Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
|
Lower Hatchie
National Wildlife Refuge
Pintail
USFWS Photo
H N W R
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
309 N. Church St. Room 201 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
Dyersburg, TN 38024
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Manager: Randy Cook
309 N. Church St. Room 201
Dyersburg, TN 38024
E-mail: randy_cook@fws.gov
Phone Number: 731-287-0650
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
April 2006
CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn PPllaann
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
April 2006
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Lauderdale and Tipton Counties, 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
Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3
Description and Mission ......................................................................................................3
National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3
Description and Mission ......................................................................................................3
Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................................5
Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................6
Overview .............................................................................................................................6
Threats and Problems.........................................................................................................9
Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................10
II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15
Overview....................................................................................................................................15
Issues ........................................................................................................................................16
Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................16
Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18
Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................19
Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20
III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................23
Acquisition .................................................................................................................................23
Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................24
Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................25
Topography and Climate...................................................................................................25
Demography.....................................................................................................................27
Wilderness Review............................................................................................................27
Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................27
Avian Species ...................................................................................................................28
Mammals..........................................................................................................................29
Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................29
Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................30
Mussels............................................................................................................................30
Noxious and Invasive Species ..........................................................................................30
Habitats .............................................................................................................................31
Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................33
Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................35
Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................36
Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................36
Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................38
Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................38
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .........................................................................................................41
ii Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................41
Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................41
Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................41
Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Summary Statement........................................................42
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................43
Goal 1, Waterfowl: ............................................................................................................43
Goal 2, Endangered and Threatened Species:.................................................................44
Goal 3, Migratory Land Birds: ...........................................................................................45
Goal 4, Shorebirds and Waterbirds:..................................................................................46
Goal 5, Aquatic Resources: ..............................................................................................46
Goal 6, Resident Wildlife: .................................................................................................47
Goal 7, Public Use: ...........................................................................................................47
Goal 8, Administration and Operation:..............................................................................48
Goal 9, Land Protection and Conservation:......................................................................49
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................51
Background ...............................................................................................................................51
Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................51
Project Descriptions..........................................................................................................52
Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................60
Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................63
Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................65
Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................65
Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................65
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................67
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................75
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES...............................................................................79
APPENDIX IV. SPECIES LISTS.........................................................................................................83
APPENDIX V: DECISIONS AND APPROVALS...............................................................................111
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form .................................................................111
Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................115
APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................151
Partnerships .............................................................................................................................151
Avifaunal Analysis ....................................................................................................................152
Archaeological and Historic Resource Protection ....................................................................155
Ecosystem Management..........................................................................................................156
Land Protection and Conservation...........................................................................................157
APPENDIX VII: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................161
Public Scoping Comments .......................................................................................................161
Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................162
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................169
APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................171
APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................175
List of Figures
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort......................................................................2
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process.........................................................................................9
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.....................................................................................11
Figure 4. Forest Cover Changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley..............................................11
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV bird conservation areas...................................................................13
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary of the Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge ..................22
Figure 7. Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................................24
Figure 8. Existing Habitat Types on Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge.....................................33
Figure 9. Public Use Facilities at Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge .........................................36
Figure 10. Proposed Staffing Plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex..............61
List of Tables
Table 1. Cost Summary of Proposed Projects.....................................................................................62
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
Contained in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
Refuge are the proposed management actions and direction for the refuge over the next 15 years.
When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives for the
refuge developed by a planning team of representatives of government and private groups, as well as
private individuals. Overriding considerations reflected in the plan 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.
In conjunction with CCP planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning process was
performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. 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 six million acres of
private, State, and Federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1, Focus area for
west Tennessee planning effort). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in
subsequent sections of this document.
During the planning process, a range of four management alternatives was developed for Lower
Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge that met the goals and objectives of the refuge for the next 15 years,
as well as covered the broad spectrum of comments received by public and staff during the scoping
process. After a review of the management needs of the refuge, regional and national resource
management plans and priorities, and staff and public comments, the four alternatives were
evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred action is described in Chapter V
(Plan Implementation) of this CCP. The other alternatives considered during the planning process
were addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge would play in support of the National Wildlife
Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities.
The plan is needed to:
• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge;
• Ensure that management of the refuge is in keeping with the purposes for which the refuge
was established;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on the refuge and in partnerships around the refuge;
• Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including
the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997;
2 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort
Gilt Edge
LOWER HATCHIE
NWR
FORT PILLOW
STATE PARK
JIM TULLEY
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
AREA
STATE OF
TENNESSEE
(TDOC)
FORT PILLOW
SUNK LAKE PUNA
CHICKASAW
NWR
LAKE ISOM
NWR
I−155
I−40 51
64
45
45
70
79
Eva
Lucy
Eads
Cuba
Troy
Guys
Como
Dyer
Yuma
Atoka Mason
Locke
Rives
Obion
Medon
Bemis
Ramer
Halls
Gates
Paris
Henry
Luray
Huron
Crump
Toone
Milan
Eaton
Macon
Lenox
Bells
Alamo
Leach
Sharon
Martin
Tipton
Kenton
Mercer Pinson
Selmer
Michie
Finger
Ripley
Sardis
Reagan
Darden
Shiloh
Counce
Medina
Gibson
Moscow
Braden
Miston
Finley
Bogota
Atwood
Camden
Gleason
Dukedom
Dresden
Clifton
Munford
Memphis
Cordova
Samburg
Jackson
Denmark
Henning
Ridgely
Puryear
Stanton
Hornsby
Bolivar
Trenton
Oakland
Laconia
Trimble
Tigrett
Newbern
Parsons
Gadsden
Enville
Lavinia
Randolph
Burlison
Brighton
Rosemark
Lakeland
Bartlett
Hornbeak
Elbridge
Oakfield
Chewalla
Wynnburg
Savannah
Saltillo
Silerton
Idlewild
Humboldt
Bradford
Gallaway
Westport
Bruceton
Holladay
Drummonds
Covington
Woodstock
Kerrville
Ellendale
Brunswick
Arlington
Mansfield
Lexington
Olivehill
Saulsbury
Middleton
Yorkville
Williston
Rossville La Grange
Dyersburg
Fruitvale
Henderson
Trezevant
Big Sandy
Greenfield
Millington
Germantown
Union City
Adamsville
Whiteville
Pocahontas
Rutherford
Somerville
Maury City Sugar Tree
Friendship
Huntingdon
Clarksburg
Fisherville
Barretville
Beech Bluff
Tiptonville
Springville
Scotts Hill
Brownsville
Jacks Creek
Hollow Rock
Cedar Grove
Buena Vista
Palmersville
Collierville
South Fulton
Spring Creek
Stantonville
Wildersville
Decaturville
Bath Springs
Milledgeville
Cottage Grove
Morris Chapel
Hickory Withe
Woodland Mills
Bethel Springs
Hickory Valley
Grand Junction
Essary Springs
Crockett
Mills
McLemoresville
Parker Crossroads
CHICKASAW
STATE
FOREST
NATCHEZ TRACE
STATE PARK &
FOREST WMA
HATCHIE NWR
REELFOOT LAKE WMA
TIGRETT WMA
MOSS ISLAND
MEEMAN SHELBY
STATE PARK WMA
BIG HILL POND
STATE PARK
ERNEST RICE WMA
HARTS MILL
REFUGE
HORNS BLUFF
REGUGE
LAKE
GRAHAM
WHITE LAKE REFUGE
BEAN SWITCH
REFUGE
MUSTARD BOTTOMS
WILDLIFE REFUGE
BLACK BAYOU REFUGE
PINSON MOUNDS
STATE PARK
FORT RIDGE
T.O. FULLER
STATE PARK
CHICKASAW STATE PARK
GARRETT LAKE
LAKE
LAUDERDALE
REFUGE
TIGRETT REFUGE
SPRING CREEK
JARRELL
SWITCH
PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT
MANESS
SWAMP
REFUGE
REELFOOT NWR
CARROLL LAKE
OAK DRAIN
WETLAND
WHITEVILLE
LAKE
OBION RIVER WMA
WEST BANK−REELFOOT
GOOCH WMA
West Tennessee Focus Area
0 25 50
Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley
T e n n e s s e e R i v e r
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
• Ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and county plans;
and
• Provide a basis for operations, maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
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, organizations, and businesses.
In keeping with this partnering concept, this CCP 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; Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008); Tennessee Wildlife
Resources Agency’s SEG Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Plan.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DESCRIPTION AND MISSION
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, anadromous
fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the
management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding migratory birds,
see the Service website at http: //birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some conservation
responsibilities with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages 550 national wildlife refuges covering over 96 million
acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of
lands dedicated to wildlife conservation, 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
DESCRIPTION AND MISSION
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were
initiated in 1997 to fulfill the mission 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 individual purpose for which it was established;
• Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
• Consider the needs of wildlife first;
4 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
• 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 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As visitation grows, there are important 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
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Volunteers also continue to be a major contributor to the
success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on
refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million.
In more recent studies, economists published “Banking on Nature” (USFWS 2003), an updated
version of the 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.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy; that growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model
for habitat management with broad participation from others.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by directives from National Wildlife Refuge
System policy, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of the refuge are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. 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;
• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962;
• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations;
• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and
• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and
legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 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
fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation); and
• Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent policy,
is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal
agencies and State fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges.
State wildlife management areas, State wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide
the foundation for protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health
and conservation of fish and wildlife species in Tennessee.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) http://www.state.tn.us/twra/ is the State
agency charged with game enforcement responsibilities and management of State natural
resources in Tennessee. The TWRA manages approximately 1.35 million acres of State wildlife
management areas and State wildlife refuges, coordinates the State’s wildlife conservation
program, and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and
fishing program on State wildlife management areas.
An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate. The State’s participation and contribution throughout this
comprehensive conservation planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue
to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee.
As previously mentioned, a joint, interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with
the State of Tennessee, in collaboration with the Service’s CCP planning in west Tennessee. This
joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private, State,
and Federal lands, including national wildlife refuges 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 cooperatively, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in
their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all “significant” management
actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including
opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), State agencies are
not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations which dictate Federal planning
requirements do not apply to TWRA. So the various agencies sought to combine planning to the
extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within the process for each agency to
accomplish its desired objectives.
6 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2), which allowed both agencies to accomplish their
planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. The process will produce joint objectives for west
Tennessee lands and will 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. This Group consists of TWRA and
Service project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the
leadership of the Core Group, nine Resource Working Groups were recruited and developed to study
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, critical
habitats, and opportunities and developed management strategies for west Tennessee resource
groups. These groups developed Focus Area-Wide Goals and Objectives, which were then
translated into a series of map overlays, which rank areas of specific interest and provide a simple
means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In addition,
each Working Group developed a text describing 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 (WTWR Conservation Plan) (TWRA, USFWS 2002). These goals,
objectives, and strategies for Federal lands were then used by the Service as the biological
foundation for the CCP planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee
lands, the CCP process resulted in the production of a Draft CCP for each national wildlife refuge in
west Tennessee, including Reelfoot, Lake Isom, Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie.
Once finalized, the CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the WTWR
Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west Tennessee planning effort, called
the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is expected to be compiled in 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.
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). Lower Hatchie National Wildlife
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process
Focus Area-Wide
Goals/Objectives
CCP Process
NEPA Process
Comprehensive
Conservation Plans
Resource Working Groups
State Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Private Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
Federal Lands
Goals/Objectives/
Strategies
West Tennessee Master Plan
Core Group
West Tennessee
Wildlife Resources
Conservation
Plan
Refuge
Comprehensive
Conservation
Plans
Land
Acquisition
Proposals
Habitat
Enhancement
8 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Baton Rouge
Vicksburg
Monroe
Little Rock
Dyersburg
Memphis
Poplar Bluff
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
LOUISIANA
ARKANSAS
MISSOURI
KENTUCKY
Reelfoot NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lower Hatchie NWR
0 30 60 120 180 240
Miles
Legend
National Wildlife Refuges
State Wildlife Management Areas
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (USFWS
Ecosystem Plan 2000b).
The Lower Mississippi Valley 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
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 trend of fish and wildlife
populations and biological diversity, establish conservation priorities, clarify goals, and solve common
threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. 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, i.e., 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 (MAV) 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 MAV (Loesch et al., 1994).
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
throughout the region (Figure 4). Flood waters once recharged wildlife habitats and created rich,
dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower
10 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi Valley is fragmented 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 and laden with pesticides; they support a small
fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources.
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 are large enough to support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as
cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000).
Modifications to the historic flood plains have caused major declines in fisheries 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. Working with others
makes the Service more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. The
Service and other agencies also consider bottomland hardwood forests a high priority 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.
Habitat objectives in the MAV have been established by Partners-in-Flight in the Mississippi Valley
Bird Conservation Plan (Twedt et al., 1998). In order to meet population objectives for migratory land
birds, this Plan has identified 87 Bird Conservation Areas, broken down into blocks of 10,000 to
20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres of forested wetlands. These
targeted land bases will serve as priority areas for forest restoration and will someday serve as
important “anchors” for biological diversity.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 4. Forest Cover Changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley
!
" !
##
" !
##
!
$ $ %
12 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and/or protection of one each of the
following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres.
Three Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas (BCAs) were identified by Ford (1998) and are
delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the Upper, Middle, and
Lower Implementation Zones. Lower Hatchie Refuge is included within the Middle Implementation
Zone, which totals approximately 165,472 acres (TWRA, USFWS 2002), and refuge land acquisitions
would contribute toward achieving BCA goals.
Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners-in-
Flight Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land
bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability
of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird
species (Bonney 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 Ecosystem Plan 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 and 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV bird conservation areas
Shelby
Dyer
Fayette
Tipton
Haywoo
Lauderdale
Lake
BCA 3 − Lower
Implementation Zone
BCA 1− Upper
Implementation Zone
Legend
Bird Conservation Areas
USFWS Lands
USFWS Expansion Boundaries
State Lands
Mississippi Alluvial Valley
0 2.5 5 10 15 20
Miles
Lower Hatchie NWR
Chickasaw NWR
Lake Isom NWR
Reelfoot NWR
BCA 2− Middle
Implementation Zone
14 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
II. The Planning Process
OVERVIEW
The west Tennessee planning effort includes the preparation of four CCPs, comprising five national
wildlife refuges (Lower Hatchie, Chickasaw, Reelfoot/Lake Isom, and Hatchie), as well as the
cooperative, interagency WTWR Conservation Plan, which identifies resources and management
goals for approximately 10,000 square miles of Federal, State, and private lands in west Tennessee,
with an emphasis on migratory birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management
efforts in the western third of the State, the WTWR Conservation Plan provides the main biological
foundation for the four west Tennessee CCPs.
In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in which four of the five refuges are located, migratory bird habitat
requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the CCP planning process (Ford and
Wathen 2001; TWRA and USFWS 2002; Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior MAV
recommendations, it was clear going into the CCP planning effort that ample habitat to meet these
habitat objectives could not be provided on national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to
achieve the habitat goals that had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort
looked beyond the respective 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
TWRA produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs for west
Tennessee and incorporated over 6 million acres of land.
The final product of west Tennessee planning will be a West Tennessee Master Plan, which will
incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the
four CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively
protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitat to meet the
requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use Federal, State, and private land habitats
in the western third of the State of Tennessee.
The planning process began in January 2000, with initial Core Group meetings in which the Service and
TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The Core Group selected nine resource
working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for specific
resource categories on Federal, State, and private lands within the planning area (Figure 1).
Preplanning for the Lower Hatchie CCP also began during early 2000. Issue identification is a major
factor in determining management goals and objectives for CCPs. 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 Lower Hatchie CCP
Technical Team (comprised of staff from Lower Hatchie Refuge and the West Tennessee Refuge
Complex) began meeting to discuss issues and management opportunities, and on October 26, 2000, a
public scoping meeting was held in Covington, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the
opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding perceived issues and opportunities for management
of the refuge. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by mailings, and additional comments
were received by mail, phone, and email. The West Tennessee Refuge Complex planning staff then
developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of management
alternatives in the Draft Environmental Assessment.
16 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
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 Lower 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 Lower Hatchie Planning
Review Group included representatives from TWRA, The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Anderson-Tully Company, Friends of West
Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges, Ducks Unlimited, Tennessee State Parks, U.S. Geological
Survey, as well as local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businessmen, and county officials. This
group provided oversight during the planning process with input from local individuals and private
interests. Draft versions of CCP documents were routed to Planning Review Group members
periodically for review, and comments received were considered in plan revisions.
The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000, and in January 2002, the Draft WTWR
Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for much of
the Lower Hatchie Refuge CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, other relevant
documents, input received from the public, as well as the staff’s professional judgment, the Lower Hatchie
Technical Team evaluated relevant issues and resource needs and developed various management
alternatives, which were then considered in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The range of
alternatives developed in the EA addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant
issue and concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The EA constituted
the documentation and the process by which the proposed action was selected.
Once the proposed action was selected, the Lower Hatchie Technical Team developed goals, objectives,
and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15 years. These
management objectives and strategies were developed within the context of this CCP (Chapter IV).
A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft CCP. The
public will be notified when the Final CCP document is available.
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, the Planning Review Group, and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 62
issues was consolidated into the following list of 21 issue categories concerning Lower Hatchie Refuge.
The list was grouped according to the following 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.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES
Waterfowl Populations
Since the refuge’s establishing purpose was specifically for it to be an “inviolate sanctuary for
migratory birds” (see Chapter III), all operation and management activities 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 works to provide sufficient, high
quality habitat to fulfill population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
established in Ford and Wathen (2001) and the WTWR 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 (see Habitat Issues). In order to meet its objectives for
waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland/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). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has
been identified as a physiographic area experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced
declines (Hamel et al., 1994). 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 continues to work to monitor
migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues, which affect resident and neotropical
migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
Threatened and Endangered Species
A key function of Lower Hatchie Refuge is to enhance the survival of threatened and endangered
species. Three federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to use or populate
lands within or in close proximity to the refuge: the bald eagle, the pallid sturgeon, and the interior
least tern. As many as 10 bald eagles are 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. Pallid sturgeon are not known to
inhabit refuge waters but are known to inhabit the Mississippi River, which is immediately
adjacent to the refuge. The refuge can support pallid sturgeon recovery efforts by providing
technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management agencies and by
supporting efforts to restore riverine habitat. Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River
sandbars, which are in close proximity to the refuge, and are regularly observed feeding on
refuge lands. The refuge’s protection of lands immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River
includes sand bars where least tern nesting colonies exist during summer months.
Resident Species Populations
Resident species include game species, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels,
rabbits, and furbearers, as well as nongame groups, including nongame mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians. The refuge monitors some resident wildlife populations through surveys, such as
the turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. 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 a consideration
when opportunities for refuge land acquisitions exist.
Shorebird Populations
Due to the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, and the frequent inundation
of these fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for providing
shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Management activities for waterfowl also provide
shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with management of impoundments and moist-soil units.
18 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
The staff monitors refuge shorebird use and looks for opportunities to support priorities outlined in the
WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird
populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
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 is necessary for each
group to complete its 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 to meet its objectives for waterfowl, the refuge
must maintain enough cropland/moist-soils 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, which affect resident and neotropical migratory bird
populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
Forest Habitat Management
The refuge protects over 7,000 acres (including Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area) of bottomland
hardwood habitat and over 1,000 acres of upland forests. The forests found on the refuge provide
invaluable habitat for the wide range of wildlife species that inhabit the refuge; they are critical to the
preservation of this drastically diminished 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 mast, soft mast, and invertebrates for mallards
during flood events that occur during the fall and early spring periods. There are an additional 1,300
acres that have been reforested and that will provide valuable forested habitat in the future. The
refuge will complete the habitat (including forest habitat) management plans, and management
decisions will be made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge
purposes, with due consideration for all other environmental factors.
Cooperative Farming
Agricultural crops play an important role in the scheme of migratory bird management, as they
provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically,
the refuge supplies corn and soybean crops, which are rotated with moist-soil units or are
produced on the higher elevations, to ensure that wildlife have a readily available food source
and to meet refuge objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. Lower Hatchie Refuge’s
cropland operation includes approximately 865 acres. The acreage, which varies from year-to-year
based on management needs, is managed in a combination of agricultural crops and moist-soil
foods. Under the cooperative farming agreement, acreage is divided by a 75 percent farmer
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
to 25 percent refuge ratio. The refuge portion of the crops, usually grown on the lower and wetter
fields, is left standing in the fields during harvest and provides supplemental forage for resident
and migratory wildlife, specifically migratory waterfowl.
Another farming option being used on the refuge is force account farming, in which refuge
personnel and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component
in the overall management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a
portion of the refuge. Force account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that
the Service must bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer,
and chemicals. Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the farmer to bear the cost of
production and leave a designated share in the field as his payment for renting the property.
Thus, force account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense, but the advantage of
greater flexibility and retaining 100 percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no
expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of
agricultural products left in the field for utilization by wildlife.
Most crop fields, which are planted for the refuge, can be flooded for waterfowl utilization. This,
coupled with subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuge to make substantial
contributions to the Mississippi Flyway migratory bird objectives. The refuge’s farming program
will continue to work to address habitat issues, which affect migratory bird populations, in keeping
with refuge goals and establishing purposes.
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. Lower Hatchie Refuge 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 refuge provides
185 acres of these early successional habitats and plays a key role in the migration patterns of mid-continent
waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge’s present and future will, in large part, be
influenced by resource management, which actively benefits waterfowl, including moist soil-habitat. The
management of the refuge’s moist-soil units will continue to address habitat issues, which 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 stated two consumptive priority public
uses for national wildlife refuges: hunting and fishing. In addition, hunting and fishing are integral
parts of west Tennessee culture. Due to this fact, and the limited amount of public lands, it is not
surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding refuge hunting and fishing opportunities.
Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are
compatible with refuge purposes. Refuge hunting opportunities could be expanded as the land base
is increased through the refuge’s continued land acquisition program from willing sellers. The refuge
will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance hunting and fishing opportunities, in keeping
with other resource needs and the refuge’s establishing purposes.
20 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stated four nonconsumptive priority
public uses for national wildlife refuges: wildlife photography, wildlife observation, and environmental
education and interpretation. In keeping with this legislation, opportunities for these priority public
uses would be provided and opportunities for increasing them would be examined. Currently, the
majority of public use consists of hunting and fishing. The refuge currently does not have staff or
facilities to provide significant on-refuge environmental education, interpretive, 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 Lauderdale and Tipton Counties (combined population
approximately 78,372, )(U.S. Census Bureau 2000), within 20 miles of Covington, Tennessee
(population approximately 8,162) and approximately 50 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population
approximately 873,000). Better-developed visitor facilities in association with a Lower Hatchie
Refuge visitor center annex would provide wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation,
and recreational opportunities currently not available in either Lauderdale or Tipton County. The
refuge will examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities
on the refuge, in keeping with other resource needs and the refuge’s establishing purposes.
Access
Lower Hatchie Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with an abundance of public interest in
opportunities to enjoy 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 wildlife-dependent forms of recreation. These activities are 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
Maintenance and Operations
The budget for national wildlife refuges is prioritized and divided among the 550 individual
refuges that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. Operating within a fixed budget
requires the prioritizing of programs and projects. 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. The Lower Hatchie Refuge’s management priorities
include managing aquatic and forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species;
cultural resources; public use; and law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance.
Consideration should be given to providing comprehensive maintenance of the refuge’s facilities,
within the constraints of available resources and management priorities. Management decisions
will continue to address the refuge’s priority operational needs, and budgetary requests will be
made in keeping with the goals and purposes for which the refuge was established.
Enforcement
Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use. Unfortunately, in
some cases there is misuse, 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
preclude intensive enforcement on refuge lands. As with other Lower Hatchie 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 goals and purposes for which the refuge was established.
Information
Good quality, available sources of 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 found on the refuge, as well as the
value of the resources. Refuge management would 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.
Water Level Management
Water level management has the potential to affect resources on the refuge and its immediate
vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and
natural flooding induced by the Hatchie and Mississippi River systems. Impacts from refuge water
management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. The CCP process
would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a case-by-case basis, while keeping
management decisions in line with management goals and refuge purposes, as well as potential
water level impacts on neighboring lands.
Protection of Unique Areas
In addition to the 9,451 acres of the refuge owned in fee title by the Service, the 1,873-acre Sunk Lake
Public Use Natural Area (Sunk Lake) is owned by the State of Tennessee but managed by the Service
under a 10-year lease agreement as a component of the refuge. Sunk Lake has been designated by the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) as a Class II Natural Area. This
classification exists for the “protection of natural-scientific areas, which are associated with and contain
floral assemblages, forest types, fossil assemblages, geological phenomena, hydrological phenomena,
swamplands, and other similar features or phenomena, which are unique in natural or scientific value and
are worthy of perpetual preservation” (TDEC and USFWS 2004). The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural
Area contains an outstanding example of the baldcypress swamp and mixed bottomland hardwood
complex that was once prevalent in west Tennessee, and is managed according to specific guidelines
provided by the State of Tennessee, which ensures the protection and preservation of this unique area.
The Sunk Lake Management Plan is included in Appendix VIII.
While only one archaeological survey has been conducted on the refuge, past history indicates
the likelihood of many more cultural sites to exist on refuge lands. Refuge management should
include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas, in keeping with refuge goals,
objectives, and establishing purposes.
Protection of Refuge Lands
The remote location of much of the refuge, as well as the numerous tracts that have recently
been acquired, presents ongoing challenges to maintain clear identification of refuge
boundaries. Activities which 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 land resources. Land protection and boundary line
22 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Sunk Lake Public
Use Natural Area
Fort Pillow State Park
J.M. Tulley WMA
Fort Pillow State Prison
87
51
371
59
Mississippi River
Legend
State Lands
Water Bodies
Landowner Tracts w/in Acquisition Boundary
Lower Hatchie NWR
maintenance would be performed with consideration for budgetary constraints, and in keeping
with refuge goals, objectives, and establishing purposes.
Each of these issues was also included in the “Summary of Management Alternatives” section of the
Draft Environmental Assessment, in which all relevant issues were addressed in the context of the
four different management alternatives considered during the planning process.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. Lower Hatchie Refuge has an
approved acquisition boundary of 23,229 acres. As of June 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total
of 9,451 acres from within this boundary (Figure 6).
Public perception of Federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which
eminent domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. However,
it is the Service’s policy to acquire land from willing sellers and every effort should be made to provide
effective information to the public in order to promote understanding of the refuge acquisition process.
Management decisions must include acquisition priorities, as well as future management of acquired
tracts in light of refuge goals and objectives and refuge establishing purposes.
Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary of the Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
III. Refuge Description
ACQUISITION
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge is located in rural western Tennessee approximately 18
miles west of Henning, in Lauderdale and Tipton Counties (Figure 7). On June 19, 1980, the
refuge was approved for the acquisition of 6,400 acres of bottomland hardwood forests and
adjacent habitats for the management of wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds. In
1985, a 2,224-acre acquisition boundary was also approved.
Another approved acquisition boundary was established in 1999, in some places coinciding with the
previous 1985 boundary, but encompassing approximately 15,329 additional acres in Lauderdale and
Tipton Counties adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (USFWS Land Protection Plan 2000). The
Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements,
or fee title purchases from willing sellers, involving the acquisition of about 96 ownerships that vary in
size from less than 1 acre to 2,100 acres in size. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would
increase the total Lower Hatchie Refuge acreage to 23,229 acres. Since the acquisition boundary
was approved in 1999, six tracts have been acquired, totaling 1,389 acres, bringing the refuge to a
current total of 9,451 acres (July 1, 2004).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation,
other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and, where
appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for
compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands
include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other
areas. The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title,
easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.
Funding for acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees to
certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (USFWS 2001).
It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions would be provided through the Migratory Bird
Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these
funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the
Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1).
In addition to the actual refuge acreage, the 1,873-acre Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area is also
managed as a component of the refuge. Sunk Lake and surrounding bottomland hardwood forests
were purchased by the State of Tennessee through the Natural and Cultural Areas Acquisition Fund
in 1986. This unique area was designated as a Class II Natural Area by the State and management
was transferred to the Service by a renewable 10-year lease agreement in 1988. Sunk Lake is
managed according to a management plan developed by TDEC, which focuses on protection and
preservation of the area’s unique natural properties, with limited recreational opportunities.
24 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Vicinity Map
REFUGE PURPOSE
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of
1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d) for “... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose,
for migratory birds.” The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 established additional refuge purposes to be
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources (16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any
restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition or servitude ...” (16 U.S.C. 742 (b)(1)). Later, the
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) declared the refuge to be “ suitable for (1)
incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources,
and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....”
The Land Acquisition Planning Report (USFWS 1985), which proposed the initial land acquisitions for
Lower Hatchie Refuge, stated the purpose of the acquisition proposal: “(1) to preserve and protect
approximately 8,624 acres of important habitat needed for migrating and wintering waterfowl; (2) to
serve as an important stepping stone for Canada geese, and thereby enhance the continued success
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
of reestablishing wintering flocks of geese in the lower reaches of the flyway; and (3) to provide
important sanctuary for wintering mallard ducks in extreme western Tennessee. Coincidental
benefits of the refuge are the public recreational and educational uses that it provides.”
Expanding on these purposes, the Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan
(USFWS 2000) prepared by the Service defined refuge objectives.
The management objectives identified for the proposed expansion at Lower Hatchie Refuge included:
• Preserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated fish and
wildlife values;
• Preserve, protect, reestablish, and manage habitat for threatened and endangered species;
• Manage the refuge for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for
wintering waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks;
• Manage the refuge for native wildlife species and their associated habitats;
• Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent recreation.
The proposed project would also help support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower
Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Team. As listed previously in this CCP, (Chapter I, Background,
Ecosystem Context), these priorities involve: migratory bird populations and habitats, wetlands,
threatened and endangered species and their habitats, fisheries and aquatic resources, and national
wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (USFWS, Ecosystem Plan 2000).
Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area, managed as a component of the refuge, was acquired by the
State of Tennessee and designated as a public use natural area prior to the lease agreement, which
transferred management responsibilities to the Service. The purpose for Class II Natural Area lands
is for the “protection of natural-scientific areas, which are associated with and contain floral
assemblages, forest types, fossil assemblages, geological phenomena, hydrological phenomena,
swamplands, and other similar features or phenomena, which are unique in natural or scientific value
and are worthy of perpetual preservation” (TDEC and USFWS 2004).
REFUGE ENVIRONMENT
TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE
Lower Hatchie Refuge is located at the confluence of the Hatchie and Mississippi Rivers in
Lauderdale and Tipton Counties in west Tennessee. The refuge encompasses the lower 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. 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 land forms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) are the alluvial
plain of the Mississippi River, downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic
plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River
and its tributaries. While the ecological character of the LMRE is dominated by these land
forms, valuable upland habitats from the East Gulf Coastal Plain are contained in the drainage
basin of the Hatchie and Mississippi Rivers.
26 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
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; the river flows 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; it 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, with higher elevations
adjacent to the Mississippi River, including elevations up to 378 feet adjacent to the Mississippi River
bluff on the extreme western edge of the refuge. One unusually high feature on refuge lands south of
the Hatchie River is called “Millstone Mountain,” where elevations reach 400 feet msl. The Sunk Lake
Public Use Natural Area ranges in elevation from 239 to 250 feet above msl.
The soils of the refuge are of the Falaya-Waverly-Collins Association. These are soils of the alluvial
plain. They are susceptible to flooding, which continually occurs primarily in winter and spring. The
soils are silty and fertile. Generally, these soils have poor drainage but are not too wet for corn and
soybeans if artificial drainage is provided. 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. Eighteen soil series are found on Lower Hatchie Refuge.
Four major types, Amagon, Commerce, Memphis, and Sharkey, represent approximately 80 percent
of the refuge. The other types occur on a more localized basis. The Soil Survey of Lauderdale
County, Tennessee (Monteith 1990), and the Soil Survey of Tipton County, Tennessee (McCowan et
al., 1993), contain additional maps and descriptions of these soil types.
Lauderdale and Tipton Counties are non-leveed areas along the Mississippi River. Headwater
flooding from the Mississippi River upstream of Lower Hatchie Refuge has been virtually eliminated
by levees adjacent to the river. As a result, the frequency and duration of backwater flooding have
increased in all non-leveed areas, including Lower Hatchie Refuge and adjacent lands. Natural
patterns of erosion and sedimentation have been altered due to channelization 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.
Altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and lake
formation associated with Mississippi River’s meandering is no longer occurring or is occurring on a
very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs.
The refuge climate is characterized by mild winters, hot, humid summers, and abundant rainfall.
Total annual precipitation averages approximately 51 inches, with the highest average rainfall
occurring during the months of March through May. 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. For the
period from 1962 to 1980 in Lauderdale County, the average annual temperature was 59 degrees
Fahrenheit, with average daily temperatures ranging from 35.2 degrees in January to 79.9 degrees in
July. Average annual snowfall is 9 inches. The freeze-free period, or growing season, ranges from
203 to 233 days, from late March to early November (Monteith 1990; McCowan et al., 1993).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
DEMOGRAPHY
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 and Mississippi Rivers and their floodplains. Data from the 2000
census indicated that Lauderdale County had a population of 27,021 people, which is an increase of
15.4 percent since the 1990 census. The population of Tipton County, according to the 2000 census,
was 52,956, an increase of 36.5 percent since 1990. See http://cls.coe.utk.edu/counties/tipton.html .
Per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2001 was $19,393. In Tipton County, per capita
income was $17,952; in Lauderdale County it was $13,682. Agriculture and related service
companies are the main economic bases in the two counties. Several small-to-medium
manufacturing companies are located in the counties, along with some of the major private
employers, including Wal-Mart, Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Tennessee Electroplating, S & R of
Tennessee, and Slim-Fast. Other major employers include the Lauderdale and Tipton County
Schools and Baptist Memorial Hospital.
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 Lower 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.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for threatened and endangered
species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Three federally listed species,
including the endangered interior least tern, the endangered pallid sturgeon, and the threatened bald
eagle, are found on or near the refuge. The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River
sandbars within 1 mile of the refuge and is known to feed on refuge lands. The pallid sturgeon is known
to occur within the Mississippi River. It is possible that pallid sturgeon could enter refuge lakes during
high river stages; however, this has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers.
As many as 10 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 those species is found in Appendix V.
28 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
AVIAN SPECIES
Avian species are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on nearby
Reelfoot Refuge (USFWS 1989) and along the Hatchie River, which bisects the refuge (TNC 2000).
Appendix 4 contains a list of the avian species known to occur on the refuge and their residence
status. 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, with the refuge 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 populations
(Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most neotropical
migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the
cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring at nearby Chickasaw Refuge during 1985 through
1987 and in 1991. 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, which regularly occur on Lower Hatchie NWR, include the cerulean warbler, the
prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler.
Approximately 32 species (TWRA and USFWS 2002) of shorebirds are commonly found in west
Tennessee, with peak populations occurring during migrations, which 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, which provide shorebird habitat, include riverine
mud bars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, margins of reservoirs, and managed impoundments.
Presently, approximately 100 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. Lower Hatchie
Refuge and adjacent lands are known to be important wintering and stop-over areas for mallards
using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population numbers may exceed
150,000. The value of Lower Hatchie Refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its
proximity to other refuges. It is within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife refuges, including Big
Lake and Wapanocca to the west, White River to the south, Hatchie and Tennessee to the east, and
Chickasaw, Reelfoot, Crab Orchard, and Mingo to the north. Other species known to use the areas
include black ducks, gadwall, pintail, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, widgeon, wood ducks, ring-necked
ducks, and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and dependent on the
refuge for nesting and brood-rearing habitat.
Approximately 2,629 total acres are currently managed as a waterfowl sanctuary, of which
approximately 865 acres are open lands and 1,764 are forested. The open lands are managed
for moist-soil or agricultural production, at an average ratio of 50:50, which varies year-to-year
due to river stages and other environmental factors. Approximately 100 acres of the sanctuary
are managed for shorebird habitat. Agricultural crops are raised by cooperative farming and
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 5.1 million duck-use
days. These objectives are supported by the moist-soil units, impoundments, and flooded
sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation
during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of refuge
expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Wild turkeys are present on the refuge, although spring flooding has an impact on 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 and bobwhite quail are
common on open lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include red-tailed and
red-shouldered hawks, northern harriers, barred owls, and turkey and black vultures. 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).
The diverse habitat types on the refuge are very productive for a wide variety of game and nongame
mammals. Appendix IV contains a list of mammalian species known to occur on the refuge. Mammalian
game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, coyote, and
swamp and cottontail rabbit. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria,
striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink. Nongame species include shrews, moles,
bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels.
Providing a diversity of habitats on the 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 would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and
regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a
greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diverse forest habitat would
better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats.
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES
A diverse group of amphibians is found on the refuge, including salamanders, toads, and frogs, and most
are well adapted to the aquatic and terrestrial environments found on the refuge, with moisture being
typically important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and
skinks, are common as well. Appendix IV provides a list of reptiles and amphibians and their status.
Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most refuge freshwater and
terrestrial habitats and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many
species of herpetofauna are wide ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the
environmental health of an ecosystem. Reptiles and amphibians known to exist on the refuge and
their status in west Tennessee are listed in Appendix IV. Comprehensive inventories will be
performed to establish baseline information on amphibian and reptilian species’ occurrence and
habitat utilization on the refuge as resources are available. Knowledge of which species occur on
Lower Hatchie Refuge is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area.
A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are
declining. Loss and degradation of habitats 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 restoring degraded habitats.
30 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
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. Appendix IV provides a
comprehensive listing of fishes likely to occur in the Hatchie River adjacent to the refuge. 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 provide 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 Program, the 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 (TNC 2000).
Appendix IV provides a list of the mussel species found in the Hatchie River adjacent to the refuge.
A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuge, and few published
surveys exist of the mussels of the Mississippi River and its other major tributaries in West
Tennessee. A survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported 7 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake
and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in Ortmann 1926)
listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and 5 species from the Wolf River in Shelby
County. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels likely exist in the vicinity
of Lower Hatchie Refuge. Common mussel species expected to exist on the refuge would
include: washboard, three-ridge, pondhorn, giant floater, and cylindrical floater (pers. comm. with
Don Hubbs, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency).
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.
NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE SPECIES
Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuge include a hybrid cocklebur,
hemp sesbania, and kudzu. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is
resistant to flooding and moist-soil conditions. The species is prolific and will out-compete native
moist-soil vegetation in moist-soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist-soil units and will also
out-compete the preferred moist- soil vegetation.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Kudzu occurs along field and forest edges and in 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 distributed approximately 85
million seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture removed kudzu as a cover plant and listed it as a common weed in 1970 (Shurtleff and
Aoyagi 1977, Miller and Boyd 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,
and drastically decreases biodiversity. Today, an estimated 7 million acres in the Southeast is
covered in kudzu. The refuge currently has approximately 15 acres of kudzu, which are being treated
for eradication.
The Habitat Management Plan for the refuge includes plans and preferred methods for control and
eradication of these nuisance and invasive species.
HABITATS
Refuge lands provide a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife species. Habitats found on
the refuge consist of approximately 39 acres of open administrative land, 1,256 acres of agriculture
and moist-soil open land (the agriculture/moist-soil breakdown varies from year to year), 777 acres of
baldcypress/tupelo forest, 5,719 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forest, 89 acres of grassland,
119 acres of open water, 373 acres of sandbar, 32 acres of scrub/shrub, and 1,047 acres of upland
forest. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes 3 acres of administrative lands, 274 acres of
baldcypress/tupelo forest, 1,466 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forests, and 130 acres of open
water. The total current deeded acreage being managed as Lower Hatchie Refuge is 9,451 acres
(February 2004). The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes a total of 1,873 acres. Figure 8
shows the existing habitat types on the refuge.
The 5,719 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods on the Refuge consist of black willow, eastern
cottonwood, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry,
baldcypress, sweet pecan, bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. 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. During winter
and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods,
providing valuable waterfowl habitat. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area contains 1,466 acres
of bottomland hardwood forest with similar species composition. No forest management practices
are performed on the Sunk Lake forest.
There are approximately 1,256 acres of agriculture/moist-soil open lands at Lower Hatchie Refuge.
In any given year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for agricultural production
and 50 percent are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year-to-year due to river
flooding and other factors. Croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local
farmers, who grow corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is
usually planted in corn, which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption.
The refuge currently contains approximately 777 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is
dominated by baldcypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory, and with buttonbush found most
abundantly in the understory, as well as in the 32 acres of scrub/shrub habitat. In the 119
32 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Existing Habitat Types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge
Bennett Road
Sunk Lake Road
State Highway 87
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r
Detroit Road
US 51
Detroit Road
Elm Grove Road
State Highway 87
State Highway 59
State Highway 371
Sam Burlison
Cooper Creek Road
Western Valley Rd.
Bride Road
Sunk Lake Road
Jack Rabbit Road
Sunk Lake PUNA Acres
Administrative
Baldcypress
Bottomland Forest
Open Water
Lower Hatchie NWR
Habitat Types
Administrative
Agriculture/Moist Soils
Baldcypress-Tupelo
Bottomland Forest
Grassland
Open Water
Sand Bar
Scrub Shrub
Upland Forest
3
274
1,466
130
39
1,256
777
5,719
89
119
373
32
1,047
Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles
Sunk Lake
Public Use Natural Area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
acres of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged
aquatics such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail; and emergents such
as American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily.
The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area contains 274 acres of wooded swamp (baldcypress
and water tupelo) habitat and 130 acres of open water habitat, similar in vegetative
composition to that found on the refuge.
Approximately 373 acres of sandbar habitat is found on the refuge, primarily adjacent to the
Mississippi River, along the western boundary. Vegetation is essentially lacking on the sandbars as
these areas are intermittently submerged. Upland hardwood forest habitat (approximately 1,047
acres) is found primarily along the Chickasaw bluff on the eastern edge of the refuge and in a large
tract in the western portion. The upland forest consists primarily of southern red oak, sweet gum,
yellow poplar, post oak, white oak, various hickories, and American beech.
Approximately 89 acres of grassland on high ground adjacent to the Mississippi River bluff is
managed as grassland. Dominant species include switchgrass, little bluestem, big bluestem,
broomsedge, partridge pea, Indian grass, goldenrod, common ragweed, and giant ragweed.
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 priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are
management’s primary focuses and over time programs would be developed to increase visitor
awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources.
Wildlife-dependent recreation currently available on the refuge includes wildlife observation (by
hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), hunting, fishing, and photography. Hunting and
fishing have been the primary uses on the refuge since its inception and encompass the majority of
public use. The staff provides environmental education and interpretive programs when requested by
local civic and school groups. Currently, there are two informational kiosks on the refuge.
In Fiscal Year 2003, the refuge received approximately 80,000 visitors, although visitor use data are
limited. The refuge is open during most of the State hunting seasons, with some exceptions and
certain restrictions, which apply to certain hunts. Fishing is permitted all year according to State
regulations, with certain restrictions. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use
activities unless expressly permitted. At Lower Hatchie Refuge, hunting, fishing, and wildlife
observation and wildlife photography are permitted on most areas. All public access is prohibited to
the 2,629-acre sanctuary from November 15 through March 15. About 6 miles of trails are
maintained for foot hunting access, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and hiking. The Sunk
Lake Public Use Natural Area is open to nonconsumptive forms of wildlife-dependent recreation,
including wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Sunk Lake is also open to fishing, and a
portion of the area is open to small game and archery deer hunting, in season. Figure 9 shows the
existing public use facilities found at Lower Hatchie Refuge and Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area.
There are numerous other public lands within commuting distance that offer wildlife-dependent
recreation experiences. Five other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 acres), Lake
Isom (1,850 acres), Chickasaw (25,006 acres), and Hatchie (11,556 acres), are located within a 2-
hour drive of Lower Hatchie Refuge. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge offers a diverse interpretive
and environmental education program, including tours to observe concentrations of up to 200 bald
34 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Public Use Facilities at Lower hatchie Nation Wildlife Refuge
Mississippi River
Fort Pillow State Park
Sam Taylor Rd
Park Rd
S Gay
Cooper Creek Rd
Bull Lane
Peyto n Rd
Waits Road
Leighs Chapel Rd
Gilt Edge Detroit
Garland−Detroit Road
Pilljerk Road
Bennett Road
Kenny Lane
Chapman Rd
Mount Lebanon Road
Downing Road
Western Valley Road
Club Road
Indian Creek Road
Pleasant Hill−Glimp Rd
Erwin Cir
87
51
371
59
J.M. Tulley WMA
Fort Pillow State Prison
Sunk Lake
PUNA
Legend
Boat Ramps
Trails
County & State Roads
Sunk Lake PUNA
State Lands
Water Bodies
Refuge Boundary
tower
office
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
eagles, as well as concentrations of ducks and geese, which winter in the Reelfoot Lake area.
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.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities,
including new construction. The staff currently consists of three permanent employees, whose efforts
are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially bottomland
hardwood forests, through land acquisition, and forest management. The Habitat Management Plan
provides an inventory of existing forest resources and long-term plans for management of these
resources to maximize their value as habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. Of particular concern,
under management activities, is providing quality habitats for migratory birds.
The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies,
and civic groups, and attends meetings and provides presentations as needed to local groups. The
staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on land acquisition efforts and keeping the public
informed regarding public use opportunities and refuge activities.
The staff maintains one administrative site, the main headquarters located on Fort Prudhomme Road.
The administrative site contains an office trailer, one general storage shed, one safety storage shed
for hazardous materials, two pole sheds, one maintenance shop, two camper pads, and facilities for
temporary personnel (volunteers, interns, researchers, etc.).
Lower Hatchie Refuge is surrounded by a network of roads that facilitate access to different areas of
the refuge. State Highway 87 West runs from U.S. Highway 51 to the refuge (approximately 17
miles). Much of the refuge is accessible through county-maintained road systems including Tipton
County roads, which provide access to the portions of the refuge south of the Hatchie River, and
Lauderdale County roads, which access the refuge north of the Hatchie River. County roads that
provide access to various parts of the refuge include the Jack Crutcher Road, the Champion Lake
Road, Club Road, and the Fort Prudhomme Road. Public use facilities include a fishing pier, boat
ramp, and parking area at Champion Lake, a public observation tower overlooking the waterfowl
sanctuary, a fishing pier at Teal Pond, a boat ramp on the Hatchie River (off of Club Road) in Tipton
County, and a gravel parking area at the Mississippi River. In addition, the Fort Prudhomme Wildlife
Drive leads from the headquarters area to the Mississippi River and covers approximately 1 ½ miles.
The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area is accessible from Sunk Lake Road, which intersects State
Highway 87. Sunk Lake facilities include a boat ramp, an access road, and a boardwalk.
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 program. The staff of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex is
coordinating with Federal Highway Administration officials to assess Lower Hatchie Refuge roads for
possible enhancements or improvements utilizing 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,
designing, and contracting under this program. Items proposed for immediate work (2005 to 2010)
under the TEA-21 grant funding process include rehabilitation of the Fort Prudhomme Road, the
Champion Lake Road and parking area, Shankle Lake Road, the Mississippi River Road and parking
area, and the Burlison Road and parking areas.
36 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES
Before the area was colonized by Europeans, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of
western Tennessee that includes the Lower 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 the 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 Indians east of the Mississippi were removed to the west.
Archaeological investigations on Lower Hatchie Refuge include one survey conducted in 1992, in
response to the uncovering of prehistoric artifacts by a road grader on refuge property. This
investigation discovered the remains of a single component of a prehistoric village, indicating
Mississippian period use between approximately A.D. 1400 and A.D. 1500. Subsequent
investigations found the remains of several prehistoric houses, human burial sites, and numerous
other cultural artifacts (Mainfort 1992). The sites and artifacts were identified, catalogued, and
assessed by the Division of Archaeology of the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation. The survey recommended that the site be tested and evaluated for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The locations of all discovered cultural resources were mapped,
and it was determined that these site areas should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment.
Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted within nearby portions of west
Tennessee. Significant surveys performed in west Tennessee include Mainfort (1994), in which
archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River drainage, and Dickson and
Campbell (1979), which surveyed cultural resources on Reelfoot and Lake Isom Refuges. These
reports document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as
12,000 B.C. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been conducted in west
Tennessee in conjunction with various Federal development projects.
Prior to refuge ownership, levee and road construction, as well as agricultural activities, may have
adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuge. Since it is
likely that numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuge, the survey recommended that the
Service conduct additional archaeological surveys throughout the refuge to assist in future project
management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth
of information regarding the refuge and the county.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Of the total approved refuge acquisition of 23,229 acres, the Service has acquired an additional 9,451
acres for the refuge to date (June 1, 2004), leaving a balance of 13,778 acres in private ownership
within the approved acquisition boundary. The staff is focusing on land acquisition within the
approved acquisition boundary. Land protection goals set for the refuge would support strategic
growth in areas where there is greatest concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and
songbirds. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes 1,873 additional acres, which are
protected under a renewable lease agreement with the State of Tennessee.
All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls, because Federal
Government agencies are not required to pay State or local taxes. However, the Service makes
annual payments to Tipton and Lauderdale Counties 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
whichever of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (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.
Of the 324,570 acres in Lauderdale County, 192,010 acres consist of cultivated crop lands, and
92,600 acres consist of forests. Tipton County encompasses 303,821 acres, of which 169,788 acres
consist of cultivated crop lands and 70,600 acres consist of forests. There are approximately 505
farms in Lauderdale County (average size of 380 acres) and approximately 592 farms in Tipton
County (average size 287 acres). Source: USDA website:
www.nass.usda.gov/tn/tnctyest/ctymap.html. 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-1980s 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.
Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. In
2000-2001, Lauderdale County claimed 11,593.4 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
(Source: pers. comm. with Donna Neal, Lauderdale County Farm Service Administration) and Tipton
County claimed 5,091.1 CRP acres (Source: pers. comm. with Glenn Zarecor, Tipton County Farm
Service Administration). As of 2003, Lauderdale County claimed 239.9 acres in the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP) (Source: pers. comm. with Dwayne Johnston, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Ripley, Tennessee), while Tipton county claimed 2,844.8 WRP acres for 2003
(Source: pers. comm. with Natural Resources Conservation Service office, Covington, Tennessee).
The Fish and Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to
enroll private lands in these programs; and private land enrollment in conservation programs would
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). Samples of
water, sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic
chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex, endrin,
dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge, 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 LMRE
refuges, and their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and
water were well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas
production facilities, which do not occur on or near Lower Hatchie Refuge. Mercury levels in sediment
and predator and benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for effects on fish-eating
mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (include the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous
others; and the insecticides diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but
at only one-half the frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On Lower Hatchie Refuge, water
samples indicated the presence of three current use pesticides, at levels below those that would
endanger aquatic life. Even on nearby lands outside the refuge, current use pesticides were not found at
levels that exceeded aquatic life criteria. However, according to the Shea study, hazards associated with
current use pesticides are uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are
probably necessary to perform a quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al., 2001). In summary, 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.
38 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge
REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS
Bottomland hardwood forests within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) provide habitat for a rich diversity
of wildlife species. Of 24 million acres of once-forested wetlands originally in the MAV, only about 5 million
acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al., 1979). Today, more than 80 percent of the MAV lands
are in agricultural production (Twedt et al., 1999). Remaining forested lands are typically isolated patches
surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the MAV, of these, the average size is
less than 100 acres, and less than 1 percent is greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the
vicinity of Lower Hatchie Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland
hardwood forests, which equate to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat.
Lower Hatchie Refuge was formerly owned by a variety of landowners, including Anderson-Tully Timber
Company, agriculture interests, and private landowners. The core area of the existing waterfowl
sanctuary was farmed, while the majority of the remainder was in timber or smaller farms. A forest habitat
inventory is being compiled in conjunction with the Habitat Management Plan for the refuge. The relative
newness of the refuge has played a significant role in the lack of inventory information thus far.
Comprehensive surveys of refuge fauna should be completed.
Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the two
major rivers adjacent to the refuge. The Mississippi River has been straightened and channelized for
decades, significantly reducing the meanders of the natural river channel and limiting the amount of
over-bank flooding to less than that which occurred historically. Even though the main stem of the
Hatchie River 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 affected significantly. Lauderdale and Tipton Counties are among
the few remaining areas along the Mississippi River where the main line levee is incomplete, which
allows high-river stages to inundate much of the refuge lands on a regular basis. While this seasonal
inundation is beneficial, the natural hydrology has been significantly altered by agricultural and flood
control interests, and so natural hydrology is severely impacted nonetheless.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
Priorities identified for Lower Hatchie Refuge include continued emphasis on habitat for migratory
waterfowl and for 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 the re
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
| Rating | |
| Title | Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan |
| Description | lowerhatchie_final.pdf |
| FWS Resource Links | http://library.fws.gov |
| Subject |
Document Wildlife refuges Planning |
| Location |
Region 4 Tennessee |
| FWS Site |
LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE |
| Publisher | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Date of Original | April 2006 |
| Type | Text |
| Format | |
| Source | NCTC Conservation Library |
| Rights | Public domain |
| File Size | 6337788 Bytes |
| Original Format | Document |
| Length | 188 |
| Full Resolution File Size | 6337788 Bytes |
| Transcript | Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Pintail USFWS Photo H N W R Comprehensive Conservation Plan 309 N. Church St. Room 201 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov Dyersburg, TN 38024 Photo provided by Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Refuge Manager: Randy Cook 309 N. Church St. Room 201 Dyersburg, TN 38024 E-mail: randy_cook@fws.gov Phone Number: 731-287-0650 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov April 2006 CCoompprreehheennssiivvee CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn PPllaann U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region April 2006 COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN LOWER HATCHIE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Lauderdale and Tipton Counties, 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 Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3 Description and Mission ......................................................................................................3 National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3 Description and Mission ......................................................................................................3 Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4 Relationship to State Wildlife Agency...........................................................................................5 Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................6 Overview .............................................................................................................................6 Threats and Problems.........................................................................................................9 Conservation Priorities and Initiatives ...............................................................................10 II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15 Overview....................................................................................................................................15 Issues ........................................................................................................................................16 Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................16 Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18 Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................19 Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20 III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................23 Acquisition .................................................................................................................................23 Refuge Purpose.........................................................................................................................24 Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................25 Topography and Climate...................................................................................................25 Demography.....................................................................................................................27 Wilderness Review............................................................................................................27 Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................27 Avian Species ...................................................................................................................28 Mammals..........................................................................................................................29 Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................29 Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................30 Mussels............................................................................................................................30 Noxious and Invasive Species ..........................................................................................30 Habitats .............................................................................................................................31 Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................33 Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................35 Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................36 Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................36 Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................38 Conservation Priorities ......................................................................................................38 IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .........................................................................................................41 ii Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Introduction ...............................................................................................................................41 Refuge Vision............................................................................................................................41 Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................41 Comprehensive Conservation Plan - Summary Statement........................................................42 Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..............................................................................................43 Goal 1, Waterfowl: ............................................................................................................43 Goal 2, Endangered and Threatened Species:.................................................................44 Goal 3, Migratory Land Birds: ...........................................................................................45 Goal 4, Shorebirds and Waterbirds:..................................................................................46 Goal 5, Aquatic Resources: ..............................................................................................46 Goal 6, Resident Wildlife: .................................................................................................47 Goal 7, Public Use: ...........................................................................................................47 Goal 8, Administration and Operation:..............................................................................48 Goal 9, Land Protection and Conservation:......................................................................49 V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.............................................................................................................51 Background ...............................................................................................................................51 Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................51 Project Descriptions..........................................................................................................52 Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................60 Step-Down Management Plans..................................................................................................63 Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................65 Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................65 Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................65 APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY..................................................................................................................67 APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................75 APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES...............................................................................79 APPENDIX IV. SPECIES LISTS.........................................................................................................83 APPENDIX V: DECISIONS AND APPROVALS...............................................................................111 Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form .................................................................111 Compatibility Determinations....................................................................................................115 APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................151 Partnerships .............................................................................................................................151 Avifaunal Analysis ....................................................................................................................152 Archaeological and Historic Resource Protection ....................................................................155 Ecosystem Management..........................................................................................................156 Land Protection and Conservation...........................................................................................157 APPENDIX VII: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .........................................................................................161 Public Scoping Comments .......................................................................................................161 Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................162 Table of Contents iii APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................169 APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................171 APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................175 List of Figures Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort......................................................................2 Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process.........................................................................................9 Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.....................................................................................11 Figure 4. Forest Cover Changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley..............................................11 Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV bird conservation areas...................................................................13 Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary of the Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge ..................22 Figure 7. Vicinity Map ..........................................................................................................................24 Figure 8. Existing Habitat Types on Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge.....................................33 Figure 9. Public Use Facilities at Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge .........................................36 Figure 10. Proposed Staffing Plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex..............61 List of Tables Table 1. Cost Summary of Proposed Projects.....................................................................................62 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN I. Background INTRODUCTION Contained in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge are the proposed management actions and direction for the refuge over the next 15 years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives for the refuge developed by a planning team of representatives of government and private groups, as well as private individuals. Overriding considerations reflected in the plan 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. In conjunction with CCP planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. 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 six million acres of private, State, and Federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1, Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of this document. During the planning process, a range of four management alternatives was developed for Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge that met the goals and objectives of the refuge for the next 15 years, as well as covered the broad spectrum of comments received by public and staff during the scoping process. After a review of the management needs of the refuge, regional and national resource management plans and priorities, and staff and public comments, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred action is described in Chapter V (Plan Implementation) of this CCP. The other alternatives considered during the planning process were addressed in the Draft Environmental Assessment. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge would play in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to provide guidance in refuge management activities. The plan is needed to: • Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge; • Ensure that management of the refuge is in keeping with the purposes for which the refuge was established; • Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service management actions on the refuge and in partnerships around the refuge; • Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; 2 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort Gilt Edge LOWER HATCHIE NWR FORT PILLOW STATE PARK JIM TULLEY WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA STATE OF TENNESSEE (TDOC) FORT PILLOW SUNK LAKE PUNA CHICKASAW NWR LAKE ISOM NWR I−155 I−40 51 64 45 45 70 79 Eva Lucy Eads Cuba Troy Guys Como Dyer Yuma Atoka Mason Locke Rives Obion Medon Bemis Ramer Halls Gates Paris Henry Luray Huron Crump Toone Milan Eaton Macon Lenox Bells Alamo Leach Sharon Martin Tipton Kenton Mercer Pinson Selmer Michie Finger Ripley Sardis Reagan Darden Shiloh Counce Medina Gibson Moscow Braden Miston Finley Bogota Atwood Camden Gleason Dukedom Dresden Clifton Munford Memphis Cordova Samburg Jackson Denmark Henning Ridgely Puryear Stanton Hornsby Bolivar Trenton Oakland Laconia Trimble Tigrett Newbern Parsons Gadsden Enville Lavinia Randolph Burlison Brighton Rosemark Lakeland Bartlett Hornbeak Elbridge Oakfield Chewalla Wynnburg Savannah Saltillo Silerton Idlewild Humboldt Bradford Gallaway Westport Bruceton Holladay Drummonds Covington Woodstock Kerrville Ellendale Brunswick Arlington Mansfield Lexington Olivehill Saulsbury Middleton Yorkville Williston Rossville La Grange Dyersburg Fruitvale Henderson Trezevant Big Sandy Greenfield Millington Germantown Union City Adamsville Whiteville Pocahontas Rutherford Somerville Maury City Sugar Tree Friendship Huntingdon Clarksburg Fisherville Barretville Beech Bluff Tiptonville Springville Scotts Hill Brownsville Jacks Creek Hollow Rock Cedar Grove Buena Vista Palmersville Collierville South Fulton Spring Creek Stantonville Wildersville Decaturville Bath Springs Milledgeville Cottage Grove Morris Chapel Hickory Withe Woodland Mills Bethel Springs Hickory Valley Grand Junction Essary Springs Crockett Mills McLemoresville Parker Crossroads CHICKASAW STATE FOREST NATCHEZ TRACE STATE PARK & FOREST WMA HATCHIE NWR REELFOOT LAKE WMA TIGRETT WMA MOSS ISLAND MEEMAN SHELBY STATE PARK WMA BIG HILL POND STATE PARK ERNEST RICE WMA HARTS MILL REFUGE HORNS BLUFF REGUGE LAKE GRAHAM WHITE LAKE REFUGE BEAN SWITCH REFUGE MUSTARD BOTTOMS WILDLIFE REFUGE BLACK BAYOU REFUGE PINSON MOUNDS STATE PARK FORT RIDGE T.O. FULLER STATE PARK CHICKASAW STATE PARK GARRETT LAKE LAKE LAUDERDALE REFUGE TIGRETT REFUGE SPRING CREEK JARRELL SWITCH PHILLIPY UNIT−REELFOOT MANESS SWAMP REFUGE REELFOOT NWR CARROLL LAKE OAK DRAIN WETLAND WHITEVILLE LAKE OBION RIVER WMA WEST BANK−REELFOOT GOOCH WMA West Tennessee Focus Area 0 25 50 Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley T e n n e s s e e R i v e r M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 • Ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with Federal, State, and county plans; and • Provide a basis for operations, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 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, organizations, and businesses. In keeping with this partnering concept, this CCP 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; Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan (2004-2008); Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency’s SEG Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Plan. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DESCRIPTION AND MISSION 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, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding migratory birds, see the Service website at http: //birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some conservation responsibilities with other Federal, State, tribal, local, and private entities. As part of its mission, the Service manages 550 national wildlife refuges covering over 96 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of lands dedicated to wildlife conservation, 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 DESCRIPTION AND MISSION The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were initiated in 1997 to fulfill the mission 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 individual purpose for which it was established; • Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; • Consider the needs of wildlife first; 4 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge • 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 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As visitation grows, there are important 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Volunteers also continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million. In more recent studies, economists published “Banking on Nature” (USFWS 2003), an updated version of the 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. The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy; that growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad participation from others. LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by directives from National Wildlife Refuge System policy, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of the refuge are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 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; • Refuge Recreation Act of 1962; • Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations; • Fish and Wildlife Service Manual; and • National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 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 fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation); and • Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other Federal agencies and State fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas, State wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges together provide the foundation for protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife species in Tennessee. The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) http://www.state.tn.us/twra/ is the State agency charged with game enforcement responsibilities and management of State natural resources in Tennessee. The TWRA manages approximately 1.35 million acres of State wildlife management areas and State wildlife refuges, coordinates the State’s wildlife conservation program, and provides public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program on State wildlife management areas. An important part of the comprehensive conservation planning process is integrating common mission objectives where appropriate. The State’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee. As previously mentioned, a joint, interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee, in collaboration with the Service’s CCP planning in west Tennessee. This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private, State, and Federal lands, including national wildlife refuges 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 cooperatively, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all “significant” management actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), State agencies are not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations which dictate Federal planning requirements do not apply to TWRA. So the various agencies sought to combine planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within the process for each agency to accomplish its desired objectives. 6 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2), which allowed both agencies to accomplish their planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. The process will produce joint objectives for west Tennessee lands and will 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. This Group consists of TWRA and Service project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership of the Core Group, nine Resource Working Groups were recruited and developed to study 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, critical habitats, and opportunities and developed management strategies for west Tennessee resource groups. These groups developed Focus Area-Wide Goals and Objectives, which were then translated into a series of map overlays, which rank areas of specific interest and provide a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In addition, each Working Group developed a text describing 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 (WTWR Conservation Plan) (TWRA, USFWS 2002). These goals, objectives, and strategies for Federal lands were then used by the Service as the biological foundation for the CCP planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west Tennessee lands, the CCP process resulted in the production of a Draft CCP for each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot, Lake Isom, Chickasaw, Lower Hatchie, and Hatchie. Once finalized, the CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the WTWR Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is expected to be compiled in 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. 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). Lower Hatchie National Wildlife 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. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process Focus Area-Wide Goals/Objectives CCP Process NEPA Process Comprehensive Conservation Plans Resource Working Groups State Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Private Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies Federal Lands Goals/Objectives/ Strategies West Tennessee Master Plan Core Group West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans Land Acquisition Proposals Habitat Enhancement 8 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Baton Rouge Vicksburg Monroe Little Rock Dyersburg Memphis Poplar Bluff TENNESSEE MISSISSIPPI LOUISIANA ARKANSAS MISSOURI KENTUCKY Reelfoot NWR Lake Isom NWR Chickasaw NWR Lower Hatchie NWR 0 30 60 120 180 240 Miles Legend National Wildlife Refuges State Wildlife Management Areas Mississippi Alluvial Valley Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 • Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (USFWS Ecosystem Plan 2000b). The Lower Mississippi Valley 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 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 trend of fish and wildlife populations and biological diversity, establish conservation priorities, clarify goals, and solve common threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. 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, i.e., 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 (MAV) 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 MAV (Loesch et al., 1994). 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 throughout the region (Figure 4). Flood waters once recharged wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower 10 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Mississippi Valley is fragmented 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 and laden with pesticides; they support a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. 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 are large enough to support source populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000). Modifications to the historic flood plains have caused major declines in fisheries 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. Working with others makes the Service more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. The Service and other agencies also consider bottomland hardwood forests a high priority 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. Habitat objectives in the MAV have been established by Partners-in-Flight in the Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation Plan (Twedt et al., 1998). In order to meet population objectives for migratory land birds, this Plan has identified 87 Bird Conservation Areas, broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases will serve as priority areas for forest restoration and will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 Figure 4. Forest Cover Changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley ! " ! ## " ! ## ! $ $ % 12 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and/or protection of one each of the following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres. Three Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas (BCAs) were identified by Ford (1998) and are delineated in Figure 5. The three Tennessee BCAs are further delineated as the Upper, Middle, and Lower Implementation Zones. Lower Hatchie Refuge is included within the Middle Implementation Zone, which totals approximately 165,472 acres (TWRA, USFWS 2002), and refuge land acquisitions would contribute toward achieving BCA goals. Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners-in- Flight Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species (Bonney 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 Ecosystem Plan 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 and 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. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV bird conservation areas Shelby Dyer Fayette Tipton Haywoo Lauderdale Lake BCA 3 − Lower Implementation Zone BCA 1− Upper Implementation Zone Legend Bird Conservation Areas USFWS Lands USFWS Expansion Boundaries State Lands Mississippi Alluvial Valley 0 2.5 5 10 15 20 Miles Lower Hatchie NWR Chickasaw NWR Lake Isom NWR Reelfoot NWR BCA 2− Middle Implementation Zone 14 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 II. The Planning Process OVERVIEW The west Tennessee planning effort includes the preparation of four CCPs, comprising five national wildlife refuges (Lower Hatchie, Chickasaw, Reelfoot/Lake Isom, and Hatchie), as well as the cooperative, interagency WTWR Conservation Plan, which identifies resources and management goals for approximately 10,000 square miles of Federal, State, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the State, the WTWR Conservation Plan provides the main biological foundation for the four west Tennessee CCPs. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in which four of the five refuges are located, migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the CCP planning process (Ford and Wathen 2001; TWRA and USFWS 2002; Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the CCP planning effort that ample habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be provided on national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective 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 TWRA produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs for west Tennessee and incorporated over 6 million acres of land. The final product of west Tennessee planning will be a West Tennessee Master Plan, which will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the four CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitat to meet the requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use Federal, State, and private land habitats in the western third of the State of Tennessee. The planning process began in January 2000, with initial Core Group meetings in which the Service and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The Core Group selected nine resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and strategies for specific resource categories on Federal, State, and private lands within the planning area (Figure 1). Preplanning for the Lower Hatchie CCP also began during early 2000. Issue identification is a major factor in determining management goals and objectives for CCPs. 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 Lower Hatchie CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Lower Hatchie Refuge and the West Tennessee Refuge Complex) began meeting to discuss issues and management opportunities, and on October 26, 2000, a public scoping meeting was held in Covington, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding perceived issues and opportunities for management of the refuge. The scoping meeting was advertised locally and by mailings, and additional comments were received by mail, phone, and email. The West Tennessee Refuge Complex planning staff then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the development of management alternatives in the Draft Environmental Assessment. 16 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge 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 Lower 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 Lower Hatchie Planning Review Group included representatives from TWRA, The Nature Conservancy, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Anderson-Tully Company, Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges, Ducks Unlimited, Tennessee State Parks, U.S. Geological Survey, as well as local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businessmen, and county officials. This group provided oversight during the planning process with input from local individuals and private interests. Draft versions of CCP documents were routed to Planning Review Group members periodically for review, and comments received were considered in plan revisions. The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000, and in January 2002, the Draft WTWR Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for much of the Lower Hatchie Refuge CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, other relevant documents, input received from the public, as well as the staff’s professional judgment, the Lower Hatchie Technical Team evaluated relevant issues and resource needs and developed various management alternatives, which were then considered in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The range of alternatives developed in the EA addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The EA constituted the documentation and the process by which the proposed action was selected. Once the proposed action was selected, the Lower Hatchie Technical Team developed goals, objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15 years. These management objectives and strategies were developed within the context of this CCP (Chapter IV). A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft CCP. The public will be notified when the Final CCP document is available. 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, the Planning Review Group, and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 62 issues was consolidated into the following list of 21 issue categories concerning Lower Hatchie Refuge. The list was grouped according to the following 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. FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES Waterfowl Populations Since the refuge’s establishing purpose was specifically for it to be an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” (see Chapter III), all operation and management activities 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 works to provide sufficient, high quality habitat to fulfill population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 established in Ford and Wathen (2001) and the WTWR 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 (see Habitat Issues). In order to meet its objectives for waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland/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). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley has been identified as a physiographic area experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel et al., 1994). 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 continues to work to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to address habitat issues, which affect resident and neotropical migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. Threatened and Endangered Species A key function of Lower Hatchie Refuge is to enhance the survival of threatened and endangered species. Three federally listed threatened or endangered animals are known to use or populate lands within or in close proximity to the refuge: the bald eagle, the pallid sturgeon, and the interior least tern. As many as 10 bald eagles are 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. Pallid sturgeon are not known to inhabit refuge waters but are known to inhabit the Mississippi River, which is immediately adjacent to the refuge. The refuge can support pallid sturgeon recovery efforts by providing technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management agencies and by supporting efforts to restore riverine habitat. Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars, which are in close proximity to the refuge, and are regularly observed feeding on refuge lands. The refuge’s protection of lands immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River includes sand bars where least tern nesting colonies exist during summer months. Resident Species Populations Resident species include game species, such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, rabbits, and furbearers, as well as nongame groups, including nongame mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. The refuge monitors some resident wildlife populations through surveys, such as the turkey survey and amphibian monitoring. 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 a consideration when opportunities for refuge land acquisitions exist. Shorebird Populations Due to the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, and the frequent inundation of these fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight 2000). Management activities for waterfowl also provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with management of impoundments and moist-soil units. 18 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge The staff monitors refuge shorebird use and looks for opportunities to support priorities outlined in the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. 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 is necessary for each group to complete its 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 to meet its objectives for waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland/moist-soils 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, which affect resident and neotropical migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. Forest Habitat Management The refuge protects over 7,000 acres (including Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area) of bottomland hardwood habitat and over 1,000 acres of upland forests. The forests found on the refuge provide invaluable habitat for the wide range of wildlife species that inhabit the refuge; they are critical to the preservation of this drastically diminished 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 mast, soft mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events that occur during the fall and early spring periods. There are an additional 1,300 acres that have been reforested and that will provide valuable forested habitat in the future. The refuge will complete the habitat (including forest habitat) management plans, and management decisions will be made for vegetation management and control based on resource goals and refuge purposes, with due consideration for all other environmental factors. Cooperative Farming Agricultural crops play an important role in the scheme of migratory bird management, as they provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the refuge supplies corn and soybean crops, which are rotated with moist-soil units or are produced on the higher elevations, to ensure that wildlife have a readily available food source and to meet refuge objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. Lower Hatchie Refuge’s cropland operation includes approximately 865 acres. The acreage, which varies from year-to-year based on management needs, is managed in a combination of agricultural crops and moist-soil foods. Under the cooperative farming agreement, acreage is divided by a 75 percent farmer Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 to 25 percent refuge ratio. The refuge portion of the crops, usually grown on the lower and wetter fields, is left standing in the fields during harvest and provides supplemental forage for resident and migratory wildlife, specifically migratory waterfowl. Another farming option being used on the refuge is force account farming, in which refuge personnel and equipment are used to plant agricultural crops. This practice is a key component in the overall management program, as it ensures that agricultural crops will exist on at least a portion of the refuge. Force account farming is more expensive than cooperative farming, in that the Service must bear all of the production costs, including personnel, equipment, seed, fertilizer, and chemicals. Alternatively, cooperative farming programs require the farmer to bear the cost of production and leave a designated share in the field as his payment for renting the property. Thus, force account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense, but the advantage of greater flexibility and retaining 100 percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of agricultural products left in the field for utilization by wildlife. Most crop fields, which are planted for the refuge, can be flooded for waterfowl utilization. This, coupled with subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuge to make substantial contributions to the Mississippi Flyway migratory bird objectives. The refuge’s farming program will continue to work to address habitat issues, which affect migratory bird populations, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. 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. Lower Hatchie Refuge 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 refuge provides 185 acres of these early successional habitats and plays a key role in the migration patterns of mid-continent waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge’s present and future will, in large part, be influenced by resource management, which actively benefits waterfowl, including moist soil-habitat. The management of the refuge’s moist-soil units will continue to address habitat issues, which 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 stated two consumptive priority public uses for national wildlife refuges: hunting and fishing. In addition, hunting and fishing are integral parts of west Tennessee culture. Due to this fact, and the limited amount of public lands, it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding refuge hunting and fishing opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. Refuge hunting opportunities could be expanded as the land base is increased through the refuge’s continued land acquisition program from willing sellers. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance hunting and fishing opportunities, in keeping with other resource needs and the refuge’s establishing purposes. 20 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stated four nonconsumptive priority public uses for national wildlife refuges: wildlife photography, wildlife observation, and environmental education and interpretation. In keeping with this legislation, opportunities for these priority public uses would be provided and opportunities for increasing them would be examined. Currently, the majority of public use consists of hunting and fishing. The refuge currently does not have staff or facilities to provide significant on-refuge environmental education, interpretive, 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 Lauderdale and Tipton Counties (combined population approximately 78,372, )(U.S. Census Bureau 2000), within 20 miles of Covington, Tennessee (population approximately 8,162) and approximately 50 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population approximately 873,000). Better-developed visitor facilities in association with a Lower Hatchie Refuge visitor center annex would provide wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreational opportunities currently not available in either Lauderdale or Tipton County. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuge, in keeping with other resource needs and the refuge’s establishing purposes. Access Lower Hatchie Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with an abundance of public interest in opportunities to enjoy 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 wildlife-dependent forms of recreation. These activities are 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 Maintenance and Operations The budget for national wildlife refuges is prioritized and divided among the 550 individual refuges that comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System. Operating within a fixed budget requires the prioritizing of programs and projects. 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. The Lower Hatchie Refuge’s management priorities include managing aquatic and forest habitats; fish and wildlife populations; endangered species; cultural resources; public use; and law enforcement, as well as facilities maintenance. Consideration should be given to providing comprehensive maintenance of the refuge’s facilities, within the constraints of available resources and management priorities. Management decisions will continue to address the refuge’s priority operational needs, and budgetary requests will be made in keeping with the goals and purposes for which the refuge was established. Enforcement Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use. Unfortunately, in some cases there is misuse, 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 preclude intensive enforcement on refuge lands. As with other Lower Hatchie 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 goals and purposes for which the refuge was established. Information Good quality, available sources of 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 found on the refuge, as well as the value of the resources. Refuge management would 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. Water Level Management Water level management has the potential to affect resources on the refuge and its immediate vicinity. Numerous hydrological issues exist in regard to agricultural drainage, beaver flooding, and natural flooding induced by the Hatchie and Mississippi River systems. Impacts from refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. The CCP process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a case-by-case basis, while keeping management decisions in line with management goals and refuge purposes, as well as potential water level impacts on neighboring lands. Protection of Unique Areas In addition to the 9,451 acres of the refuge owned in fee title by the Service, the 1,873-acre Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area (Sunk Lake) is owned by the State of Tennessee but managed by the Service under a 10-year lease agreement as a component of the refuge. Sunk Lake has been designated by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) as a Class II Natural Area. This classification exists for the “protection of natural-scientific areas, which are associated with and contain floral assemblages, forest types, fossil assemblages, geological phenomena, hydrological phenomena, swamplands, and other similar features or phenomena, which are unique in natural or scientific value and are worthy of perpetual preservation” (TDEC and USFWS 2004). The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area contains an outstanding example of the baldcypress swamp and mixed bottomland hardwood complex that was once prevalent in west Tennessee, and is managed according to specific guidelines provided by the State of Tennessee, which ensures the protection and preservation of this unique area. The Sunk Lake Management Plan is included in Appendix VIII. While only one archaeological survey has been conducted on the refuge, past history indicates the likelihood of many more cultural sites to exist on refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas, in keeping with refuge goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. Protection of Refuge Lands The remote location of much of the refuge, as well as the numerous tracts that have recently been acquired, presents ongoing challenges to maintain clear identification of refuge boundaries. Activities which 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 land resources. Land protection and boundary line 22 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area Fort Pillow State Park J.M. Tulley WMA Fort Pillow State Prison 87 51 371 59 Mississippi River Legend State Lands Water Bodies Landowner Tracts w/in Acquisition Boundary Lower Hatchie NWR maintenance would be performed with consideration for budgetary constraints, and in keeping with refuge goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. Each of these issues was also included in the “Summary of Management Alternatives” section of the Draft Environmental Assessment, in which all relevant issues were addressed in the context of the four different management alternatives considered during the planning process.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. Lower Hatchie Refuge has an approved acquisition boundary of 23,229 acres. As of June 1, 2004, the Service had acquired a total of 9,451 acres from within this boundary (Figure 6). Public perception of Federal land acquisitions is often clouded by historical instances in which eminent domain was exercised and private lands were “taken” from unwilling landowners. However, it is the Service’s policy to acquire land from willing sellers and every effort should be made to provide effective information to the public in order to promote understanding of the refuge acquisition process. Management decisions must include acquisition priorities, as well as future management of acquired tracts in light of refuge goals and objectives and refuge establishing purposes. Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary of the Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 III. Refuge Description ACQUISITION Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge is located in rural western Tennessee approximately 18 miles west of Henning, in Lauderdale and Tipton Counties (Figure 7). On June 19, 1980, the refuge was approved for the acquisition of 6,400 acres of bottomland hardwood forests and adjacent habitats for the management of wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds. In 1985, a 2,224-acre acquisition boundary was also approved. Another approved acquisition boundary was established in 1999, in some places coinciding with the previous 1985 boundary, but encompassing approximately 15,329 additional acres in Lauderdale and Tipton Counties adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (USFWS Land Protection Plan 2000). The Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers, involving the acquisition of about 96 ownerships that vary in size from less than 1 acre to 2,100 acres in size. The proposed acquisitions, when complete, would increase the total Lower Hatchie Refuge acreage to 23,229 acres. Since the acquisition boundary was approved in 1999, six tracts have been acquired, totaling 1,389 acres, bringing the refuge to a current total of 9,451 acres (July 1, 2004). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquires lands and waters in a manner consistent with legislation, other congressional guidelines, and executive orders for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of ecosystems, fish, wildlife, plants, and related habitat, and to provide for compatible, wildlife-oriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands include national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, waterfowl production areas, and other areas. The Service acquires land and water interests including, but not limited to, fee title, easements, leases, and other interests. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. Funding for acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (USFWS 2001). It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions would be provided through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1). In addition to the actual refuge acreage, the 1,873-acre Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area is also managed as a component of the refuge. Sunk Lake and surrounding bottomland hardwood forests were purchased by the State of Tennessee through the Natural and Cultural Areas Acquisition Fund in 1986. This unique area was designated as a Class II Natural Area by the State and management was transferred to the Service by a renewable 10-year lease agreement in 1988. Sunk Lake is managed according to a management plan developed by TDEC, which focuses on protection and preservation of the area’s unique natural properties, with limited recreational opportunities. 24 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Figure 7. Vicinity Map REFUGE PURPOSE Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715d) for “... use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 established additional refuge purposes to be “... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources (16 U.S.C. 742f (a)(4)) and “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition or servitude ...” (16 U.S.C. 742 (b)(1)). Later, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460(k)(1)) declared the refuge to be “ suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of natural resources, and (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ....” The Land Acquisition Planning Report (USFWS 1985), which proposed the initial land acquisitions for Lower Hatchie Refuge, stated the purpose of the acquisition proposal: “(1) to preserve and protect approximately 8,624 acres of important habitat needed for migrating and wintering waterfowl; (2) to serve as an important stepping stone for Canada geese, and thereby enhance the continued success Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 of reestablishing wintering flocks of geese in the lower reaches of the flyway; and (3) to provide important sanctuary for wintering mallard ducks in extreme western Tennessee. Coincidental benefits of the refuge are the public recreational and educational uses that it provides.” Expanding on these purposes, the Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan (USFWS 2000) prepared by the Service defined refuge objectives. The management objectives identified for the proposed expansion at Lower Hatchie Refuge included: • Preserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated fish and wildlife values; • Preserve, protect, reestablish, and manage habitat for threatened and endangered species; • Manage the refuge for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for wintering waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks; • Manage the refuge for native wildlife species and their associated habitats; • Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-dependent recreation. The proposed project would also help support the priorities established by the Service’s Lower Mississippi River Valley Ecosystem Team. As listed previously in this CCP, (Chapter I, Background, Ecosystem Context), these priorities involve: migratory bird populations and habitats, wetlands, threatened and endangered species and their habitats, fisheries and aquatic resources, and national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (USFWS, Ecosystem Plan 2000). Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area, managed as a component of the refuge, was acquired by the State of Tennessee and designated as a public use natural area prior to the lease agreement, which transferred management responsibilities to the Service. The purpose for Class II Natural Area lands is for the “protection of natural-scientific areas, which are associated with and contain floral assemblages, forest types, fossil assemblages, geological phenomena, hydrological phenomena, swamplands, and other similar features or phenomena, which are unique in natural or scientific value and are worthy of perpetual preservation” (TDEC and USFWS 2004). REFUGE ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE Lower Hatchie Refuge is located at the confluence of the Hatchie and Mississippi Rivers in Lauderdale and Tipton Counties in west Tennessee. The refuge encompasses the lower 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. 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 land forms of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (LMRE) are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River, downstream of its confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. While the ecological character of the LMRE is dominated by these land forms, valuable upland habitats from the East Gulf Coastal Plain are contained in the drainage basin of the Hatchie and Mississippi Rivers. 26 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge 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; the river flows 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; it 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, with higher elevations adjacent to the Mississippi River, including elevations up to 378 feet adjacent to the Mississippi River bluff on the extreme western edge of the refuge. One unusually high feature on refuge lands south of the Hatchie River is called “Millstone Mountain,” where elevations reach 400 feet msl. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area ranges in elevation from 239 to 250 feet above msl. The soils of the refuge are of the Falaya-Waverly-Collins Association. These are soils of the alluvial plain. They are susceptible to flooding, which continually occurs primarily in winter and spring. The soils are silty and fertile. Generally, these soils have poor drainage but are not too wet for corn and soybeans if artificial drainage is provided. 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. Eighteen soil series are found on Lower Hatchie Refuge. Four major types, Amagon, Commerce, Memphis, and Sharkey, represent approximately 80 percent of the refuge. The other types occur on a more localized basis. The Soil Survey of Lauderdale County, Tennessee (Monteith 1990), and the Soil Survey of Tipton County, Tennessee (McCowan et al., 1993), contain additional maps and descriptions of these soil types. Lauderdale and Tipton Counties are non-leveed areas along the Mississippi River. Headwater flooding from the Mississippi River upstream of Lower Hatchie Refuge has been virtually eliminated by levees adjacent to the river. As a result, the frequency and duration of backwater flooding have increased in all non-leveed areas, including Lower Hatchie Refuge and adjacent lands. Natural patterns of erosion and sedimentation have been altered due to channelization 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. Altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and lake formation associated with Mississippi River’s meandering is no longer occurring or is occurring on a very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs. The refuge climate is characterized by mild winters, hot, humid summers, and abundant rainfall. Total annual precipitation averages approximately 51 inches, with the highest average rainfall occurring during the months of March through May. 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. For the period from 1962 to 1980 in Lauderdale County, the average annual temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, with average daily temperatures ranging from 35.2 degrees in January to 79.9 degrees in July. Average annual snowfall is 9 inches. The freeze-free period, or growing season, ranges from 203 to 233 days, from late March to early November (Monteith 1990; McCowan et al., 1993). Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 DEMOGRAPHY 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 and Mississippi Rivers and their floodplains. Data from the 2000 census indicated that Lauderdale County had a population of 27,021 people, which is an increase of 15.4 percent since the 1990 census. The population of Tipton County, according to the 2000 census, was 52,956, an increase of 36.5 percent since 1990. See http://cls.coe.utk.edu/counties/tipton.html . Per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2001 was $19,393. In Tipton County, per capita income was $17,952; in Lauderdale County it was $13,682. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic bases in the two counties. Several small-to-medium manufacturing companies are located in the counties, along with some of the major private employers, including Wal-Mart, Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Tennessee Electroplating, S & R of Tennessee, and Slim-Fast. Other major employers include the Lauderdale and Tipton County Schools and Baptist Memorial Hospital. 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 Lower 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. THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for threatened and endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Three federally listed species, including the endangered interior least tern, the endangered pallid sturgeon, and the threatened bald eagle, are found on or near the refuge. The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars within 1 mile of the refuge and is known to feed on refuge lands. The pallid sturgeon is known to occur within the Mississippi River. It is possible that pallid sturgeon could enter refuge lakes during high river stages; however, this has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers. As many as 10 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 those species is found in Appendix V. 28 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge AVIAN SPECIES Avian species are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on nearby Reelfoot Refuge (USFWS 1989) and along the Hatchie River, which bisects the refuge (TNC 2000). Appendix 4 contains a list of the avian species known to occur on the refuge and their residence status. 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, with the refuge 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 populations (Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most neotropical migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring at nearby Chickasaw Refuge during 1985 through 1987 and in 1991. 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, which regularly occur on Lower Hatchie NWR, include the cerulean warbler, the prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. Approximately 32 species (TWRA and USFWS 2002) of shorebirds are commonly found in west Tennessee, with peak populations occurring during migrations, which 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, which provide shorebird habitat, include riverine mud bars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, margins of reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, approximately 100 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. Lower Hatchie Refuge and adjacent lands are known to be important wintering and stop-over areas for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population numbers may exceed 150,000. The value of Lower Hatchie Refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to other refuges. It is within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to the west, White River to the south, Hatchie and Tennessee to the east, and Chickasaw, Reelfoot, Crab Orchard, and Mingo to the north. Other species known to use the areas include black ducks, gadwall, pintail, green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, widgeon, wood ducks, ring-necked ducks, and hooded merganser. Wood ducks are year-round residents and dependent on the refuge for nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Approximately 2,629 total acres are currently managed as a waterfowl sanctuary, of which approximately 865 acres are open lands and 1,764 are forested. The open lands are managed for moist-soil or agricultural production, at an average ratio of 50:50, which varies year-to-year due to river stages and other environmental factors. Approximately 100 acres of the sanctuary are managed for shorebird habitat. Agricultural crops are raised by cooperative farming and 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 5.1 million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist-soil units, impoundments, and flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of refuge expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 Wild turkeys are present on the refuge, although spring flooding has an impact on 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 and bobwhite quail are common on open lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks, northern harriers, barred owls, and turkey and black vultures. 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). The diverse habitat types on the refuge are very productive for a wide variety of game and nongame mammals. Appendix IV contains a list of mammalian species known to occur on the refuge. Mammalian game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray and fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbit. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink. Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats, chipmunks, and flying squirrels. Providing a diversity of habitats on the 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 would also benefit many resident mammals. Forest thinning and regeneration cuts would provide browse for deer, and ultimately larger mast-bearing trees with a greater potential for cavities for squirrels and raccoons. Managing for a diverse forest habitat would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats. AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES A diverse group of amphibians is found on the refuge, including salamanders, toads, and frogs, and most are well adapted to the aquatic and terrestrial environments found on the refuge, with moisture being typically important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and skinks, are common as well. Appendix IV provides a list of reptiles and amphibians and their status. Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most refuge freshwater and terrestrial habitats and are major components of the Lower Mississippi River ecosystem. Many species of herpetofauna are wide ranging and may serve as key indicator species in evaluating the environmental health of an ecosystem. Reptiles and amphibians known to exist on the refuge and their status in west Tennessee are listed in Appendix IV. Comprehensive inventories will be performed to establish baseline information on amphibian and reptilian species’ occurrence and habitat utilization on the refuge as resources are available. Knowledge of which species occur on Lower Hatchie Refuge is fundamental to an understanding of the biological diversity of the area. A troubling indicator for the health of ecosystems worldwide is that many amphibian populations are declining. Loss and degradation of habitats 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 restoring degraded habitats. 30 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge 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. Appendix IV provides a comprehensive listing of fishes likely to occur in the Hatchie River adjacent to the refuge. 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 provide 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 Program, the 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 (TNC 2000). Appendix IV provides a list of the mussel species found in the Hatchie River adjacent to the refuge. A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuge, and few published surveys exist of the mussels of the Mississippi River and its other major tributaries in West Tennessee. A survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported 7 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in Ortmann 1926) listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and 5 species from the Wolf River in Shelby County. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels likely exist in the vicinity of Lower Hatchie Refuge. Common mussel species expected to exist on the refuge would include: washboard, three-ridge, pondhorn, giant floater, and cylindrical floater (pers. comm. with Don Hubbs, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency). 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. NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE SPECIES Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuge include a hybrid cocklebur, hemp sesbania, and kudzu. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is resistant to flooding and moist-soil conditions. The species is prolific and will out-compete native moist-soil vegetation in moist-soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist-soil units and will also out-compete the preferred moist- soil vegetation. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 Kudzu occurs along field and forest edges and in 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 distributed approximately 85 million seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of Agriculture removed kudzu as a cover plant and listed it as a common weed in 1970 (Shurtleff and Aoyagi 1977, Miller and Boyd 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, and drastically decreases biodiversity. Today, an estimated 7 million acres in the Southeast is covered in kudzu. The refuge currently has approximately 15 acres of kudzu, which are being treated for eradication. The Habitat Management Plan for the refuge includes plans and preferred methods for control and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species. HABITATS Refuge lands provide a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife species. Habitats found on the refuge consist of approximately 39 acres of open administrative land, 1,256 acres of agriculture and moist-soil open land (the agriculture/moist-soil breakdown varies from year to year), 777 acres of baldcypress/tupelo forest, 5,719 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forest, 89 acres of grassland, 119 acres of open water, 373 acres of sandbar, 32 acres of scrub/shrub, and 1,047 acres of upland forest. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes 3 acres of administrative lands, 274 acres of baldcypress/tupelo forest, 1,466 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood forests, and 130 acres of open water. The total current deeded acreage being managed as Lower Hatchie Refuge is 9,451 acres (February 2004). The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes a total of 1,873 acres. Figure 8 shows the existing habitat types on the refuge. The 5,719 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods on the Refuge consist of black willow, eastern cottonwood, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, baldcypress, sweet pecan, bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. 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. During winter and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area contains 1,466 acres of bottomland hardwood forest with similar species composition. No forest management practices are performed on the Sunk Lake forest. There are approximately 1,256 acres of agriculture/moist-soil open lands at Lower Hatchie Refuge. In any given year, approximately 50 percent of these lands are managed for agricultural production and 50 percent are managed for moist soil, although the ratio varies from year-to-year due to river flooding and other factors. Croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers, who grow corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is usually planted in corn, which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption. The refuge currently contains approximately 777 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is dominated by baldcypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory, and with buttonbush found most abundantly in the understory, as well as in the 32 acres of scrub/shrub habitat. In the 119 32 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Figure 8. Existing Habitat Types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Bennett Road Sunk Lake Road State Highway 87 M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Detroit Road US 51 Detroit Road Elm Grove Road State Highway 87 State Highway 59 State Highway 371 Sam Burlison Cooper Creek Road Western Valley Rd. Bride Road Sunk Lake Road Jack Rabbit Road Sunk Lake PUNA Acres Administrative Baldcypress Bottomland Forest Open Water Lower Hatchie NWR Habitat Types Administrative Agriculture/Moist Soils Baldcypress-Tupelo Bottomland Forest Grassland Open Water Sand Bar Scrub Shrub Upland Forest 3 274 1,466 130 39 1,256 777 5,719 89 119 373 32 1,047 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 acres of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged aquatics such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail; and emergents such as American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area contains 274 acres of wooded swamp (baldcypress and water tupelo) habitat and 130 acres of open water habitat, similar in vegetative composition to that found on the refuge. Approximately 373 acres of sandbar habitat is found on the refuge, primarily adjacent to the Mississippi River, along the western boundary. Vegetation is essentially lacking on the sandbars as these areas are intermittently submerged. Upland hardwood forest habitat (approximately 1,047 acres) is found primarily along the Chickasaw bluff on the eastern edge of the refuge and in a large tract in the western portion. The upland forest consists primarily of southern red oak, sweet gum, yellow poplar, post oak, white oak, various hickories, and American beech. Approximately 89 acres of grassland on high ground adjacent to the Mississippi River bluff is managed as grassland. Dominant species include switchgrass, little bluestem, big bluestem, broomsedge, partridge pea, Indian grass, goldenrod, common ragweed, and giant ragweed. 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 priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are management’s primary focuses and over time programs would be developed to increase visitor awareness and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources. Wildlife-dependent recreation currently available on the refuge includes wildlife observation (by hiking, boating, or driving on established roads), hunting, fishing, and photography. Hunting and fishing have been the primary uses on the refuge since its inception and encompass the majority of public use. The staff provides environmental education and interpretive programs when requested by local civic and school groups. Currently, there are two informational kiosks on the refuge. In Fiscal Year 2003, the refuge received approximately 80,000 visitors, although visitor use data are limited. The refuge is open during most of the State hunting seasons, with some exceptions and certain restrictions, which apply to certain hunts. Fishing is permitted all year according to State regulations, with certain restrictions. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities unless expressly permitted. At Lower Hatchie Refuge, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and wildlife photography are permitted on most areas. All public access is prohibited to the 2,629-acre sanctuary from November 15 through March 15. About 6 miles of trails are maintained for foot hunting access, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and hiking. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area is open to nonconsumptive forms of wildlife-dependent recreation, including wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Sunk Lake is also open to fishing, and a portion of the area is open to small game and archery deer hunting, in season. Figure 9 shows the existing public use facilities found at Lower Hatchie Refuge and Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area. There are numerous other public lands within commuting distance that offer wildlife-dependent recreation experiences. Five other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 acres), Lake Isom (1,850 acres), Chickasaw (25,006 acres), and Hatchie (11,556 acres), are located within a 2- hour drive of Lower Hatchie Refuge. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge offers a diverse interpretive and environmental education program, including tours to observe concentrations of up to 200 bald 34 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge Figure 9. Public Use Facilities at Lower hatchie Nation Wildlife Refuge Mississippi River Fort Pillow State Park Sam Taylor Rd Park Rd S Gay Cooper Creek Rd Bull Lane Peyto n Rd Waits Road Leighs Chapel Rd Gilt Edge Detroit Garland−Detroit Road Pilljerk Road Bennett Road Kenny Lane Chapman Rd Mount Lebanon Road Downing Road Western Valley Road Club Road Indian Creek Road Pleasant Hill−Glimp Rd Erwin Cir 87 51 371 59 J.M. Tulley WMA Fort Pillow State Prison Sunk Lake PUNA Legend Boat Ramps Trails County & State Roads Sunk Lake PUNA State Lands Water Bodies Refuge Boundary tower office Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 eagles, as well as concentrations of ducks and geese, which winter in the Reelfoot Lake area. 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. REFUGE ADMINISTRATION Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, including new construction. The staff currently consists of three permanent employees, whose efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially bottomland hardwood forests, through land acquisition, and forest management. The Habitat Management Plan provides an inventory of existing forest resources and long-term plans for management of these resources to maximize their value as habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. Of particular concern, under management activities, is providing quality habitats for migratory birds. The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies, and civic groups, and attends meetings and provides presentations as needed to local groups. The staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on land acquisition efforts and keeping the public informed regarding public use opportunities and refuge activities. The staff maintains one administrative site, the main headquarters located on Fort Prudhomme Road. The administrative site contains an office trailer, one general storage shed, one safety storage shed for hazardous materials, two pole sheds, one maintenance shop, two camper pads, and facilities for temporary personnel (volunteers, interns, researchers, etc.). Lower Hatchie Refuge is surrounded by a network of roads that facilitate access to different areas of the refuge. State Highway 87 West runs from U.S. Highway 51 to the refuge (approximately 17 miles). Much of the refuge is accessible through county-maintained road systems including Tipton County roads, which provide access to the portions of the refuge south of the Hatchie River, and Lauderdale County roads, which access the refuge north of the Hatchie River. County roads that provide access to various parts of the refuge include the Jack Crutcher Road, the Champion Lake Road, Club Road, and the Fort Prudhomme Road. Public use facilities include a fishing pier, boat ramp, and parking area at Champion Lake, a public observation tower overlooking the waterfowl sanctuary, a fishing pier at Teal Pond, a boat ramp on the Hatchie River (off of Club Road) in Tipton County, and a gravel parking area at the Mississippi River. In addition, the Fort Prudhomme Wildlife Drive leads from the headquarters area to the Mississippi River and covers approximately 1 ½ miles. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area is accessible from Sunk Lake Road, which intersects State Highway 87. Sunk Lake facilities include a boat ramp, an access road, and a boardwalk. 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 program. The staff of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex is coordinating with Federal Highway Administration officials to assess Lower Hatchie Refuge roads for possible enhancements or improvements utilizing 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, designing, and contracting under this program. Items proposed for immediate work (2005 to 2010) under the TEA-21 grant funding process include rehabilitation of the Fort Prudhomme Road, the Champion Lake Road and parking area, Shankle Lake Road, the Mississippi River Road and parking area, and the Burlison Road and parking areas. 36 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES Before the area was colonized by Europeans, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of western Tennessee that includes the Lower 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 the 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 Indians east of the Mississippi were removed to the west. Archaeological investigations on Lower Hatchie Refuge include one survey conducted in 1992, in response to the uncovering of prehistoric artifacts by a road grader on refuge property. This investigation discovered the remains of a single component of a prehistoric village, indicating Mississippian period use between approximately A.D. 1400 and A.D. 1500. Subsequent investigations found the remains of several prehistoric houses, human burial sites, and numerous other cultural artifacts (Mainfort 1992). The sites and artifacts were identified, catalogued, and assessed by the Division of Archaeology of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. The survey recommended that the site be tested and evaluated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The locations of all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it was determined that these site areas should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment. Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted within nearby portions of west Tennessee. Significant surveys performed in west Tennessee include Mainfort (1994), in which archaeological investigations were made within the nearby Obion River drainage, and Dickson and Campbell (1979), which surveyed cultural resources on Reelfoot and Lake Isom Refuges. These reports document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. Numerous other smaller archaeological resource studies have been conducted in west Tennessee in conjunction with various Federal development projects. Prior to refuge ownership, levee and road construction, as well as agricultural activities, may have adversely impacted archaeological deposits associated with many sites on the refuge. Since it is likely that numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuge, the survey recommended that the Service conduct additional archaeological surveys throughout the refuge to assist in future project management. In addition, oral history interviews and documentary research could provide a wealth of information regarding the refuge and the county. LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION Of the total approved refuge acquisition of 23,229 acres, the Service has acquired an additional 9,451 acres for the refuge to date (June 1, 2004), leaving a balance of 13,778 acres in private ownership within the approved acquisition boundary. The staff is focusing on land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary. Land protection goals set for the refuge would support strategic growth in areas where there is greatest concern, mainly lands identified for migratory waterfowl and songbirds. The Sunk Lake Public Use Natural Area includes 1,873 additional acres, which are protected under a renewable lease agreement with the State of Tennessee. All tracts acquired by the Service are removed from the local real estate rolls, because Federal Government agencies are not required to pay State or local taxes. However, the Service makes annual payments to Tipton and Lauderdale Counties 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 whichever of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (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. Of the 324,570 acres in Lauderdale County, 192,010 acres consist of cultivated crop lands, and 92,600 acres consist of forests. Tipton County encompasses 303,821 acres, of which 169,788 acres consist of cultivated crop lands and 70,600 acres consist of forests. There are approximately 505 farms in Lauderdale County (average size of 380 acres) and approximately 592 farms in Tipton County (average size 287 acres). Source: USDA website: http://www.nass.usda.gov/tn/tnctyest/ctymap.html. 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-1980s 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. Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. In 2000-2001, Lauderdale County claimed 11,593.4 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (Source: pers. comm. with Donna Neal, Lauderdale County Farm Service Administration) and Tipton County claimed 5,091.1 CRP acres (Source: pers. comm. with Glenn Zarecor, Tipton County Farm Service Administration). As of 2003, Lauderdale County claimed 239.9 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) (Source: pers. comm. with Dwayne Johnston, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ripley, Tennessee), while Tipton county claimed 2,844.8 WRP acres for 2003 (Source: pers. comm. with Natural Resources Conservation Service office, Covington, Tennessee). The Fish and Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private lands in these programs; and private land enrollment in conservation programs would 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). Samples of water, sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex, endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge, 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 LMRE refuges, and their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas production facilities, which do not occur on or near Lower Hatchie Refuge. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for effects on fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use pesticides (include the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On Lower Hatchie Refuge, water samples indicated the presence of three current use pesticides, at levels below those that would endanger aquatic life. Even on nearby lands outside the refuge, current use pesticides were not found at levels that exceeded aquatic life criteria. However, according to the Shea study, hazards associated with current use pesticides are uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al., 2001). In summary, 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. 38 Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS Bottomland hardwood forests within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) provide habitat for a rich diversity of wildlife species. Of 24 million acres of once-forested wetlands originally in the MAV, only about 5 million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al., 1979). Today, more than 80 percent of the MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al., 1999). Remaining forested lands are typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the MAV, of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than 1 percent is greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the vicinity of Lower Hatchie Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests, which equate to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat. Lower Hatchie Refuge was formerly owned by a variety of landowners, including Anderson-Tully Timber Company, agriculture interests, and private landowners. The core area of the existing waterfowl sanctuary was farmed, while the majority of the remainder was in timber or smaller farms. A forest habitat inventory is being compiled in conjunction with the Habitat Management Plan for the refuge. The relative newness of the refuge has played a significant role in the lack of inventory information thus far. Comprehensive surveys of refuge fauna should be completed. Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the two major rivers adjacent to the refuge. The Mississippi River has been straightened and channelized for decades, significantly reducing the meanders of the natural river channel and limiting the amount of over-bank flooding to less than that which occurred historically. Even though the main stem of the Hatchie River 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 affected significantly. Lauderdale and Tipton Counties are among the few remaining areas along the Mississippi River where the main line levee is incomplete, which allows high-river stages to inundate much of the refuge lands on a regular basis. While this seasonal inundation is beneficial, the natural hydrology has been significantly altered by agricultural and flood control interests, and so natural hydrology is severely impacted nonetheless. CONSERVATION PRIORITIES Priorities identified for Lower Hatchie Refuge include continued emphasis on habitat for migratory waterfowl and for 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 the re |
| Tag | Library-Source-CCPs |
| Date created | 2012-10-17 |
|
|