardwood forests;
• The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites (e.g., fragmentation);
• The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of
agricultural and timber harvesting practices;
• The homogenization of the remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem;
and
• The cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities.
As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have
become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in
the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to
occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct.
Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alteration in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley have
resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et
al., 2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have decreased in the past several decades, and evidence indicates
the availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance,
distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al., 1994).
10 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are species that are area sensitive or
dependent on special habitat requirements, such as large, mature blocks of forest that offer secure
nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 bird species nest regularly in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting waterbirds, with at least 70 species occurring
in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat (Twedt et al., 1999). Less than 1 percent of the remaining
forest patches is large enough to support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean
warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000).
Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fishery and aquatic resource
productivity. Despite the efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other aquatic resources, a
growing number is declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost 400 aquatic species either
have, or need, special protection in some part of their natural or historic range (Williams et al., 1989;
Moyle and Leidy 1992). The number of aquatic species listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act in 2002 has increased to 19 amphibian species, 21 crustacean species, 70
mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these declines are linked largely to habitat loss or
alteration (including flow changes, watershed modifications, sedimentation, and pollution) and the impacts
of harmful exotic or transplanted species (USFWS 2002).
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES
Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on threatened and
endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. By working with others, the Service is
more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. Bottomland hardwood forests are
also considered a high priority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies on which to focus
conservation and management efforts. A combination of land protection and habitat management
methods is utilized by the Service and others to compensate for bottomland hardwood habitat loss and to
meet shared/common long-term goals established for this area.
The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Joint Venture Plan have also been
considered in the development of this plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering
habitat for mid-continent waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between
private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental
waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of North American wetland habitats. In addition,
the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture plan encompasses a regional approach with the same
objectives to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The Joint Venture
initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore lands that provide
maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds and has identified conservation areas on which
to focus future land protection and restoration efforts.
One of the Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for migratory bird conservation in
the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than 100,000 acres. Hatchie Refuge
also resides within the East Gulf Coastal Plain. Habitat objectives for this plain have been established by
Partners-in-Flight in the East Gulf Coastal Plain Habitat Conservation Plan (Ford et al., 2001). In order to
meet population objectives for migratory landbirds, the plan has identified two 20,000-acre tracts on the
Hatchie River in west Tennessee. These targeted land bases will serve as priority areas for forest
restoration and will some day serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity.
Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners-in-
Flight Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land
bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
of species are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species (Bonney 1999).
Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat type from which population and
habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This list of focal species, objectives,
and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (USFWS 2000) has established five resource
ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of this plan. These goals
involve the protection, enhancement, and management of the following: migratory bird populations
and habitats; wetlands; habitats; populations of threatened, endangered, and candidate species;
fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries.
Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish
and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands and in conjunction with
public lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will
ensure that the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce
redundancy and overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations.
12 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. The Planning Process
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS
The key to effective conservation begins with effective community involvement. To ensure that future
management of the refuge is reflective of the issues, concerns, and opportunities expressed by the
public, a variety of public involvement techniques was used.
The planning effort included the preparation of four comprehensive conservation plans, comprising five
national wildlife refuges (Hatchie, Reelfoot, Lake Isom, Chickasaw, and Lower Hatchie), as well as the
cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. The West Tennessee
plan identifies resources and management goals for approximately 10,000 square miles of federal, state,
and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory birds. In addition to serving as a
guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the state, the West Tennessee Plan
provides the main biological foundation for the four west Tennessee refuge comprehensive conservation
plans (Reelfoot and Lake Isom refuge plans are combined into one document).
In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Figure 3), migratory bird habitat requirements were developed prior
to the comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen 2001; USFWS 2000; and
Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior Alluvial Valley recommendations, it was clear that ample
habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be provided on refuges alone. Therefore, in order
to achieve the habitat goals that had already been set, the west Tennessee planning effort looked
beyond the respective refuge boundaries and incorporated into the planning effort any public and
private lands that might be available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource
management needs for west Tennessee and incorporated over 6 million acres.
The final product will be a West Tennessee Master Plan, which will incorporate the basic
recommendations of the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan within the context of
the four refuge plans. The primary objective of the master plan is to provide a means of cooperatively
protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the
requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats
in the western third of the State of Tennessee.
The planning process began in January 2000 with initial Core Group meetings in which the Service
and the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency began efforts to produce the West Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Conservation Plan. The Core Group selected nine resource working groups, which then
began the process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for specific resource categories on
federal, state, and private lands within the planning area (Figure 1).
Preplanning for this plan also began during early 2000. Issue identification is a major factor in
determining management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans. To ensure
that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series of
meetings and interviews was conducted to guide issue selection for the planning effort. In September
2000, the Hatchie Refuge technical team (which included staff of Hatchie Refuge) began meeting to
discuss refuge issues and management opportunities, and on November 6, 2000, a public scoping
meeting was held in Brownsville, Tennessee. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by
mailings. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to express written and oral comments
14 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Baton Rouge
Vicksburg
Monroe
Little Rock
Dyersburg
Memphis
Poplar Bluff
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
LOUISIANA
ARKANSAS
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
Reelfoot NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lower Hatchie NWR
Hatchie NWR
0 40 80 160 240 320
Miles
Legend
National Wildlife Refuges
State Wildlife Management Areas
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
regarding perceived issues and opportunities for management of the refuge. The planning staff then
developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of management
alternatives for the draft environmental assessment.
Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations and
surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and projects identified for
the refuge. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Hatchie Planning Review Group, in
which refuge neighbors, organizations, educators, government agencies, and local officials were
invited to attend and share their thoughts in a focus group meeting. The Hatchie Planning Review
Group included representatives from Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, The Nature
Conservancy, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Anderson-Tully Company,
Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges, Ducks Unlimited, Tennessee State Parks, U.S.
Geological Survey, and local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businesses, and county officials. This
group provided oversight during the planning process with input from professional counterparts and
local individuals and private interests.
The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January 2002, the Draft West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the
primary biological foundation for much of the Hatchie Refuge planning process. Based on this
biological foundation, other relevant documents, input received from the public, and the staff’s
professional judgment, the Hatchie Technical Team evaluated relevant issues and resource needs
and developed various management alternatives that were then considered in the environmental
assessment. The range of alternatives developed in the environmental assessment addressed four
different management scenarios in which all relevant issues and concerns were considered in the
context of at least one of the alternatives. The environmental assessment constituted the
documentation and the process by which the preferred action was selected.
Several reviews of the refuge’s management programs occurred during 2002, including: waterfowl
management and farming, neotropical migratory birds and forest management, public uses and visitor
services, and an overall biological review. The Biological Review team developed goals, objectives,
and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario.
A second public meeting was held to allow review and comment on the draft plan. The public will be notified
when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge is available.
PLANNING ISSUES
Issue identification provided the basis for initiating the development of management objectives and
strategies. These issues play a role in determining future conditions of the refuge and were
considered in the long-term management plan. The issues and concerns described in the following
pages were generated by the public, planning review group, and Service staff. An initial list of issues
was consolidated into the following 21 issue categories concerning Hatchie Refuge, and were
grouped according to five broad management categories: fish and wildlife population issues, habitat
issues, visitor services and environmental education issues, refuge administration and operation
issues, and land protection and conservation issues. See Appendix VII for a summary of the actual
comments received during the public scoping process.
16 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES
Waterfowl Populations
Since the refuge’s establishing purpose was specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds,” all
operation and management scenarios are considered in light of their impact on migratory birds, the most
numerous of which are waterfowl. The refuge staff monitors waterfowl populations that utilize the refuge
and will work to provide sufficient, high quality habitat to fulfill population objectives as identified in the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002). A portion of the refuge is
dedicated to providing seasonally flooded cropland, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to
meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order for the refuge to
meet its objectives for waterfowl, it must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl
habitat needs and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Populations
Nearly every study examining North American neotropical migratory bird population trends has reported
declines in at least some species (Askins et al., 1990). Partners-in-Flight conservation plans have been
developed for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al., 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey
et al., 1998) to address priority species and bird conservation issues. The refuge will continue to work to
monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical
migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
Threatened and Endangered Species
As a national wildlife refuge, a key function of Hatchie Refuge is to enhance the survival of threatened
and endangered species. Federally listed threatened or endangered animals are thought to use or
populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuge, including the bald eagle. Several bald
eagles are historically known to winter annually on the refuge, although no active nests are
documented on refuge lands. The refuge’s habitat restoration and protection activities continue to
provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles.
Resident Species Populations
Resident species include game species, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, rabbits, and furbearers,
as well as non-game groups, including mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The refuge monitors some resident
wildlife populations through surveys, such as deer and turkey harvest data collection, and cursory surveys by
universities of small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Species groups that lend themselves to management
(e.g., deer and turkey) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management goals, and
refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored in order to identify potential management issues.
Benefits to resident species are considered when opportunities exist for refuge expansion.
Shorebird Populations
Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent inundation
of fields by floodwaters, the Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge has significant potential for providing shorebird
habitat . Refuge waterfowl management activities provide concurrent opportunities to provide shorebird
habitat, especially in conjunction with management of impoundments and moist soil units. The staff
monitors refuge shorebird use and looks for opportunities to support priorities outlined in the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan for migratory and resident shorebird populations, in
keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
HABITAT ISSUES
Waterfowl Habitat
Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the purpose for
which the refuge was established. Thus, management priorities must be directed toward providing
quality wetland areas that are attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving ducks,
and geese. Each management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for each
group to complete its respective life cycle. A portion of the refuge is dedicated to providing
seasonally flooded cropland, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding,
resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order for the refuge to meet its
objectives for waterfowl, it must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl
habitat needs and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding.
Songbird Habitat
As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, priorities on the refuge include
providing quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migratory songbirds. Land
management practices, especially forest management practices, will continue to take into account the
value of such practices to songbird habitat. The refuge will continue to work to monitor migratory and
resident songbirds and to address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migratory bird
populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
Forest Habitat
The refuge protects more than 9,764 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and 382 acres of upland
forest. The forests found on the refuge provide invaluable habitat for the wide range of wildlife species
that inhabit the refuge and are critical to the preservation of this drastically diminishing habitat type.
Bottomland hardwood forests are critical to migratory and wintering waterfowl, particularly mallards and
wood ducks. The forested tracts on the refuge provide crucial food resources, such as hard and soft
mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events that occur during the fall, winter, and early spring
periods. The refuge will complete a Habitat Management Plan, including forest habitat,, and management
decisions will be made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals, refuge
purposes, and with due consideration for all other environmental factors.
Cropland Habitat
Agricultural crops play an important role in migratory bird management, as they provide a source of high-energy
carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the refuge supplies ”hot food”
crops that are either rotated with moist soil units or produced on the higher elevations to ensure that wildlife
have a readily available food source. Hatchie Refuge’s cropland operation occupies approximately 900 too
1,000 acres (approximately 300 acres impounded and 600 acres unimpounded). Many crop fields that are
planted for the refuge can be flooded for waterfowl utilization. Under the cooperative farming agreement,
the refuge usually receives its portion on the lower and wetter fields. This sets the stage for the refuge to
make substantial contributions to the Mississippi Flyway migratory bird objectives. The refuge farming
program will continue to work to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations, in keeping with
refuge goals and establishing purposes.
18 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Moist Soil Habitat
Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl as these food
resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. The Hatchie River and the
associated river floodplain are capable of supplying food resources, such as barnyard grass,
sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous plant species.
The acreage of these early successional habitats varies annually depending on how quickly the fields
dry out after dewatering, and plays a key role in the migration patterns of mid-continent waterfowl and
other migratory birds. Refuge resource management, including moist soil habitat, will in large part,
influence the refuge’s present and future benefits to waterfowl. Management of the moist soil units
will continue to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge
goals and establishing purposes.
VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES
Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identified hunting and fishing as two
consumptive priority public uses for national wildlife refuges. Hunting and fishing are integral parts of
west Tennessee culture. Due to this, and a limited amount of public lands, there is considerable
interest in expanding refuge hunting and fishing opportunities. Any additional hunting or fishing
opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge
purposes. The refuge will revisit its Hunting and Fishing plans and examine opportunities to increase
and/or enhance hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge, in keeping with other resource
needs, establishing purpose, and funding and staffing capabilities.
Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identified wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation as nonconsumptive priority public uses
for national wildlife refuges. In keeping with this legislation, these four uses will be provided when
deemed compatible, and opportunities will be examined for increasing these uses. Currently, the
majority of refuge public use consists of hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. The refuge
currently does not have staff or facilities to provide additional on-refuge environmental education and
interpretation, or wildlife-dependent recreational programming. More exposure resulting from
expanded nonconsumptive recreational uses and programs would increase public awareness and
have a positive effect on other refuge programs. The refuge is located in Haywood County
(population approximately 19,437) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), about 50 miles northeast of Memphis,
Tennessee (population approximately 603,507) and approximately 30 miles west of Jackson,
Tennessee (population approximately 51,115). Better-developed visitor facilities would provide
wildlife-dependent environmental education and interpretation, and recreational opportunities
currently not available in Haywood County. The refuge will revisit its Public Use and Visitor Services
Plan and examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities
on the refuge, in keeping with other resource needs, the purpose for which the refuge was
established, and also within funding and staffing capabilities.
Access
Hatchie Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with an abundance of public interest in opportunities to
enjoy its natural resources. With the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
refuges have been mandated to provide, when compatible with refuge purposes, opportunities for
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
wildlife-dependent forms of recreation. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Therefore, attention must be given to
providing the appropriate amount and forms of access for the public. Consideration should be given
to access issues through increasing or limiting access opportunities, based on total resource
management goals and refuge purposes.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION ISSUES
Operations and Maintenance
The budget for national wildlife refuges is prioritized and divided among the 550 individual refuges
that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Service’s Refuge Operation Needs System
(RONS) and Maintenance Management System (MMS) are the processes used for the refuges to
submit their budgetary requests. Funds are assigned according to the refuge’s priority resource
needs and budget constraints. Management decisions will continue to consider the refuge’s priority
operational needs, and budgetary requests will be made in keeping with refuge goals and purposes.
Enforcement
Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use, and so the continual
involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in order to protect the resources, as well as the
public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive enforcement on refuge lands. As with other refuge
issues, priorities must be established which compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should
be considered and ways to improve law enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuge’s
goals and purposes. The refuge staff cooperates with Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency personnel
and also with the Haywood County Sheriff’s Department in law enforcement activities. A Service Zone
Law Enforcement Officer is located at Dyersburg, but is more than an hour’s drive away.
Information
Good quality, available sources of refuge information are critical to the public’s appreciation and use
of refuge resources. Information dissemination provides a vehicle for refuge managers to
communicate to the public the many recreational opportunities available on the refuge, as well as the
value of the refuge resources. Refuge management will consider ways to better provide needed
information to the public and to improve existing information resources, in keeping with resource
management goals and the refuge’s establishing purposes.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES
Land Acquisition
Refuge land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources, as well as additional wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities for the public. The approved acquisition boundary for Hatchie Refuge
contains 11,556 acres. All lands have currently been acquired and no futher acquisition has been approved.
Water Level Management
Water level management has the potential to significantly affect resources on the refuge and its
immediate vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, flooding by
beavers, and natural flooding induced by the Hatchie and Mississippi River systems. Impacts from
20 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation.
Individual water level issues will be addressed in the Habitat Management Plan on a case-by-case
basis, while keeping management decisions in line with the bigger picture for the refuge and
neighboring lands, as well as management goals and refuge purposes.
Protection of Unique Areas
A 1979 survey of areas planned for new facility construction and for rehabilitation of existing facilities
on the Hatchie Refuge resulted in the discovery of 33 archaeological sites indicating human activity
from the Early Archaic Period (about 8000 B.C.) into modern times. Five sites were recommended
for further investigation to determine their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places. To date, this has not occurred. A comprehensive and intensive survey of the refuge is
recommended to determine the actual extent and significance of the cultural resources.
Protection of Refuge Lands
The remote location of much of the refuge presents ongoing challenges to maintain clear
identification of refuge boundaries. Activities that threaten refuge boundaries or lands must be
addressed through enforcement and land protection measures. Management decisions must include
a thorough analysis of existing or potential threats to refuge land resources. Land protection and
boundary line maintenance will be performed with consideration for budgetary constraints, and in
keeping with refuge goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
III. Refuge Description
REFUGE PURPOSE
The purpose for which the Hatchie Refuge was established is “... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act).
TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Hatchie Refuge is located along 23 miles of the Hatchie River in Haywood County in west Tennessee
(Figure 4). The refuge encompasses the middle reaches of the Hatchie River and consists of bottomland
hardwoods, moist soil units, agricultural fields, and associated uplands. The large forested tracts, open
lands, and aquatic features found on the refuge provide an important ecological niche for fish, wildlife, and
plant species within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The topography of bottomlands is
characteristically flat, but slight variations in elevation are associated with considerable differences in soils,
drainage conditions, and forest species composition (Barrett 1980).
The dominant landforms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the
Mississippi River downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltic plain and
associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its
tributaries. While the ecological character of the ecosystem is dominated by these landforms,
valuable bottomland and upland habitats from the East Gulf Coastal Plain are contained in the
drainage basin of the Hatchie and Mississippi rivers.
The Hatchie River basin lies within the west Tennessee plains, which slope gently westward from an
elevation of 400 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 200 feet above msl. The basin drains about
1,664,600 acres of land and is roughly 220 miles long and 24 miles wide. The headwaters of the
Hatchie River are in the State of Mississippi and flow into the Mississippi River approximately 35
miles north of Memphis, Tennessee. The river’s drainage pattern is comprised of a main stream fed
by many smaller streams. The floodplain of the main stream is wide and flat and narrows to a ridge
and valley type of landscape in the fan-patterned area upstream. The refuge has elevations ranging
from approximately 230 to 240 feet above msl along the Hatchie River.
The soils of the refuge are mainly of the Amagon-Falaya Association. These are soils of the alluvial plain,
which are susceptible to flooding that continually occurs primarily in winter and spring. The soils are silty
and fertile. Generally, these soils have poor drainage. These soil types are highly productive for many
species of trees and highly responsive to management. Scour erosion occurs during out-of-bank flow but
is probably offset by deposition of sediments. Three soil series are found on Hatchie Refuge. Two major
types, Amagon and Falayar, represent approximately 90 percent of the refuge. The other types occur on
a more localized basis. The Soil Survey of Haywood County, Tennessee (USDA., 1995) contains
additional maps and descriptions of these soil types.
The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west Tennessee.
The immediate location of the refuge is even less populated than most of west Tennessee, due to its
location adjacent to the Hatchie River and its floodplain. Census data from 2000 indicate that
Haywood County had a population of 19,797 people, which is an increase of 1.85 percent over the
1990 census (www.capitolimpact.com/gw/tncty/ ).
22 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Vicinity map of Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
The portion of the Hatchie River in Tennessee is one of the last unchannelized rivers of its type in the
lower Mississippi River Valley, although tributaries in Tennessee and headwater portions in
Mississippi have been channelized. Natural patterns of erosion and sedimentation in tributaries have
been altered due to these impacts and other human disturbances. Erosion rates have increased on
both upland and alluvial soils. Sedimentation has increased in swamps, brakes, oxbow lakes, and
other low-lying areas. Sediment loading in streams and rivers has increased, disrupting natural
patterns of aggradation and degradation.
Mild winters, hot, humid summers, and abundant rainfall characterize the refuge climate. Total annual
precipitation averages approximately 51 inches, with the highest average rainfall occurring during the
months of April through September. Summer and early fall are the driest periods, with the lowest rainfall
occurring from July through October. In the summer, most rain falls in comparatively brief, yet intense,
thunderstorms, which occur on about 53 days each year. In Haywood County, the average annual
temperature is 61 degrees Fahrenheit, with average daily temperatures ranging from 38.6 degrees in
January to 80.6 degrees in July. Average annual snowfall is 6 inches. The freeze-free period, or growing
season, ranges from 193 to 227 days, from late March to early November (USDA, 1995).
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Dyersburg
Brownsville Jackson
Corinth
Collierville
Germantown
Bartlett
Millington
Southaven
Memphis
West Memphis
Blytheville
Kennett
Paragould
Union City
Murray
Poplar Bluff
Sikeston
Paducah
Jonesboro
Forrest City
MO
KY
TN
AL
MS
AR
20 Miles
45 Miles
Hatchie NWR
IL
Sheffield
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Vicinity Map
0 10 20 40 60 80
Miles
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
DEMOGRAPHY
Per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2001 was $19,393. In Haywood County, per capita
income was $14,669. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic bases. Several
small to medium manufacturing companies are located in the county, with some of the major private
employers including: Wal-Mart, the Haywood Company, Dynametal, Lowe’s, and Pictsweet. Other major
employers include the Haywood County Schools, and Haywood Community Park Hospital.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Part of the Service mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for threatened and
endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. The federally
threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found on or near the refuge. As many as four
bald eagles winter annually on the refuge, although no active nests have been documented on refuge
lands. There is no known federally listed flora on the refuge. A Section 7 Intra-Service Biological
Evaluation addressing this species is found in Appendix V.
AVIAN SPECIES
Avian species are important wildlife resources with more than 200 species known to occur on the
refuge and along the Hatchie River. The bottomland hardwood forests serve as important habitat for
breeding and migratory birds in the spring and fall, and migratory birds occur in substantial numbers
seasonally. For migratory forest breeding songbirds and shorebirds, the ecological and biological
significance is transcontinental, providing breeding and migration habitat for Gulf migratory birds
returning from their wintering grounds in Central and South America.
Recent studies indicate significant declines in some species of neotropical migratory bird population
trends (Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most
neotropical migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species,
the cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), prompted population monitoring during 2003. Additional
research began in 1992 and is ongoing to assess habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel et al., 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on Hatchie
Refuge include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Approximately 32 species of shorebirds are commonly found in west Tennessee. Populations
typically peak from August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight 2000).
Shorebird species common to west Tennessee include killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary
sandpiper, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge
lands that provide shorebird habitat include oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, margins of reservoirs,
and managed impoundments. Presently, approximately 10 acres of refuge impoundments are
managed to provide shorebird habitat.
The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for mid-continent waterfowl
populations breeding in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. Hatchie Refuge
and adjacent lands are known to be important wintering and stop-over area for mallards using the
Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population numbers may exceed 100,000.
The value of the refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to other refuges. It
lies within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife refuges. Other species known to use the areas
include black ducks, gadwall, pintail, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, widgeon, wood duck, ring-necked
ducks and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and dependent on
refuge habitat for nesting and brood-rearing habitat.
24 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Approximately 11,550 acres are currently managed as a waterfowl sanctuary. Agricultural crops
are raised through a cooperative farming program or by refuge staff. Under the cooperative
farming program, the refuge share of crops is 25 percent (unharvested) with 75 percent
(harvested) going to the farmer. Waterfowl objectives for the refuge are 500,000 goose-use days
and 5.4 million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, cropland
impoundments, flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as nearly the entire refuge forest, much of
which is subject to inundation during high river stages.
Wild turkeys are present on the refuge, although spring flooding impacts nesting success on a regular
basis. Flocks consisting of upwards of 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, during
which the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves are common and bobwhite quail are
occasional on open lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include red-tailed and
red-shouldered hawks, barred owls, and turkey and black vultures. American kestrels and broad-winged
hawks are also present but occur less frequently.
MAMMALS
The refuge contains a diversity of mammals representing seven taxonomic orders, including pouched
mammals (opossums); insect-eaters (shrews and moles); bats; flesh-eaters (raccoon); gnawing
mammals (squirrels and mice); rabbits; and even-toed hoofed mammals (white-tailed deer).
Bottomland hardwood communities on the refuge are very productive for a wide variety of game and
nongame mammals. Mammalian game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer,
raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, coyote, beaver, oppossum, and swamp and cottontail rabbits.
Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, opossum, river otter, muskrat, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat,
gray and red foxes, and mink. Small mammal species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous
rodents, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels.
Providing a diversity of habitats on the refuge contributes to healthy populations of numerous
mammalian species, as well as other resident animals. Habitat management practices that focus on
providing habitat for migratory birds will also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and
regeneration cuts provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast bearing trees with a greater
potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diverse forest habitat will better meet
the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats.
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most freshwater and terrestrial
habitats and are significant components of the refuge and the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many
species of herpetofauna are wide-ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the
environmental health of an ecosystem. Although no comprehensive survey of amphibians and reptiles for
the refuge currently exists, comprehensive inventories are planned to establish baseline information on
amphibian and reptilian species occurrence and habitat utilization. Knowledge of which species occur on
Hatchie Refuge is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area.
A comprehensive list of reptile and amphibian species for west Tennessee is found in Appendix IV
(TWRA and USFWS 2001). Based on this list, over 70 species of reptiles and amphibians are
expected to occur on Hatchie Refuge and its vicinity. The diverse group of amphibians, including
salamanders, toads, and frogs, are well adapted to the aquatic and terrestrial environments found on
the refuge, and moisture is typically important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles,
including turtles, snakes, lizards, and skinks, are also common.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are
declining. Loss and degradation of habitat are the main known causes of decline in reptile and
amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests
having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alteration,
and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee, which
negatively affect populations. Refuge land protection and management efforts serve these
populations by protecting existing habitats, as well as by restoration of degraded habitats.
AQUATIC SPECIES
The sloughs, rivers, and lakes within the refuge support a diversity of game fishes, including
largemouth bass, black crappie, white crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, and channel
catfish. Nongame species such as carp, buffalo, and drum are also present. At least 97 native fish
species have been identified within the Hatchie River, making it one of the richest fish faunas of all
west Tennessee rivers (Etnier and Starnes 1993; TNC 2000). The dynamic nature of the flooding
regimes between the Mississippi and Hatchie rivers and the associated wetland habitats on the
refuge provides a constant and renewable fishery. When flooding occurs in the spring, these areas
provide good nurseries for juvenile fish. Although decades of hydrologic alteration and sedimentation
have impacted aquatic resources in the refuge vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in
positive benefits to aquatic habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce
the effects of channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for
Fish and Wildlife, Wetlands Reserve Program, Cropland Reserve Program, Forest Legacy, and The
Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Plan for the Hatchie River.
MUSSELS
The Hatchie River exhibits the most diverse mussel fauna of all Mississippi River tributaries in Tennessee
(Parmalee and Bogan 1998). Manning (1989) reported 32 native species as occurring in the Hatchie
River during his surveys in 1980-83. In addition, surveys by The Nature Conservancy in 1999 found 3
additional species, raising the total number of known species to 35 (unpublished TNC report).
As stated in the Aquatic Resources section above, hydrologic alteration and sedimentation have
impacted aquatic resources, including mussels, in the refuge vicinity. Similarly, refuge land protection
and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and mussel species. The Service
should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of channelization and poor land use practices. In
addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel populations should be conducted in refuge and vicinity
waters when opportunities are available.
NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE SPECIES
Kudzu is an invasive exotic species that occurs along field and forest edges, and forest openings
where direct sunlight can penetrate the forest floor. This exotic vine is a native of Asia and was
introduced into the United States at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. By 1900, kudzu
was being sold through mail order suppliers as an inexpensive livestock forage. The Soil Erosion
Service (now called the Natural Resources Conservation Service) distributed approximately 85 million
seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture removed kudzu from its cover plant list, and classified it as a common weed in 1970
(Shurtleff et al., 1977, Miller et al., 1983).
Kudzu is an aggressive vine that can grow up to 60 feet per year, forming a continuous blanket of
foliage. The dense foliage often chokes out native plants and trees, alters native biotic communities,
26 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
and drastically decreases biodiversity. Today, an estimated seven million acres in the southeast are
covered in kudzu. The refuge currently has several acres of kudzu on the east side of the Coffey
Farm area in need of treatment.
Fire ants are becoming established on the refuge. They are believed to float in during flood stage events.
HABITATS
Refuge lands provide a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife species (Figure 5). Habitats
found on Hatchie Refuge consist of approximately 9,764 acres of bottomland hardwood forests, 382
acres of upland forests, 929 acres of agriculture/moist soils, 316 acres of swamps, sloughs, and
streams, 46 acres of grassland, 296 acres of open water, and 110 acres of scrub/shrub habitat. The
total current deeded acreage for Hatchie Refuge is 11,556 acres.
The 9,764 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods on the refuge consist of black willow (Salix nigra),
eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagodaefolia), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Quercus nigra), Nuttall oak (Quercis nuttallii),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), sweet
pecan (Carya illinoensis), bitter pecan (Carya aquatica), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Forest management practices are used in these areas to maintain optimal
diversity of forest habitat for wildlife management purposes. Mast production in the bottomland hardwood
habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl,
deer, squirrel, and turkey. Backwater flooding during winter and spring months typically inundates
thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat.
Croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers who grow corn, soybeans,
and winter wheat in rotation. The refuge share amounts to 25 percent and is usually planted in corn,
which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption.
About 96 acres of afforested land consist of former open lands that have been planted in seedlings in
2001. Species planted on afforested lands include: Nuttall oak (Quercus nuttallii), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia), water oak (Quercus nigra),
green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), overcup oak (Quercus
lyrata), pin oak (Quercus palustris), and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii).
The refuge currently contains approximately 316 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is dominated
by baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and swamp tupelo (Nyssa aquatica) in the overstory, and with
buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) found most abundantly in the understory. In the 296 acres
of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged aquatics, such
as elodea (Elodea canadensis), curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), bladderwort (Utricularia
spp.), and coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.); and emergents, such as American lotus (Nelumbo lutea),
cowlily (Nymphaea advena), duckweed (Lemna spp.), and waterfern (Azolla Carolinia).
Upland hardwood forest habitat (approximately 382 acres) is found primarily along the southeastern
edge of the refuge and consists primarily of southern red oak (Quercus falcata), sweetgum, yellow
polar (Liriodendron tulipifera), post oak (Quercus stellata), white oak (Quercus alba), American elm
(Ulmus Americana), various hickories (Carya spp.), and American beech (Fagus grandfiolia).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 5. Habitat types on Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Approximately 46 acres of cool season grasses have been converted to native warm season grasses.
Dominant species include switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium
scoparium), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), partridge pea
(Cassia fasciculata), Indian grass (Sorgastrum nutans), goldenrod (Solidago altissima), common
ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Sweetgum trees and other
species are invading these fields and maintenance will be needed to keep the fields in grassland.
EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES
Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge has
adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are the primary focus of
management. As resources allow, programs will be developed to increase appropriate and
compatible visitor use awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources.
I 40
Hwy 76
Hwy 179
Swan Lake Road
Powell Road
Shepp Road
Staton-Koko Road
Carney Road
Hilleville Road
Hilleville Loop Road
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Types
1 0.5 0 1 2
Miles
Habitat Types
Administrative
Agriculture/Moist Soils
Baldcypress-Tupelo
Bottomland Forest
Grassland
Open Water
Pine
Scrub-Shrub
Upland Hardwood
g yp
Acres
29
929
355
9409
46
296
197
110
185
28 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Wildlife-dependent recreation currently available on the refuge includes wildlife observation (by
hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), hunting, fishing, and photography. Wildlife
observation, hunting, and fishing have been the primary uses on the refuge since its inception
and encompass the majority of public use. The staff also provides environmental education
and interpretive programs when requested by local civic and school groups. Currently, there
are no interpretive facilities on the refuge.
In Fiscal Year 2003, the refuge received about 25,000 visitors, although visitor use data are limited.
The refuge is open during most of the state hunting seasons, with some exceptions and restrictions,
which apply to certain hunts. Fishing is permitted all year according to state regulations with certain
restrictions. National wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities by law, unless expressly
permitted. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography are permitted on most areas of the
refuge. The Whistling Wings Wildlife Drive, a 2.2-mile auto tour route, encircles Oneal Lake.
Interpretive facilities are planned. All public access is prohibited in the waterfowl sanctuary areas
(Windrow field, Coffey Farm area, and Hillville area) from November 15 through March 15. Figure 6
shows the existing public use facilities found at Hatchie Refuge.
There are numerous other public lands within commuting distance that offer wildlife-dependent recreation
experiences. Eight other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 ac.), Lake Isom (1,846 ac.),
Chickasaw (25,041 ac.), Lower Hatchie (9,452 ac.), Tennessee (51,359 ac.), Cross Creeks (8,861 ac.),
and Clarks River (7,467 ac.), are located within a 2-hour drive of Hatchie Refuge (acreages as existed on
September 30, 2004, and listed in the Division of Realty database, http://refugedata.fws.gov/databases/).
Hatchie Refuge provides excellent birding opportunities within the scenic Hatchie River bottoms. The
Hatchie River, which traverses through both Hatchie and Lower Hatchie refuges, is a state-designated
scenic river and is the only unchannelized river remaining in west Tennessee (however, the portion of the
river that resides in Mississippi has been channelized).
Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge, with facilities including fishing piers, boat
ramps, and bank fishing areas. Hatchie and Reelfoot refuges offer universally accessible fishing areas.
Waterfowl hunting, as well as big and small game hunting, is offered on each west Tennessee refuge.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages more than 600,000 acres of state wildlife
management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee, and all offer some fishing, hunting, and
wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby are the 12,000-acre Anderson Tully, 3,400-acre Moss
Island, and 7,000-acre Tigrett state wildlife management areas. The State of Tennessee allows use
of both modern and primitive weapons, and in the 2002-03 hunting season the state offered a total of
43 days of modern gun deer hunting, 53 days of muzzleloader deer hunting, and 105 days of archery
deer hunting in west Tennessee. Most west Tennessee wildlife management areas are also open to
waterfowl and small game hunting.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities,
including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of four permanent employees: Refuge
Manager, Office Assistant, and two Engineering Equipment Operators. When possible, up to three
temporary employees (two equipment operators and one YCC employee) supplement the refuge
staff. The staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats,
especially bottomland hardwood forests, through cropland and forest management. The Habitat
Management Plan provides an inventory of existing forest resources and long-term plans
formanagement of these resources to maximize their value as habitat for a diversity of wildlife
species. Providing quality habitats for migratory birds is the primary management activity.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Figure 6. Public use facilities on Hatchie Refuge
The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies,
and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The
staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on keeping the public informed regarding public
use opportunities and refuge activities.
The refuge office/visitor contact station was constructed in 2003 and is located at Oneal Lake. A
shop site, including a 3-bay maintenance building with an office and storage barn, is located in the
Hillville area. The shop site also contains one safety storage shed for hazardous materials, a wood
shop building, above-ground gas and diesel fuel tanks, and two pole sheds for equipment storage.
Hatchie Refuge is accessible by a system of state and refuge roads. Interstate 40 and State Highway
76 pass through the western end of the refuge. County roads that provide access to various parts of
the refuge include the Carney Road, Hillville Loop Road, Quarter Road, and Shepp Road. Public use
facilities include a 2.2-mile auto-tour route around Oneal Lake, about 30 miles of public use roads, 3
universally accessible fishing piers, 15 boat ramps to access oxbow lakes and reservoirs, and 2 boat
ramps to access the Hatchie River.
Swan Lake Road
I 40
Hwy 76
Hwy 179
Carney Road
Staton-Koko Road
Hilleville Road
Hilleville Loop Road
Oneal Lake
McCool
Lakes
Adams Lake
Powell Road
Borrow Pit
Lake
Quail Hollow
Lake Goose Lake
Shepp Road
Boat Ramps
Office
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Public Use Facilities
1 0.5 0 1 2
Miles
Figure 6. Public Use Facilities on Hatchie NWR
Wildlife Trail
30 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
In addition to normal refuge road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the Federal
Lands Highway (FLH) program. Hatchie Refuge staff coordinates with Federal Highway
Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or improvements with TEA-
21 funding. Congress requires that projects must be compatible with comprehensive management
plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal Highway Administration is
available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract administration. Recent projects
included the replacement of eight bridges and the reconstruction of five highway ramps in 2003.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR CULTURAL RESOURCES
During the early historic period, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of western Tennessee
that included the Hatchie Refuge. Initial European explorations included visits by the Spanish
explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made contact with the Chickasaw
Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson 1995). After the American
Revolution, the lands occupied by the Chickasaw were ceded to the new United States government,
which made peace with the Chickasaw in 1786. In 1818, the Chickasaw Nation ceded all claim to
lands in Tennessee, and, in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw people east of the Mississippi were
removed to reservations in the west.
An archaeological review on Hatchie Refuge was conducted in 1979; however, actual field
investigations were confined to various project impact areas. The field survey resulted in the
discovery of 33 archaeological sites indicating human activity in the refuge from the Early Archaic
Period into modern times. Five sites were recommended for further investigation to determine their
eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
Prior to refuge ownership, timber harvesting and road construction, as well as agricultural
activities, may have adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on
the refuge. Oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth of
information regarding the refuge and the county.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate tax rolls because Federal
Government agencies are not required to pay state or local taxes. However, the Service makes
annual payments to Haywood County in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge Revenue
Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of the
following formulas is greatest: (1) three-fourths of 1 percent of the fair market value of the lands
acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the
lands acquired in fee title within the county. The funds are appropriated annually by Congress.
Of the 341,277 acres in Haywood County, 211,984 acres consist of cultivated croplands, and 15,178
acres consist of forests. There are approximately 360 farms in Haywood County (average size of 589
acres) (http://agcensus.mannlib.cornell.edu/show2.php). Lands immediately adjacent to the refuge
are privately owned and managed for farmland and hunting clubs. The surrounding farmland is
farmed primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn, and milo. Farm commodity prices, in general,
have decreased since the mid-80s and more dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill.
Poor farm production, drought, and low commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many
producers to sell their farms and/or enroll them in some kind of conservation program.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. The
Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private lands in
these programs, and private land enrollment in conservation programs will continue to be encouraged
to augment Service program and mission requirements.
A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River
Ecosystem (LMRE) was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al., 2001). Although
Hatchie Refuge was not one of the refuges studied, just downstream the Lower Hatchie Refuge was
studied. Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate
persistent organic chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), which include DDTs,
toxaphene, mirex, endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides, were detected at every refuge, but on
Lower Hatchie Refuge total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below published levels for the
protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species. Mixtures of multiple pesticides were
often detected in refuges within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, and their detection frequency
was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) values in
sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were well below published levels.
Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediment and water samples are low throughout the
region, except near oil and gas production facilities, which do not occur on or near Lower Hatchie Refuge.
Mercury levels in sediment, and predator and benthic fish samples were well below threshhold levels for
fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (CUPs) (includes herbicides such as 2, 4-D,
atrazine, and numerous others; and insecticides such as diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were
detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the frequency as nearby off-refuge areas. On Lower
Hatchie refuge, water samples indicated the presence of three CUPs at levels below the aquatic life
criteria. On nearby lands outside the refuge, CUPs were not found at levels which exceeded aquatic life
criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are less certain due to limitations of
sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a quantitative risk assessment
(Shea 2001). In summary, Lower Hatchie refuge tests indicated no likely hazard in regard to PAHs, but
further testing may be needed to accurately determine possible risks associated with OCPs, PCBs, and
CUPs. This study would be indicative for Hatchie Refuge as well, since the two refuges are very similar.
A study of ecological contaminants found on six national wildlife refuges in west Tennessee published
by the Service’s Ecological Services Office in Cookeville, Tennessee, detected 12 metals in the 5 fish
samples taken from Hatchie Refuge (Robison et al., 1997). DDT was detected only at Hatchie
Refuge. Although DDT, DDE, and DDD were all detected in 4 of the 5 fish samples, “... all DDE
concentrations were well below the FDA Tolerance Level of 5.0 ppm, which applies to fillet portions
and total DDT concentrations.” Mercury concentrations ranged from 0.222 ppm in spotted sucker to
0.5 ppm in spotted gar. Mercury was slightly higher in the spotted gar sample from Powell Lake. The
average concentration of mercury in fishes was found to be 0.384 ppm. Only Lower Hatchie Refuge
had higher average mercury concentrations.
REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS
Agricultural practices in the vicinity of Hatchie Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and
fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests, which equates to significant losses and degradation of
valuable wildlife habitat.
Hatchie Refuge was formerly owned by a variety of landowners, including the Powell Timber
Company, and other private landowners. A forest habitat inventory was completed in 1976, however,
loss of volume due to salvage sales, sedimentation, and beaver impacts, and growth of the remaining
timber have changed the condition of the forest.
32 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge-specific inventories of flora and fauna are limited. Comprehensive surveys of refuge flora and
fauna should be completed as opportunities become available.
Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the
Mississippi River. It has been straightened and channelized for decades, significantly reducing the
meanders of the natural river channel and limiting the amount of overbank flooding, which occurred
historically. Even though the main stem of the Hatchie River in Tennessee has never been
channelized, numerous channelized tributaries affect the river’s hydrology through the deposit of
huge sediment loads. As a result, the physical and biological interaction between the rivers and
floodplain has been impacted and much of the natural hydrologic functioning of the system has
been significantly affected.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Priorities identified for Hatchie Refuge include continued emphasis on habitat for migratory waterfowl,
bottomland hardwood forests, and an increased emphasis on habitat for migratory songbirds.
The importance of the Lower Mississippi Valley as the primary wintering ground for mid-continent
waterfowl populations serves to reinforce the value of Hatchie Refuge for migrating waterfowl. The
refuge and adjacent lands are known to be important wintering and stop-over areas for mallards
using the Mississippi Flyway, and the value of the refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced
by its proximity to other refuges. The refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act
of 1929 for “...use as an inviolate sanctuary or for other management purposes, for migratory birds.”
Management of impoundments, agricultural lands, moist soil units, and bottomland hardwood forests
will be carried out with an emphasis on providing habitat for migrating waterfowl.
The vast amounts of clearing and fragmentation of forests associated with the Hatchie River
watershed underscores the importance of Hatchie Refuge as a part of the largest complex of
bottomland hardwood forests remaining in west Tennessee. A priority is placed on protection and
maintenance of bottomland hardwood forests on the refuge. Refuge forest management activities
maintain and increase the red oak component of the forest and develop uneven-aged management of
stands, which provide a diversity of habitats for numerous species of wildlife.
Significant declines in populations of many neotropical songbirds serve to emphasize the importance
of forest habitats for species, which migrate through the Lower Mississippi Valley. Emphasis will
continue to be placed on the study and management of refuge forests for these species.
Management efforts to enhance existing forests for songbirds will continue to be a priority on the
refuge. Migratory birds that are considered to be focal species for the refuge include swallow-tailed
kite, cerulean warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Focal wildlife species will continue to be managed in support of goals and objectives developed for
the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (USFWS 2002). Resource goals and objectives developed
cooperatively with the State of Tennessee (TWRA and USFWS 2001) will continue to be priorities in
the future planning and management of refuge lands. The Service will continue to work with partners
and landowners to achieve common goals and form conservation partnerships. One other such
partnership involves the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and landowner participation in the
Wetlands Reserve Program and the Cropland Reserve Program will assist the Service in meeting
wildlife objectives through the restoration of thousands of acres in the vicinity of the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS
Various records were found in the refuge files that discuss two proposed public use natural areas.
In 1982, the Forest Management Plan for Hatchie Refuge was amended to read: “A baldcypress-water
tupelo natural area has already been set aside. We are recommending that this 31-acre
natural area be increased to 200 acres; and that another 133-acre natural area be established near
Cut-off Lake.” (Forest Management Plan Amendment, pg. 2). “It is recommended that the 31-acre
Baldcypress-Water Tupelo Natural Area in Compartment 8 be increased to 200 acres.” (Forest
Management Plan Amendment, pg. 4). “The other Natural Area is located on the Shannon tract in
Compartment 8. This area is approximately 133 acres in size and supports an unusually good stand
of sawtimber.” (Forest Management Plan Amendment, pg. 4).
The 1983 Annual Narrative stated that in October (1983), two areas totaling 337 acres on the east
end of the refuge were set aside from active forest management to preserve their high aesthetic
value. The Pike Hole Public Use Natural Area is shown as 200 acres in size. While no size is shown
for the Shannon Ridge Public Use Natural Area, 337 acres minus 200 acres equals 137 acres.
The 1984 Annual Narrative states, “In 1982, two areas totaling 237 acres on the east end of the
refuge were set aside from active forest management to preserve their high esthetic value.”
The 1985 Annual Narrative states, “The two sites, totaling 700 acres were set aside from active forest
management in 1982 to preserve their esthetic value.”
While the acreage change in the various documents is confusing, the public use natural areas were
never approved because the program was discontinued (Marvin Nichols, personal communication).
These areas will be reevaluated and the status will be addressed through the Habitat Management
Planning process or Annual Habitat Work Plans.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land
that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
inhabitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears
to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially
unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of
recreation; (3) has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable
its preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; (4)
does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive development
or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored through appropriate
management at the time of review; and (5) may contain ecological, geological, or other features of
scientific, educational, scenic, or historic value.
The lands within the Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the
criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found
to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not
further analyzed in this plan.
34 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service endeavors to manage fish and wildlife and their habitats, while considering the needs of
the complete spectrum of natural resources in the decision-making process. But first and foremost,
fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. A requirement of the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to maintain the ecological health,
diversity, and integrity of national wildlife refuges. Refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley include
managed bottomland hardwood forests and moist soil areas, and are vital links in the overall function
of the ecosystem. To offset the historic and continuing loss of these habitats within the ecosystem,
the refuge and other public lands provide the biological “safety-net” for migratory non-game birds and
waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, and resident species.
REFUGE VISION
Wildlife and biological communities found on the refuge form the basis for the future management of
refuge lands. The following vision statement developed collaboratively by the planning team, with
input from the refuge staff and the public, describes the desired future conditions and management
emphasis for the Hatchie Refuge:
“To protect and enhance an excellent example of a fully functioning, river-driven bottomland
hardwood ecosystem that supplies critical habitat needs for wintering waterfowl and other migratory
birds, as well as a host of other fish and wildlife species, and provides refuge visitors the opportunity
to learn the value of this unique and diminishing habitat.”
REFUGE GOALS
The following goals were developed in keeping with the vision for the refuge and purposes for which
the refuge was established:
• Goal 1 (Waterfowl): Provide a complex of managed wintering and migration habitats for
waterfowl that support the population goals and objectives established in the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan, and the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan.
• Goal 2 (Endangered and Threatened Species): Protect, manage, and enhance refuge habitats
in a manner that will sustain or increase species’ populations.
• Goal 3 (Migratory Landbirds): Provide a complex of habitats which meet the breeding,
migration, and wintering needs of the species of management concern, as identified in the
goals and objectives of the Partners-In-Flight Plan and the West Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Conservation Plan.
• Goal 4 (Shorebirds and Waterbirds): Provide a complex of managed habitats for shorebirds
and waterbirds during critical periods throughout the year to increase bird use on the refuge
and develop a traditional use site.
36 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
• Goal 5 (Aquatic Resources): Maintain or improve aquatic habitat quantity, quality, and
diversity to sustain or increase population levels of aquatic resources on the refuge in
accordance with the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan and other
Service aquatic resource plans.
• Goal 6 (Resident Wildlife): Provide a complex of habitats suitable for a wide range of resident
(endemic) wildlife species, including mammalian, avian, amphibian, and reptilian species, while
achieving habitat management objectives and biological integrity with other native flora and fauna.
• Goal 7 (Public Use): Enhance public use of the refuge through development of an appropriate
and compatible program of wildlife-dependent recreation and education/interpretation that is
consistent with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and that will
promote an understanding of the Lower Mississippi River Valley ecosystem.
• Goal 8 (Administration and Operation): Ensure that present and future operational, administrative,
and personnel objectives are achieved in order that goals and objectives for refuge habitats, fish
and wildlife populations, land conservation, and visitor services will be achieved.
• Goal 9 (Land Protection and Conservation): Protect natural and cultural resources
through partnerships in accordance with federal and state historic preservation
legislation and regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN - SUMMARY STATEMENT
This management plan was derived from Alternative D of the Draft Environmental Assessment. The
refuge would be managed using an ecosystem management approach that preserves the
environmental health and diversity of natural resources on the refuge. At the same time,
opportunities would be examined to allow greater access for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
During the planning process, oral and written comments received conveyed both a desire for
increased public access and recreation and a desire to preserve the diverse flora and fauna of
the refuge. The decisions to allow or prohibit certain uses were dependent upon the
compatibility of those uses (whether the proposed uses would have an adverse effect on the
natural resources of the refuge), the establishing purposes for the refuge, and the professional
judgment of the refuge staff and planning team.
This management plan outlines how wildlife and habitats would be managed and enhanced by the
refuge over the next 15 years. The goals, objectives, and strategies acknowledge that the refuge is a
portion of the much larger Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The actions considered and taken in
implementing this plan could affect the remaining Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, natural areas
which surround the refuge, and nearby municipalities and landowners.
Crucial elements of this plan include managing wintering and migration habitats for wintering
waterfowl and other migratory birds. Management of moist soil units, croplands, and bottomland
hardwood forests, would ensure that the refuge supports the population goals and objectives
established in numerous regional plans, including the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Plan, and the West Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Conservation Plan. Waterfowl impoundments, including moist soil units and flooded
fields, would be managed to provide seasonal habitat for migratory shorebirds.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Protection and management of refuge forests and grasslands would support target populations of
migratory landbirds and support populations goals and objectives established in the Partners-In-Flight
Plan and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. Cooperative efforts with other
agencies and non-governmental organizations would be undertaken to assemble a 20,000-acre block
of contiguous bottomland hardwood forest along the Hatchie River.
Active forest management would maximize the ability of the refuge forest lands to benefit all resident and
migratory species. Protection of aquatic resources would promote self-sustaining fish populations and
aquatic habitats necessary for resting, foraging, and breeding for resident and migratory wetland-dependent
wildlife species. Inventory and monitoring of threatened and endangered species would
continue and resource protection and management would contribute to their recovery.
The environmental education and outreach program would be enhanced to showcase the Lower
Mississippi River Ecosystem, and a wide range of partnering opportunities would be actively pursued
and fostered to share in the protection of natural and cultural resources. Public use facilities,
including a visitor center, boat ramps, observation platforms, kiosks, and trails would be developed to
enhance public access and appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
The goals, objectives, and strategies presented below are the Service’s response to the issues and
concerns expressed by the planning team, the public at open meetings, and to other comments
submitted by the public. All issues discussed during the scoping process are listed in Appendix VII,
and responses to relevant comments received are addressed in this final plan. Following each goal is
a list of objectives, and under each objective is a listing of strategies. The Plan Implementation
section shows the support projects for the goals in priority order.
These objectives and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the missions of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan, the Conservation
Plan for the Hatchie River, the refuge’s vision, and the specific purposes for which Hatchie Refuge
was established. With adequate resources as outlined in the Plan Implementation section, the
Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years.
GOAL 1 -- (WATERFOWL)
Provide a complex of managed wintering and migration habitats for waterfowl that support the population
goals and objectives established in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and the West
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan.
Objective 1.1: Through the management of existing refuge lands and resources provide migration
and wintering habitats to support 5.4 million duck-use days and 500,000 goose-use days annually,
based on a 110-day wintering period, in addition to year-round habitat for resident wood ducks.
Guidelines for minimum duck-use days were predicted by the use of a series of step-down plans,
starting with population objectives developed in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
These values were stepped down to the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, which in turn
determined minimum foraging requirements that needed to be met to support the established goals of
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, and these foraging requirements were then
allocated to each state within the Joint Venture. Within each state, coordination meetings were held
38 Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
to allocate the needed habitat requirements among public and private lands. Taking into account
sanctuary and foraging requirements, public land managers determined what potential existed on
various managed lands to meet the state objectives. For Hatchie Refuge, these potential objectives
were adjusted based on multi-species duck life history requirements, goose life history requirements,
and refuge purposes and capabilities.
• Strategy 1.1.1: Maintain the current core waterfowl management area (11,221 acres) as an
inviolate sanctuary for waterfowl and other migratory birds where little to no disturbance
factors is allowed during the critical winter period (November to March).
• Strategy 1.1.2: Manage approximately 900-1,000 acres of moist soil/agricultural areas,
through water manipulation, mechanical, and chemical treatments, to provide quality moist-soil
habitat and high energy food resources for waterfowl.
• Strategy 1.1.3: Manage refuge forests to increase the red oak component on suitable sites in
the red oak and potential red oak management units to 60 percent of the basal area.
• Strategy 1.1.4: Manage existing greentree reservoirs