Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

April, 2006 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Lauderdale County, Tennessee 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Regional Office 

1875 Century Boulevard 

Atlanta, Georgia 30345 

April 2006 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................1

Introduction...................................................................................................................................1

Purpose and Need for the Plan ....................................................................................................1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................................3

National Wildlife Refuge System ..................................................................................................3

Legal Policy Context.....................................................................................................................4

Relationship with State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................4

Ecosystem Context.......................................................................................................................7

Overview .............................................................................................................................7

Threats and Problems.......................................................................................................10

Conservation Priorities and Initiatives...............................................................................11

II. THE PLANNING PROCESS............................................................................................................15

Overview.....................................................................................................................................15

Issues .........................................................................................................................................16

Fish and Wildlife Population Issues ..................................................................................17

Habitat Issues ...................................................................................................................18

Visitor Services and Environmental Education Issues ......................................................20

Refuge Administration and Operation Issues....................................................................20

Land Protection and Conservation Issues ........................................................................21

III. REFUGE DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................25

Land Acquisition .........................................................................................................................25

Refuge Purpose..........................................................................................................................27

Refuge Environment...................................................................................................................28

Topography and Climate...................................................................................................28

Demography......................................................................................................................29

Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................29

Avian Species ...................................................................................................................29

Mammals...........................................................................................................................31

Amphibians and Reptiles ..................................................................................................31

Aquatic Species ................................................................................................................32

Mussels.............................................................................................................................32

Noxious Invasive Species .................................................................................................32

Habitats.............................................................................................................................33

Education and Visitor Services .........................................................................................35

Refuge Administration.......................................................................................................37

Archaeological or Historic Resources ...............................................................................38

Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................38

Refuge-Related Problems.................................................................................................39

Conservation Priorities......................................................................................................40

Wilderness Review............................................................................................................41
ii Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION.........................................................................................................43

Introduction ................................................................................................................................43

Refuge Vision.............................................................................................................................43

Refuge Goals .............................................................................................................................43

Comprehensive Conservation Plan – Summary Statement.......................................................44

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies..............................................................................................45

Goal 1 – Waterfowl ...........................................................................................................45

Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species................................................................46

Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds ..........................................................................................47

Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds.................................................................................48

Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources .............................................................................................48

Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife.................................................................................................49

Goal 7 – Public Use ..........................................................................................................49

Goal 8 – Administration and Operation.............................................................................50

Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation.....................................................................51

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................................................53

Background ................................................................................................................................53

Proposed Projects......................................................................................................................53

Project Descriptions ...................................................................................................................54

Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management..................54

Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education ................................59

Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation..............................................61

Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation...................................................61

Staffing and Funding ..................................................................................................................63

Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................65

Partnership Opportunities...........................................................................................................67

Monitoring and Evaluation..........................................................................................................67

Plan Review and Revision..........................................................................................................68

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY...................................................................................................................69

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .................................................................75

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES................................................................................79

APPENDIX IV. REFUGE BIOTA .........................................................................................................83

APPENDIX V. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS................................................................................105

APPENDIX VI. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PROCEDURES .................................................141
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX VII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................151

Public Scoping of Issues ..........................................................................................................151

Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses .................................................152

APPENDIX VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS...........................................................................................159

APPENDIX IX. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................................161

APPENDIX X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.................................................................163

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort.....................................................................2

Figure 2. West Tennessee planning process........................................................................................6

Figure 3. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem.......................................................................................8

Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley .................................................9

Figure 5. West Tennessee MAV Bird Conservation Areas .................................................................12

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................22

Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map ................................................................26

Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge ............................................34

Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge.................................................36

Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex ...............66

 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. ....................................................................................63

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to 

guide the management actions and direction of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 

years. When fully implemented, this plan would strive to achieve the vision, goals, and objectives of 

the refuge. The plan’s overriding considerations are that fish and wildlife conservation is the first 

priority in refuge management, and that wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed and 

encouraged as long as they are compatible with, or do not detract from, the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

In conjunction with comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee, a collaborative 

planning process was performed simultaneously with the State of Tennessee. The area for this joint 

planning study includes all of west Tennessee from the Mississippi River to the Tennessee River, and 

from border to border between the states of Kentucky and Mississippi. This area encompasses 

approximately six million acres of private, state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge 

lands (Figure 1). This cooperative planning effort is described more fully in subsequent sections of 

this chapter, and in Chapter II, The Planning Process. 

During the planning process, four management alternatives were developed for Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge in an effort to determine how best to manage the refuge for the next 15 years. The 

alternatives covered a broad spectrum of comments from the refuge staff, the general public, and 

others during the public scoping process. After reviewing the refuge’s management needs, the 

priorities of regional and national resource management plans, and comments from the staff and 

public, the four alternatives were evaluated and a preferred action was then selected. The preferred 

action is described in Chapter V, Plan Implementation. 

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 the 

Service’s management actions on and in partnerships around the refuge; 

• ensure that the Service’s 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; 

• ensure that the management of the refuge is consistent with federal, state, and county plans; and 

• provide a basis for the refuge’s operational, maintenance, and capital improvement needs. 
2 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Focus area for west Tennessee planning effort 



 















































































































































































































































































































































Gilt Edge

LOWER HATCHIENWR

FORT PILLOW

STATE PARK

JIM TULLEY

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

AREA

STATE OF TENNESSEE(TDOC)FORT PILLOW

SUNK LAKE PUNA

CHICKASAWNWR

LAKE ISOMNWR

I−155



I−40

 51 

64  45

45

70 

79 

Eva

Lucy

Eads

Cuba

Troy

Guys

Como

Dyer

Yuma

Mason Atoka

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

Pinson Mercer

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

TrimbleTigrett

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

Sugar Tree Maury City

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 DRAINWETLAND

WHITEVILLE

LAKE

OBION RIVER WMA

WEST BANK−REELFOOT

GOOCH WMA

West Tennessee Focus Area

0 50 25

Miles Mississippi Alluvial Valley

e T n e n s e s e i R v e r

si s si M

s i p p i R i v e r
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

To better accomplish the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues to 

seek cooperative working relationships with numerous agencies, organizations, and businesses. In 

keeping with this partnering concept, this comprehensive conservation plan supports other significant 

regional, national, and international resource management plans. These include the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Project; the Lower 

Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird Wetlands Conservation Initiative; the National Wetlands Priority 

Conservation Plan; the Partners in Flight Initiative; the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network; the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan; the Southeast Region Fisheries Strategic Plan 

(2004-2008); the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency(TWRA)–Scientific Ecology Group Plan; and 

the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for conserving, 

protecting, and enhancing the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. The Service 

also has specific trustee responsibilities for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, 

anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals, as well as for lands and waters administered by the 

Service for the management and protection of these resources. For further information regarding 

migratory birds, see the Service website at http://birds.fws.gov/. The Service also shares some 

conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and private entities. 

As part of its mission, the Service manages 550 national wildlife refuges covering a total of more than 96 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of 

lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation. About 77 million acres are in Alaska; the 

remaining 19 million acres are spread across the other 49 states and several island territories. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, is “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their 

habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Activities were 

initiated in 1997 to complement the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete 

comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are prepared with extensive 

public involvement, help guide the future management of the refuges by establishing natural 

resources and recreation/education programs. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to 

• fulfill the individual purpose for which it was established; 

• fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• consider the needs of wildlife first; 

• fulfill the requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the Refuge System; 

• maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

• recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

• allow refuge managers the authority to determine compatible public uses. 
4 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Approximately 37.5 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 1998, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As this visitation grows, the economic benefits to local communities will 

continue to increase. Nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related 

pursuits in 1996, according to Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997a). An updated version of this 

1997 report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003) found that in 2002, more than 35.5 million visits to 

national wildlife refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging, 

transportation, and other expenditures. In addition, volunteers continue to be a major contributor to 

the success of the Refuge System. In 1998, volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on 

the refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $20.6 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy; that the growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a 

model for habitat management with broad participation from others. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

The administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by National Wildlife Refuge System policy, 

congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for refuge 

management are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the 

Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The 

refuge’s establishing authorities, Public Law 104 (Stat. 2957, Section 108, H.R. 3338) and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the legal and policy guidance for the 

operation of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix III. 

Guidance and direction can also be found in the following: 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

• Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 

• Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

• Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 

• National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public uses until specifically and 

legally opened. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are to 

• contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as to the refuge’s purposes and goals; 

• conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

• monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

• manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish and 

wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public (these uses include hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation); and 

• ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. State wildlife management areas, state wildlife refuges, and national wildlife refuges 

together provide the foundation for the protection of species and biological diversity, and contribute to 

the overall health and conservation of fish and wildlife in Tennessee. 

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (http://www.state.tn.us/twra) is charged with game 

enforcement responsibilities and management of the state’s natural resources. 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 the integration of common 

mission objectives where appropriate. The TWRA’s participation and contribution throughout this 

comprehensive planning process provide for ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the 

management of fish and wildlife resources in Tennessee. 

As previously mentioned, a joint interagency planning process was performed simultaneously with the 

TWRA, in collaboration with the Service’s comprehensive conservation planning in west Tennessee. 

This joint planning study area encompassed approximately ten thousand square miles of private, 

state, and federal lands, including national wildlife refuge lands (Figure 1). It was determined that this 

cooperative planning effort would develop comprehensive plans for state, private, and federal lands. 

 

In order to perform this joint planning effort, the cooperating agencies had to consider differences in 

their mandates and requirements. Whereas the Service is required in all significant management 

actions to satisfy the mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (including 

opportunities for public comment and participation, and required documentation), state agencies are 

not required to satisfy NEPA. In essence, certain regulations that dictate federal planning 

requirements do not apply to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. So the two agencies sought 

to combine their planning to the extent possible, while still providing the necessary autonomy within 

the process for each agency to accomplish its desired objectives. 

A planning process outline was developed (Figure 2) to allow both agencies to accomplish their 

planning objectives in a cooperative fashion. This process will produce joint objectives for west 

Tennessee lands, and will allow the Service to plan according to its NEPA requirements, while 

providing the TWRA the freedom to accomplish its planning objectives without NEPA provisions. 

A core group was formed to oversee the planning process. This group consists of TWRA and Service 

project leaders, planners, and biologists who serve to guide the overall effort. Under the leadership 

of the core group, nine resource working groups were recruited and developed to study specific 

resource categories, including waterfowl, shorebirds, songbirds, big game, farm game, mammals, 

reptiles, amphibians, aquatic resources, and public use. Each group was composed of experts from 

various agencies, organizations, and universities, as well as private sector individuals with expertise 

in particular resources. The groups gathered information on species, critical habitats, and 

opportunities, and developed management strategies for the west Tennessee resource groups. 

The nine resource working groups developed a set of focus area-wide goals and objectives, which 

were then translated into a series of map overlays that rank the areas of specific interest and provide 

a simple means for interrelating the various types of resource information included in each map. In 

addition, each working group developed a text describing the goals, objectives, and strategies for 

implementing the desired goals and objectives for each specific resource category. 
6 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

The map overlays and accompanying texts were interpreted into goals, objectives, and strategies 

for private, state, and federal lands, and then incorporated into the draft West Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The goals, objectives, and strategies 

developed for federal lands were used by the Service as the biological foundation for its refuge 

comprehensive conservation planning process. Based on these biological foundations for west 

Tennessee lands, the planning process will produce a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

for each national wildlife refuge in west Tennessee, including Reelfoot; Lake Isom; Chickasaw; 

Lower Hatchie; and Hatchie. 

Once finalized, the refuge CCPs will be combined with the map overlays and texts of the West 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan to form the master document for the entire west 

Tennessee planning effort, called the West Tennessee Master Plan. This final product is 

expected to be compiled in 2006. It will serve as a valuable resource for state and federal 

managers alike, especially from a standpoint of cooperative, interagency management, and 

administration of west Tennessee resources. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

OVERVIEW 

On a national level, the Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management and 

has identified 52 ecosystems in the United States. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located 

within the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (Figure 3). 

The Service’s resource priorities for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem are as follows: 

• Conserve, enhance, protect, and monitor migratory bird populations and their habitats in the 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

• Protect, restore, and manage the wetlands of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

• Protect and/or restore imperiled habitats and viable populations of all endangered, threatened, 

and candidate species and species of concern in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

• Protect, restore, and manage the fisheries and other aquatic resources historically associated 

with the wetlands and waters of the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. 

• Restore, manage, and protect national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service Ecosystem Plan 2000b). 

The Lower Mississippi Valley (which is a geographic subset of the Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem) once supported a vast complex of bottomland hardwood forests that extended along the 

Mississippi River from Illinois to Louisiana. Today, less than 20 percent of this bottomland hardwood 

forest remains. Most of it is fragmented or remains in scattered patches throughout the region 

(Figure 4). Flood waters once recharged the valley’s wildlife habitats and created rich, dynamic 

systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife species. Today, the Lower 

Mississippi Valley is fragmented by levees, and its water flows are restricted by flood control projects 

and agricultural diversions. Its water quality is heavily impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. 

The rivers and water bodies throughout are highly turbid and laden with pesticides, and they support 

a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. 
8 Chickasaw 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 60 120 180 240 30

Miles

Legend

National Wildlife Refuges

State Wildlife Management Areas

Mississippi Alluvial Valley

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Figure 4. Forest cover changes in the Lower Mississippi River Valley 

	

	
















	
	










	

 !		

"	!
 ## 













"	!
 ##

 !		

	










	
	

	

	


$  $ % 



 

	







	





10 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Recovery and protection of habitats and wildlife species require the joint efforts of private landowners, 

local communities, and state and federal agencies. The Service continues to focus its efforts on 

adopting collaborative resource partnerships in order to reduce the declining trend of fish and wildlife 

populations and biological diversity; establish conservation priorities; clarify goals; and solve common 

threats and problems associated with fish and wildlife resources. The biological objectives targeted 

in this plan reflect the common interests of numerous state and federal agencies, local governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, and private interests, and are supportive of numerous regionally, 

nationally, and internationally significant plans, as listed previously. 

THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

The Lower Mississippi Valley is among the most heavily modified areas in the southeastern United 

States, and has the dubious distinction of being one of the most deforested of all southeastern 

physiographic areas (Twedt et al., 1999). Clearing and fragmentation of forests have resulted in 

irreplaceable losses of wildlife habitats, species, and biological diversity. The national wildlife refuges 

in the Lower Mississippi Valley serve as a critical safety net for preservation and management of the 

remaining wildlife resources. 

Threats and problems affecting biological diversity in the Lower Mississippi Valley include: 

• The loss of sustainable communities, including the loss of 20 million acres of bottomland 

hardwood forests; 

• The loss of connectivity between bottomland hardwood forest sites, i.e., fragmentation; 

• The effects of constructing navigation and water diversion projects, and the effects of 

agricultural and timber harvesting practices; 

• The homogenization of remaining wildlife habitats and gene pools within the ecosystem; and 

the cumulative habitat effects of land and water resource development activities. 

As a result of these large-scale impacts, many species endemic to the Lower Mississippi Valley have 

become extinct, threatened, or endangered. The red wolf and Florida panther are no longer found in 

the Lower Mississippi Valley; the ivory-billed woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler, once known to 

occur in the area, are considered critically endangered, if not extinct. 

Habitat loss and fragmentation and hydrologic alterations in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) have 

resulted in population declines in both overwintering waterfowl and migratory forest birds (Bonney et al., 

2000). Populations of dabbling ducks have also decreased in the past several decades, and the 

availability of foraging habitat (or lack thereof) has had the greatest influence on the abundance, 

distribution, and body condition of waterfowl in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Loesch et al., 1994). 

The species most adversely affected by deforestation and fragmentation are those that are areasensitive or dependent on special habitat requirements, such as large, mature blocks of forest 

that offer secure nesting habitat and a particular food source. At least 107 species of birds nest 

regularly in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, excluding wading birds and colonial nesting waterbirds, 

with at least 70 species occurring in bottomland hardwoods as a primary habitat (Twedt et al., 

1999). Less than one percent of the remaining forest patches are large enough to support source 

populations of area-sensitive species, such as cerulean warblers, Swainson’s warblers, and 

swallow-tailed kites (Bonney et al., 2000). 

Modifications to the historic floodplains have caused major declines in fisheries and aquatic resource 

productivity. Despite efforts by the Service and others to conserve fish and other aquatic resources, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

a growing number are declining at alarming rates. On a national level, almost 400 aquatic species 

either have needed or presently need special protection in some part of their natural or historic range 

(Williams et al., 1989; Moyle and Leidy, 1992). The number of aquatic species listed in 2002 

as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act has increased to 19 amphibian 

species, 21 crustacean species, 70 mussel species, and 115 fish species. The reasons for these 

declines are linked largely to habitat loss or alteration, including flow changes, watershed 

modifications, sedimentation, pollution, and the impacts of harmful exotic or transplanted species 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES AND INITIATIVES 

Conservation priorities for national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley focus on 

threatened and endangered species, trust species, and species of area concern. By working with 

others, the Service is more effective in achieving its overall mission and management goals. 

Bottomland hardwood forests are ranked as a high priority of the Fish and Wildlife Service and other 

agencies on which to focus conservation and management efforts. A combination of land protection 

and habitat management methods is used by the Service and others to compensate for bottomland 

hardwood habitat loss and to meet shared or common long-term goals established for this area. 

The goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and its associated Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture Plan have also been considered in the development of this comprehensive 

conservation plan. The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering habitat for 

midcontinental waterfowl populations. The goal of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998) is to develop partnerships between 

private and governmental organizations to address the maintenance and management of continental 

waterfowl populations, and to reverse the persistent loss of wetland habitats in North America. In 

addition, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan encompasses a regional approach with the 

same objectives: to reduce or eliminate habitat losses for wetland-dependent migratory birds. The 

joint venture has initiated cooperative efforts among public and private conservation groups to restore 

lands that provide maximum benefits to migratory waterfowl and songbirds, and has identified 

conservation areas on which to focus future land protection and restoration efforts. 

One of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture’s long-term goals is to provide “forest islands” for 

migratory bird conservation in the Lower Mississippi Valley, ranging in size from 10,000 to more than 

100,000 acres. In addition, Partners in Flight has developed a Mississippi Valley Bird Conservation Plan 

that establishes habitat objectives for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Twedt et al., 1998). In order to meet 

population objectives for migratory land birds, this plan has identified 87 bird conservation areas (BCAs), 

broken down into blocks of 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 

acres of forested wetlands. These targeted land bases, which serve as priority areas for forest 

restoration, will someday serve as important “anchors” for biological diversity. 

In Tennessee, forested wetland objectives include the acquisition and protection of one each of the 

following blocks: 10,000 to 20,000 acres, 20,000 to 100,000 acres, and more than 100,000 acres. Three 

Tennessee bird conservation areas in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 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. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is included within the Middle 

Implementation Zone, which totals approximately 165,472 acres (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). The 

refuge’s current approved land acquisition program would contribute toward achieving these BCA goals. 

Restoration of migratory songbird breeding and migration habitat is a high priority of the Partners in Flight 

Plan (Twedt et al., 1999), a national and regional planning effort developed to emphasize land bird 
12 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 5 10 15 20 2.5

Miles

Lower Hatchie NWR

Chickasaw NWR

Lake Isom NWR

Reelfoot NWR

BCA 2− Middle

Implementation Zone
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

species as a priority for conservation. Habitat loss, land bird population trends, and vulnerability of 

species and habitats to threats are all factors used in the priority ranking of migratory songbird species 

(Bonney et al., 1999). Furthermore, biologists are identifying focal species for each habitat type from 

which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions can be determined. This list of focal 

species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the refuge. 

The Service’s Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b) has 

established five resource ecosystem goals, which have also been considered in the development of 

this comprehensive conservation plan. These goals involve the protection, enhancement, and 

management of migratory bird populations and habitats; wetlands; habitats and populations of 

endangered, threatened, and candidate species; fisheries and aquatic resources; and national wildlife 

refuges and national fish hatcheries. 

Conservation management on private lands is extremely important to the future conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources. To achieve conservation priorities on private lands in conjunction with public 

lands, the synergy of federal, state, tribal, and private organizations working together will ensure that 

the Service not only protects the more important areas, but also helps to reduce redundancy and 

overlap in the management efforts of various agencies and private organizations. 
14 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

II. The Planning Process 

OVERVIEW 

The west Tennessee planning effort includes the preparation of four comprehensive conservation 

plans (CCPs) for five national wildlife refuges: Reelfoot/Lake Isom; Lower Hatchie; Chickasaw; and 

Hatchie. It also includes the cooperative, interagency West Tennessee Wildlife Resources 

Conservation Plan, which identifies the resources and management goals for approximately 10,000 

square miles of federal, state, and private lands in west Tennessee, with an emphasis on migratory 

birds. In addition to serving as a guide for resource management efforts in the western third of the 

state, the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources (WTWR) Conservation Plan provides the main 

biological foundation for the four national wildlife refuge CCPs. 

In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, in which four of the five west Tennessee national wildlife refuges are 

located, migratory bird habitat requirements and desired acreages were developed prior to the 

comprehensive conservation planning process (Ford and Wathen, 2001; TWRA and USFWS, 2002; 

Twedt et al., 1999). Given these prior MAV recommendations, it was clear going into the 

comprehensive planning effort that sufficient habitat to meet these habitat objectives could not be 

provided on the national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, in order to achieve the habitat goals that 

had already been established, the west Tennessee planning effort looked beyond the respective 

national wildlife refuge boundaries and incorporated any public and private lands that might be 

available. This cooperative planning effort between the Service and the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency produced a broad overview of present and future resource management needs 

for west Tennessee, and incorporated over 6 million acres of land. 

The final product of this west Tennessee planning effort will be a West Tennessee Master Plan that 

will incorporate the basic recommendations of the WTWR Conservation Plan within the context of the 

four refuge CCPs. The primary objective of the Master Plan is to provide a means of cooperatively 

protecting, restoring, and managing a sufficient amount and diversity of habitats to meet the 

requirements of migratory birds and resident wildlife that use federal, state, and private land habitats 

in the western third of the State of Tennessee. 

The planning process began in January, 2000, with initial core group meetings in which the Service 

and TWRA began efforts to produce the WTWR Conservation Plan. The core group selected nine 

resource working groups, which then began the process of developing goals, objectives, and 

strategies for specific resource categories on federal, state, and private lands within the west 

Tennessee planning area (Figure 1). 

Preplanning for the Chickasaw Refuge’s draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental 

assessment also began during early 2000. The identification of issues is a major factor in 

determining the management goals and objectives for comprehensive conservation plans. To ensure 

that future refuge management is responsive to all relevant issues and concerns, a series of 

meetings and interviews was conducted to guide the identification of issues for the planning effort. 

In September 2000, the Chickasaw CCP Technical Team (comprised of staff from Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge and the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex) began meeting 

to discuss the refuge’s issues and management opportunities. The scoping meeting was advertised 

locally and by mailings, with additional comments received by mail, telephone, and e-mail. On 

November 2, 2000, a public scoping meeting was held in Ripley, Tennessee. At the meeting, the 

public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in writing regarding their perceived issues and 
16 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

opportunities for management of the refuge. The planning staff of the West Tennessee National 

Wildlife Refuges Complex then developed a comprehensive list of issues that were considered in the 

development of management alternatives in the draft environmental assessment. 

Coordination with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations 

and the surrounding communities, is also essential to ensure support for the plan and the projects 

identified for the refuge. In April 2001, an initial meeting was held with the Chickasaw 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 

Chickasaw Planning Review Group included representatives from the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency; Anderson-Tully Company; Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife 

Refuges; Ducks Unlimited; Dyersburg State Community College; and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, well as local sportsmen, farmers, landowners, businessmen, and county officials. 

This group provided oversight during the planning process, and solicited suggestions from 

professional counterparts as well as local individuals and private interests. Draft versions of the 

comprehensive conservation plan were routed to the Planning Review Group members 

periodically for review, and their comments were considered in plan revisions. 

The nine resource working groups began meeting in early 2000. In January, 2002, the WTWR 

Conservation Plan was completed and became available as the primary biological foundation for 

much of the Chickasaw CCP planning process. Based on this biological foundation, as well as other 

relevant documents, the input received from the public, and the refuge staff’s professional judgment, 

the Chickasaw Technical Team evaluated the refuge’s issues and resource needs and developed 

various management alternatives which were then considered in the draft environmental assessment. 

The alternatives addressed four different management scenarios, in which each relevant issue and 

concern was considered in the context of at least one of the alternatives. The environmental 

assessment constituted the documentation and process by which the preferred action was selected. 

Once the preferred action was selected, the Chickasaw Technical Team developed a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies for accomplishing the preferred management scenario over the next 15 

years. The goals, objectives, and strategies are described in Chapter IV, Management Direction. 

A second public meeting was held to solicit public review and comments on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. The public will be notified when the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is available. 

ISSUES 

The identification of issues provided the basis for initiating the development of management 

objectives and strategies. The identified issues play a role in determining the refuge’s future 

conditions and will be considered in the long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The issues and 

concerns described in the following pages were generated by the public, the Planning Review Group, 

and Service staff. An initial list of approximately 31 issues was consolidated into a list of 19 issue 

categories concerning Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The 19 issues were grouped according 

to five broad management categories: (1) fish and wildlife population issues; (2) habitat issues; (3) 

visitor services and environmental education issues; (4) refuge administration and operation issues; 

and (5) land protection and conservation issues. Appendix VII provides a summary of the comments 

received during the public scoping process. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION ISSUES 

Waterfowl Populations 

Because the refuge was established specifically as an “inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds” (see 

the “Refuge Purpose” section in Chapter III), all operations and management are considered in light 

of their impact on migratory birds, of which waterfowl are the most numerous. The refuge staff 

monitors the refuge’s waterfowl populations, and works to provide sufficient high quality habitat to 

fulfill the population objectives set for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, as established in Ford and 

Wathen (2001) and the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). Portions of the 

refuge are dedicated to providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and 

forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and breeding needs of migratory and resident 

waterfowl (please refer to the following “Habitat Issues” section). In order to meet its waterfowl 

objectives, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet the habitat needs 

of waterfowl and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. 

Songbird Populations 

Nearly every study examining the population trends of North America’s neotropical migratory birds 

has reported declines in at least some species (Askins et al., 1990). The Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

has been identified as experiencing some of the most widespread and pronounced declines (Hamel 

et al., 1994). Partners in Flight has developed conservation plans for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley 

(Twedt et al., 1998) and the East Gulf Coastal Plain (Woodrey et al., 1998) to address priority species 

and bird conservation issues. Since 1994, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has cooperated with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Southern Hardwoods Research Station to assess and monitor 

the populations, habitats, and status of cerulean warblers on the refuge. The refuge continues to 

monitor its migratory and resident songbirds, and works to address the habitat issues that affect 

resident and neotropical migrant populations, in keeping with its goals and establishing purposes. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

A key function of Chickasaw National Wildlife 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, pallid sturgeon, and interior 

least tern. As many as 16 bald eagles are known to winter annually on the Chickasaw Refuge, and 

three known active nests are documented on refuge lands. The refuge’s habitat restoration and 

protection activities continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles. 

The pallid sturgeon is not known to inhabit refuge waters. However, it is present in 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 habitats. 

Interior least terns nest on Mississippi River sandbars 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 provides protection to the sandbars, which are used by least tern nesting 

colonies during the summer months. 
18 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Resident Species Populations 

The refuge’s resident wildlife include game species such as white-tailed deer, wild turkey, squirrels, 

rabbits, and furbearers, as well as numerous species of nongame mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians. The 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, turkey, etc.) are managed at levels consistent with habitat availability, refuge management 

goals, and refuge purposes. Other species are observed and monitored for potential management 

issues. The benefits to resident wildlife are one of the factors considered when opportunities arise for 

land acquisitions within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary. 

Shorebird Populations 

Because of the abundance of agricultural land with water control capabilities, along with frequent 

inundation of fields by floodwaters, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley has significant potential for 

providing shorebird habitat (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). The refuge’s waterfowl management 

activities offer concurrent opportunities to provide shorebird habitat, especially in conjunction with the 

management of impoundments and moist soil units. The staff monitors shorebird use on the refuge 

and looks for opportunities to support the priorities of the WTWR Conservation Plan (TWRA and 

USFWS, 2002) for migratory and resident shorebird populations. 

HABITAT ISSUES 

Waterfowl Habitat 

Providing habitat for migratory birds, the most numerous of which are waterfowl, was the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. Thus, the refuge’s management priorities must be directed toward 

providing quality wetland areas that are attractive to migratory birds, including dabbling ducks, diving 

ducks, and geese. Each management unit provides a unique set of resources that are necessary for 

each group to complete its life cycle. A portion of the refuge is dedicated to providing seasonally 

flooded croplands, moist soil impoundments, and forested wetlands to meet the feeding, resting, and 

breeding needs of migratory and resident waterfowl. In order to meet the refuge’s objectives for 

waterfowl, the refuge must maintain enough cropland and moist soil areas to meet waterfowl habitat 

needs, and provide sufficient sanctuary areas for undisturbed resting and feeding. 

Songbird Habitat 

As stated in the previous section concerning waterfowl habitat, the refuge’s priorities include 

providing quality habitat for migratory birds, including neotropical migrant songbirds. The refuge’s 

land and forest management practices will continue to take into account the value of such practices to 

songbirds. The songbird research being conducted on the refuge by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture since 1994 continues to provide valuable information in regard to habitat suitability for 

cerulean warblers. The refuge will continue to monitor migratory and resident songbirds and to 

address habitat issues that affect resident and neotropical migrant bird populations. 

Forest Habitat Management 

The refuge protects more than 20,293 acres of bottomland hardwood habitat and over 503 acres of 

upland forests. These bottomland hardwood and upland forests provide invaluable habitat for a wide 

range of wildlife species and are critical to their preservation and perpetuation. The bottomland 

hardwood forests, in particular, are important to migratory and wintering waterfowl, especially 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

mallards and wood ducks. The forested tracts provide crucial food resources such as hard mast, soft 

mast, and invertebrates for mallards during flood events in the fall and early spring. The refuge will 

complete its forest habitat and other 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 overall scheme of migratory bird management, as they 

provide a source of high-energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the 

refuge grows corn and soybean crops that are rotated with moist soil units or are produced on the 

higher elevations to ensure a readily available source of food for wildlife, and to meet refuge 

objectives set forth in the WTWR Conservation Plan. The Chickasaw Refuge’s cropland operation 

includes an impoundment system and occupies approximately 1,186 acres. Under a cooperative 

farming agreement, this acreage is divided by a 75 percent farmer to 25 percent refuge ratio, with the 

refuge usually receiving its portion of the crops on the lower and wetter fields. 

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 cooperative farmer to bear the cost of 

production and leave a designated share of crops in the field as payment for renting the property. 

Thus, force-account farming has the disadvantage of greater expense but the advantage of greater 

flexibility and retains one hundred percent of the production. Cooperative farming has little or no 

expense to the Service, but offers less flexibility and a substantial reduction in the total amount of 

agricultural products left in the field for use by wildlife. 

Most crop fields that are planted for the refuge can be flooded for waterfowl use. This, coupled with 

subsequent acquisitions, sets the stage for the refuge to make substantial contributions to the 

migratory bird objectives of the Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s farming program will continue to 

address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. 

Moist Soil Habitat 

Moist soil habitats are an integral part of managing public wetlands for waterfowl, as these food 

resources are provided in large part only on state and federal lands. Chickasaw National Wildlife 

Refuge and the associated river floodplain are capable of supplying moist soil foods such as barnyard 

grass, sprangletop, smartweeds, rice cut-grass, and a host of other beneficial herbaceous plants. 

The refuge provides 835 acres of these early successional habitats and plays a key role in the 

migration patterns of midcontinental waterfowl and other migratory birds. The refuge’s present and 

future resource management will in large part be influenced by practices that actively benefit 

waterfowl, including moist soil habitats. The management of the refuge’s moist soil units will continue 

to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations. 
20 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION ISSUES 

Hunting and Fishing Access and Opportunities 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that hunting and fishing are two 

consumptive priority public uses on national wildlife refuges. In addition, hunting and fishing are integral 

parts of the lifestyle and culture of west Tennessee. Due to this fact and the limited amount of public land, 

it is not surprising that there is considerable interest in expanding the refuge’s hunting and fishing 

opportunities. Any additional hunting opportunities will be dependent on providing safe, quality 

experiences that are compatible with refuge purposes. However, the refuge’s hunting opportunities could 

be expanded through additional land acquisitions from willing sellers within the current approved 

acquisition boundary. The refuge will examine opportunities to increase and/or enhance its hunting and 

fishing opportunities, in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes. 

Nonconsumptive Recreational Opportunities 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 states that wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation are four nonconsumptive priority public 

uses on national wildlife refuges. In accordance with this legislation, the refuge will seek to increase 

opportunities for these priority public uses. Currently, hunting and fishing are the major public uses on 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge currently does not have the staff or facilities needed to 

provide programming for important environmental education, interpretive, or nonconsumptive wildlifedependent activities. 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 County (population 27,101) within 10 miles of Ripley, Tennessee 

(population 7,844), and approximately 60 miles from Memphis, Tennessee (population 873,000) (U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2000). Better-developed visitor facilities in association with a Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge visitor center annex would provide a level of wildlife-dependent environmental education, 

interpretation, and recreational opportunities currently not available in Lauderdale County. The refuge will 

examine opportunities to increase and enhance nonconsumptive recreational opportunities on the refuge, 

in keeping with its other resource needs and establishing purposes. 

Public Access 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is a frequently visited refuge with a high degree of public interest 

in the opportunities it offers for the enjoyment of natural resources. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the refuges to provide, when compatible with refuge 

purposes, opportunities for the “big six” wildlife-dependent types of public recreation. The “big six” 

are hunting, fishing, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. 

Therefore, attention must be given to providing the appropriate amount and forms of visitor access on 

the refuge. Issues regarding the increasing or limiting of public access should be considered with 

respect to the refuge’s overall resource management goals and 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

budgetary requests. The Chickasaw 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. Funds are assigned to the refuge’s maintenance 

needs, in light of its priority resource needs and budget constraints. Consideration should be given to 

providing comprehensive maintenance of the refuge’s facilities, within the constraints of available 

resources and management priorities. Management decisions would continue to address the 

refuge’s priority operational needs, and budgetary requests would be made in keeping with goals and 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Law Enforcement 

Large tracts of public lands may provide unique opportunities for public use, and unfortunately in 

some cases, misuse; so the continual involvement of law enforcement personnel is necessary in 

order to protect the resources as well as the public. However, staff limitations preclude intensive law 

enforcement on refuge lands. As with other issues, refuge priorities must be established which 

compete for available resources. Enforcement issues should be considered and ways to improve law 

enforcement capabilities examined, in keeping with the refuge’s goals and purposes. 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION ISSUES 

Land Acquisition 

The refuge’s land acquisitions provide additional protection for land and resources as well as additional 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities for the public. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge has a 

current approved acquisition boundary of approximately 60,240 acres. As of July 1, 2004, the Service 

had acquired a total of 25,006 acres within this approved acquisition 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. It is the Service’s 

policy to acquire land only from willing sellers, and every effort should be made to provide effective 

information to the public in order to promote full understanding of the refuge acquisition process. 

Management decisions must include acquisition priorities as well as future management of acquired 

tracts in light of the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. 

Water Level Management 

Water level management has the potential to affect the 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 Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi river systems. Impacts from 

refuge water management can include flooding, altered drainage patterns, and sedimentation. The 

comprehensive planning process would attempt to address the individual water level issues on a 

case-by-case basis, while keeping management decisions in line with the refuge’s management 

goals and purposes, as well as potential water level impacts on neighboring lands. 

Protection of Unique Areas 

At least ten cultural resource sites are documented on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. These 

sites were discovered during an archaeological investigation conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the 

site of proposed waterfowl impoundments (Anderson, 1995). Numerous other archaeological 

investigations have been conducted throughout the nearby portions of west Tennessee. These west 
22 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Approved acquisition boundary, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

To Ripley 

−−>

Mississippi River

Open Lake

Chisholm Lake

Obion River

S.Fork Forked Deer

Dry Arm

Wardlows Chute

Wardlows Pocket

Gar Pond

Coker Slough

Right Hand Arm

Gum Pond

Jennings Pond

 19



88



Barr Rd

Dee Webb Rd

Chisholm Lake Rd

Watkins Rd

Great River Rd

Hales Point Barr Rd

Morris Rd.

Knob Creek Rd

Key Corner Rd

Suggs Rd

Porter Gap Rd

Brushy Ridge Rd

Sand Bluff Rd

Barr Rd

Legend

Current Refuge BoundaryAcquisition Boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Tennessee archaeological surveys document an area rich in prehistoric and historic cultural 

resources, dating back as far as 12,000 B.C. While only one archaeological survey has been 

conducted on the refuge, past history indicates that many more cultural sites are likely to exist on 

refuge lands. Refuge management should include efforts to identify and protect these unique areas, 

in keeping with the refuge’s goals, objectives, and establishing purposes. 

Protection from Excessive Siltation 

Excessive silt enters the refuge from Cold Creek and has changed the hydrology on certain refuge 

lands. Refuge management should consider alternatives for protecting refuge lands from this 

siltation. Efforts of partnering agencies such as Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation to monitor and reduce siltation in the Cold 

Creek watershed should be supported, in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. 
24 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

III. Refuge Description 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in rural western Tennessee, approximately 15 miles 

southwest of the city of Dyersburg (Figure 7). The refuge gets its name from the Chickasaw Indians, 

who historically occupied portions of west Tennessee, including Lauderdale County in which the 

refuge is located. Prior to federal acquisition, most of the lands that make up the Chickasaw Refuge 

were owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company of Memphis, Tennessee. In 1956, the 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency leased the tract and managed it as a wildlife management 

area. The refuge was approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission on May 14, 1985, to 

protect approximately 37,500 acres of bottomland hardwoods and adjacent habitats for migratory 

waterfowl. This approval included two acquisition areas: a 23,600-acre upper area that is now 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and a 13,900-acre lower area that today is owned and managed 

by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 

From 1985 to 1990, 14,934 acres of the upper unit were purchased by The Nature Conservancy for 

resale to the Service. In addition to these lands, a 190-acre tract at the west end of Chisholm Lake 

and a 1,428-acre block comprised of three contiguous tracts lying several miles east of the main body 

of the refuge were purchased by the Service from landowners in 1987. This latter area is primarily 

agricultural and is being developed as feeding and resting areas for waterfowl and shorebirds. In 

1997, a 437-acre tract known as the Marley Lease was purchased from the Trust for Public Land, 

with funds from the Migratory Bird Conservation Account. These purchases comprised the entirety of 

the 16,989 acres originally under Service fee title ownership at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 

In addition to the fee title lands, the Chickasaw Refuge includes 4,847 acres of contiguous and 540 

acres of noncontiguous lands managed under a no-fee lease from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources 

Agency, bringing the total refuge acreage to 22,376 acres as of 1998. 

In addition to lands within the original refuge boundary, an expansion of the refuge acquisition 

boundary was approved in 1999. This expanded boundary covers approximately 35,221 additional 

acres in Lauderdale County, adjacent to the existing refuge boundary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

2000a). The Service proposes to acquire these lands through conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements, or fee title purchases from willing sellers. The project lands involve about 127 

ownerships that vary in size from less than one acre to 6,000 acres. The proposed acquisitions, 

when complete, would increase the refuge’s total size to approximately 60,240 acres. Since the 

approval of the current acquisition boundary in 1999, several tracts have been acquired from willing 

sellers, bringing the refuge to a current total of 25,006 acres (as of April 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 land acquisitions comes from receipts, such as Federal Duck Stamp sales, entrance fees 

to certain national wildlife refuges, import taxes on arms and ammunition, and appropriations under 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). 
26 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge vicinity map 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

It is anticipated that funding for future land acquisitions will be provided through the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The authorities for the use of these 

funds for land acquisition are the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 715d) and the 

Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 460k-1). 

REFUGE PURPOSE 

Chickasaw 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)), “... 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 Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742f (a) (4) (5)), is the specific law that 

grants authority for acquiring lands for national wildlife refuges. Under this Act, the Secretary of the 

Interior is authorized to take steps as may be required for the development, advancement, 

management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources, including but not limited to 

research, development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and 

water or interests therein. The Act also authorizes the Fish and Wildlife Service to accept gifts of real 

or personal property for its benefit and use in performing its activities and services. 

The Land Acquisition Planning Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985b) that proposed the initial 

land acquisitions for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge stated the purpose of the acquisition 

proposal: “to protect habitat of significant value to migratory waterfowl and other wildlife, with special 

emphasis on migrating Canada goose populations.” 

Expanding on these purposes, the refuge’s objectives were further defined in the Service’s Final 

Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000a). 

The following management objectives were identified for the proposed expansion at Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge: 

• Preserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated fish and 

wildlife values. 

• Preserve, protect, reestablish, and manage habitat for endangered and threatened species. 

• Manage for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for wintering 

waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks. 

• Manage 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. These priorities involve migratory bird populations and their habitats; 

wetlands; threatened and endangered species and their habitats; fisheries and aquatic resources; and 

national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b). 
28 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

REFUGE ENVIRONMENT 

TOPOGRAPHY AND CLIMATE 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lies in the Lower Mississippi River floodplain with eight miles of 

the refuge’s western boundary adjoining the Mississippi River. The refuge extends east two to six 

miles to the edge of the heavily dissected Chickasaw Bluff. The dominant land forms of the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem are the alluvial plain of the Mississippi River downstream of its 

confluence with the Ohio River, and the deltaic plain and associated marshes and swamps created 

by the meanderings of the Mississippi River and its tributaries. 

Due to the lack of a mainline Mississippi River levee in Lauderdale County, the entire refuge is 

subject to inundation from high river stages, typically in late winter and early spring. During high river 

stages, water depths can reach 30 feet in the lower-lying portions of the refuge. In addition, 

headwater flooding from the Mississippi River has been virtually eliminated by upstream levees 

adjacent to the river. As a result, the frequency and duration of backwater flooding have increased in 

all non-leveed areas, including the Chickasaw Refuge and adjacent lands. The 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 the 

swamps, brakes, oxbow lakes, and other low-lying areas. Sediment loading in streams and rivers 

has also increased, disrupting the natural patterns of aggradation and degradation. 

The altered hydrology and sedimentation have disrupted natural geomorphic processes. Land and 

lake formation associated with Mississippi River meandering is no longer occurring or is occurring on 

a very limited basis, restricting the formation of new oxbow lakes and sloughs. 

Topographically, the refuge is slightly undulating due to past influences of the Forked Deer and 

Mississippi rivers, with most drainage to the west along the Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River. 

The topography of these bottomlands is characteristically flat, but slight variations in elevation are 

associated with considerable differences in soils, drainage conditions, and forest species composition 

(Barrett 1980). A number of small open-water areas are present within the floodplain, some within old 

sloughs. Two of these, Open Lake and Chisholm Lake, were reportedly formed by the New Madrid 

earthquake, the latter apparently within an old oxbow channel of the Mississippi. 

The main portion of the refuge has elevations ranging from 220 to 260 feet above mean sea level 

(msl), with the highest elevations occurring along existing or old channels of the Mississippi and its 

larger tributaries. The elevations along the eastern portion of the refuge, adjacent to the eroded 

lower slopes of the loess bluffs, range from 250 to 300 msl. 

The eastern two-thirds of Lauderdale County consist of nearly level to steep, well drained to poorly 

drained, silty soils on loess uplands. The western one-third of the county consists of nearly level, well 

drained to poorly drained, clayey to sandy soils on the Mississippi River floodplain (Monteith 1990). The 

soils on the refuge consist of deep loess on the eastern margin and alluvial sediments in the floodplain. 

Within the floodplain, loamy soils are more common along the present or former natural levees. The soils 

in the flats or depressions of the lower-lying areas within the floodplain are dominated by clays. As a 

result of the extensive drainage efforts that have occurred from the early twentieth century to the present 

day, the drainage patterns have been altered appreciably in some areas. In addition, the ongoing 

sedimentation is gradually filling in many aquatic features on the refuge. 

The refuge climate is characterized by mild winters; hot, humid summers; and abundant rainfall. For 

the period from 1962 to 1980, the average annual temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, with 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

average daily temperatures ranging from 35.2 degrees in January to 79.9 degrees in July. The total 

annual precipitation during the period of observation has averaged 51.2 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 brief yet intense thunderstorms, which occur on about 53 days each year. The average 

annual snowfall is nine inches. The freeze-free period, or growing season, ranges from 203 to 233 

days, from late March to early November (Monteith, 1990). 

DEMOGRAPHY 

The rural setting and sparse population of the refuge vicinity are characteristic of west Tennessee. 

The immediate area surrounding the refuge is even less populated than most of west Tennessee, 

due to its location adjacent to the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers and their floodplains. 

According to the 2000 census, Lauderdale County had a population of 27,101 people, which is an 

increase of 15.4 percent since the 1990 census (Tennessee County Profiles: Lauderdale County, 

http://cls.coe.utk.edu/counties/lauderdale.html). 

The per capita income recorded for Tennessee as of 2000 was $19,339. Lauderdale County’s per 

capita income was $13,682. Agriculture and related service companies are the main economic 

bases. Several small to medium manufacturing companies are located in the county, with some of 

the major private employers including Wal-Mart, Marvin Windows of Tennessee, Tennessee 

Electroplating, and S & R of Tennessee. Other major employers include the Lauderdale County 

Schools, Forked Deer Electric Cooperative, and Baptist Memorial Hospital. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitats for threatened and 

endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Three 

federally listed species, including the endangered interior least tern, the endangered pallid sturgeon, 

and the threatened bald eagle, are all found on or near Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 

The interior least tern is known to nest on Mississippi River sandbars adjacent to the refuge and to 

feed on refuge lands. The pallid sturgeon is known to occur within the Mississippi River. It is 

possible that pallid sturgeons could enter the refuge’s lakes during high river stages; however, this 

has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers. 

As many as 16 bald eagles winter annually on the refuge, with at least three known active nests 

documented on refuge lands. No federally listed flora are known on the refuge. A Section 7 IntraService Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V. 

AVIAN SPECIES 

Birds are important wildlife resources, with more than 250 species known to occur on nearby 

Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989). Appendix IV 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 birds and migrants 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 of Mexico migrants returning from their 

wintering grounds in Central and South America. 
30 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Recent studies indicate significant population declines in some species of neotropical migrant birds 

(Askins et al., 1990), while current knowledge concerning management practices for most neotropical 

migratory species is seriously lacking. The status of one of the most rapidly declining species, the 

cerulean warbler, prompted population monitoring on the refuge during 1985-87 and 1991. Additional 

research began in 1992 and is ongoing to assess the habitats and responses of cerulean warblers in 

the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (Hamel et al., 1994). Neotropical migratory birds that regularly occur on 

the Chickasaw Refuge include the cerulean warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. 

Approximately 32 species of shorebirds (TWRA and USFWS 2002) are commonly found in west 

Tennessee, with the highest populations occurring during migration periods that typically peak from 

August through October and from April to mid-May (Elliott and McKnight, 2000). Shorebird species 

common to west Tennessee include the killdeer, pectoral sandpiper, solitary sandpiper, greater 

yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, common snipe, and American woodcock. Refuge lands that provide 

shorebird habitat include riverine mudbars, oxbows, flooded agricultural fields, the margins of 

reservoirs, and managed impoundments. Presently, the Chickasaw Refuge manages approximately 

1,186 acres of impoundments as shorebird habitat. Shorebird habitat is provided within the 

impoundments each spring (target 100 acres) and fall (target 30 acres). 

The Lower Mississippi Valley serves as the primary wintering ground for midcontinental waterfowl 

populations that breed in the prairies and parklands of Canada and the United States. Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge and its adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover 

area for mallards using the Mississippi Flyway. Under optimum conditions, waterfowl population 

numbers may exceed 150,000. The value of the Chickasaw Refuge as a waterfowl wintering area is 

enhanced by its proximity to other refuges. It lies within 125 miles of numerous national wildlife 

refuges, including Big Lake and Wapanocca to the west; White River and Lower Hatchie to the south; 

Hatchie and Tennessee to the east; and Reelfoot, Crab Orchard, Cypress Creek, and Mingo to the 

north. Other species of waterfowl known to use the areas include the black duck; gadwall; pintail; 

green-winged teal; blue-winged teal; widgeon; wood duck; ring-necked duck; and hooded merganser. 

Wood ducks are year-round residents and depend on refuge habitats for nesting and brood-rearing. 

Approximately 1,186 total acres are currently managed on the refuge as a waterfowl sanctuary. 

These are moist soil or agricultural habitats. The fields are managed at an average ratio of 50 

percent moist soil to 50 percent agricultural; the ratio varies year to year due to river stages and other 

environmental factors. Approximately 30 to 100 acres of the sanctuary are managed for shorebird 

habitat depending on the time of year. Agricultural crops are raised by a cooperative farming 

agreement; the refuge’s share of the crops is 25 percent (unharvested), with 75 percent (harvested) 

going to the farmer. The waterfowl objectives for the refuge are 500,000 goose-use days and 13.5 

million duck-use days. These objectives are supported by the moist soil units, impoundments, 

flooded sloughs and brakes, as well as the entire refuge forest, much of which is subject to inundation 

during high river stages. These objectives are currently being evaluated in light of the refuge 

expansions and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

Wild turkeys are also present on the refuge, although spring flooding impacts nesting success on a 

regular basis. Flocks consisting of up to 50 turkeys are observed during high water periods, in which 

the birds congregate on higher ground. Mourning doves and bobwhite quail are common on the open 

lands within and adjacent to the refuge. Common raptors include the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered 

hawk, northern harrier, barred owl, and turkey and black vultures. Kestrels and broad-winged hawks 

are also present but occur less frequently. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

MAMMALS 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge contains a diversity of mammals representing seven taxonomic 

orders, including pouched mammals (opossums), insect-eaters (shrews and moles), bats, flesheaters (raccoons), 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. Mammalian game species hunted on the refuge include white-tailed deer, raccoon, gray 

and fox squirrels, coyote, and swamp and cottontail rabbits. Furbearers include raccoon, beaver, 

opossum, river otter, muskrat, nutria, striped skunk, coyote, bobcat, gray and red fox, and mink. 

Nongame species include shrews, moles, bats, and numerous rodents, such as mice, rats, 

chipmunks, and flying squirrels. 

Providing a diversity of habitats on the 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 diversity of forest habitats 

would better meet the needs of all resident mammals that are dependent on forested habitats. 

Appendix IV provides a list of the mammalian species known to occur on the refuge. 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

A diverse group of amphibians is found on the refuge, including salamanders, toads, and frogs. Most 

are well adapted to the refuge’s aquatic and terrestrial environments, with moisture being typically 

important for their survival. Numerous species of reptiles, including turtles, snakes, lizards, and 

skinks, are common as well. 

Reptiles and amphibians are abundant and functionally important in most of the refuge’s 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. Comprehensive inventories will be performed to establish 

baseline information on the occurrence and habitat use of amphibian and reptilian species on the 

refuge, as resources become available. Knowledge of which species occur on Chickasaw National 

Wildlife 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 habitat are the main known causes of declines in reptile and 

amphibian populations in Tennessee, with the loss of wetlands and bottomland hardwood forests 

having the greatest negative impact on these species. Habitat fragmentation, hydrologic alterations, 

and excessive sedimentation are environmental problems common to west Tennessee which 

negatively affect populations. The refuge’s land protection and management efforts serve these 

populations by protecting their existing habitats, as well as by restoring degraded habitats. 

The reptiles and amphibians known to exist on the refuge and their status in west Tennessee 

are listed in Appendix IV. 
32 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

AQUATIC SPECIES 

The sloughs, rivers, and lakes within Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge support a diversity of game 

fish, including largemouth bass; black crappie; white crappie, spotted bass, redear sunfish, bluegill, 

and channel catfish. Nongame species such as carp, buffalo, and drum are also present. Appendix 

IV provides a comprehensive listing of fish likely to occur in the Mississippi River proper and the 

directly westward-flowing tributaries in western Tennessee, including the rivers on the Chickasaw 

Refuge (TWRA and USFWS, 2002). 

The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes between the Forked Deer, Obion, and Mississippi rivers 

and their 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 the aquatic resources of the refuge and 

surrounding vicinity, land protection and habitat restoration result in positive benefits to aquatic 

habitats and species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of 

channelization and poor land use practices through programs such as the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife; the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Cropland Reserve Program, Forest Legacy, and The 

Nature Conservancy’s Conservation Plan for the Hatchie River (2000). 

MUSSELS 

A comprehensive mussel survey has not been completed for the refuge, and few published 

surveys are available on the mussels of the Mississippi River and its major tributaries in west 

Tennessee. However, a survey by A.E. Ortmann (1926) reported seven species of mussels from 

Reelfoot Lake and 12 species from the Obion River. Pilsbry and Rhoads (1896, as cited in 

Ortmann 1926) listed 12 species of mussels from Reelfoot Lake and five species from the Wolf 

River in Shelby County. Don Manning (1989) later reported 33 species of mussels in the nearby 

Hatchie River. It is estimated that approximately 20 to 25 species of mussels are likely to exist in 

the vicinity of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Mussel species known to exist in the Obion 

and Forked Deer rivers are listed in Appendix IV. 

As stated in the above Aquatic Resources section, hydrologic alterations and sedimentation 

have impacted the area’s aquatic resources, including mussels. Similarly, the refuge’s land 

protection and habitat restoration efforts result in positive benefits to aquatic habitats and 

mussel species. The Service should emphasize projects that reduce the effects of 

channelization and poor land use practices. In addition, a comprehensive survey of mussel 

populations should be conducted on the waters of the refuge and surrounding vicinity, when 

resources become available. 

NOXIOUS INVASIVE SPECIES 

Noxious and/or invasive species known to present problems on the refuge include a hybrid cocklebur, 

hemp sesbania, and the kudzu vine. The refuge vicinity has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that 

is resistant to flooding and wet soil conditions. The species is prolific and will outcompete native 

moist soil vegetation in moist soil units. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will also 

outcompete the preferred moist soil plants. 

Kudzu occurs along field and forest edges and forest openings where direct sunlight can penetrate 

the forest floor. This exotic vine is a native of Asia and was introduced into the United States at the 

Philadelphia Centennial Exposition in 1876. By 1900, kudzu was being sold through mail order 

suppliers as an inexpensive livestock forage. The Soil Erosion Service distributed approximately 85 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

million seedlings starting in 1933 in an effort to control agricultural erosion. The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture removed kudzu from its list of cover plants 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 seven million acres in the southeast are 

covered in kudzu. While kudzu is not known to currently exist on the refuge, heavy infestations on 

adjacent lands require continual monitoring. 

The Chickasaw Refuge’s Habitat Management Plan includes plans and preferred methods for control 

and eradication of these nuisance and invasive species, which presently occur on or in close 

proximity to the refuge. 

HABITATS 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge provides a variety of habitat types for a diversity of wildlife 

species. The habitats on the refuge consist of approximately 94 acres of open administrative land; 

1,186 acres of agriculture and moist soil open lands (the agricultural/moist soil breakdown varies from 

year to year); 1,874 acres of bald cypress/tupelo forest; 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwood 

forest; 966 acres of open water; 1,018 acres of sandbars; 515 acres of osage orange savanna; 431 

acres of scrub-shrub; and 503 acres of upland forest. The total current deeded acreage being 

managed as Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is 25,006 acres (July 1, 2004). Figure 8 shows the 

existing habitat types on the refuge. 

The refuge’s 18,419 acres of mixed bottomland hardwoods consist of black willow, eastern cottonwood, 

overcup oak, cherrybark oak, willow oak, water oak, Nuttall oak, sugarberry, bald cypress, sweet pecan, 

bitter pecan, sweetgum, and green ash. Forest management practices are used in these areas to 

maintain an optimal diversity of forest habitat for wildlife. Mast production in the bottomland hardwood 

habitats provides an important food source for a wide variety of wildlife, including migratory waterfowl, 

deer, squirrel, and turkey. During the winter and spring months, backwaters typically flood thousands of 

acres of bottomland hardwoods, providing valuable waterfowl habitat. 

There are approximately 1,186 acres of agriculture/moist soil open lands on the 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. The croplands are managed under cooperative agreements with local farmers, who grow 

corn, soybeans, and winter wheat in rotation. The 25 percent refuge share is usually planted in corn, 

which is left in the field for waterfowl consumption. 

The refuge currently contains approximately 1,874 acres of wooded swamp habitat, which is 

dominated by bald cypress and swamp tupelo in the overstory and buttonbush in the understory. 

Buttonbush is also abundant in the 431 acres of scrub-shrub habitat found on the refuge. In the 966 

acres of open water habitat found on the refuge, dominant vegetation includes submerged aquatics 

such as elodea, curlyleaf pondweed, bladderwort, and coontail, as well as emergents such as 

American lotus, cowlily, duckweed, waterfern, and yellow pond-lily. 

Approximately 1,018 acres of sandbar habitat are found on the refuge, primarily adjacent to the 

Mississippi River along the refuge’s western boundary. Vegetation is essentially lacking as these 

sandbars are intermittently submerged. Adjacent to the sandbar habitat is a unique savanna habitat 
34 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Existing habitat types on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

State Highway 88

Hobe Webb Road

M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r

Barr Road

State Highway 19

Dee Webb Road

Chisholm Lake Road

Watkins Road

Hales Point Barr Road

Morris Road

Out Bounds Road

Sand Bluff Road

Turkey Hill Road

J. D. Smith Road

Acres

94

1,1861,874

18,419

966

1,018

515431503

Chickasaw National Wildlife RefugeHabitat Types

Habitat Types

AdministrativeAgriculture Moist SoilsBaldcypress−TupeloBottomland ForestOpen WaterSand BarSavannaScrub ShrubUpland Forest

01234 0.5

Miles
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

dominated by osage orange, which comprises about 515 acres. The approximately 503 acres 

of upland hardwood forest habitat is found primarily along the Chickasaw bluff on the eastern 

edge of the refuge and in a large tract in the western portion of the refuge. These upland 

forests consist primarily of southern red oak, sweetgum, yellow poplar, post oak, white oak, 

various hickories, and American beech. 

EDUCATION AND VISITOR SERVICES 

Since the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the refuge has 

adopted hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation as the six priority general public uses. These uses, as such, are management’s primary 

focuses for public use, and over time programs will be developed to increase visitor awareness and 

appreciation of the refuge’s fish and wildlife resources. 

Wildlife-dependent recreation activities currently available on the refuge include 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 refuge staff also provides environmental education and interpretative programs when 

requested by local civic and school groups. Currently, there are no interpretive facilities on the 

refuge. In many years, prolonged seasonal flooding from the high stages of the Mississippi River, 

especially during the spring months, poses a unique challenge in providing visitor services. The 

seasonal floodwaters can reach as much as 30 feet deep in some areas of the refuge. 

In fiscal year 2000, the refuge received about 115,764 visitors, although visitor use data is 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, 

but certain restrictions apply. By law, national wildlife refuges are closed to public use activities 

unless expressly permitted. Hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography are permitted 

on most areas of the refuge. All public access is prohibited on the 1,186-acre Waterfowl Rest Area 

from November 15 through March 15. About eleven miles of trails, primarily old logging roads, are 

maintained for foot hunting access, wildlife observation, photography, and hiking. Figure 9 shows the 

existing public use facilities on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 

Numerous other public lands within commuting distance offer wildlife-dependent recreation 

experiences. Five other national wildlife refuges, including Reelfoot (10,428 acres); Lake Isom 

(1,850 acres); Lower Hatchie (9,451 acres); Sunk Lake (1,873 acres); and Hatchie (11,556 acres) 

are located within a two-hour drive of the Chickasaw Refuge. Reelfoot National Wildlife Refuge 

offers a diverse interpretive and environmental education program, including tours to observe 

concentrations of up to 200 bald eagles, as well as concentrations of ducks and geese that winter 

in the Reelfoot Lake area. Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge provides excellent birding 

opportunities within the scenic Hatchie River bottoms. The Hatchie River, which traverses 

through both the Hatchie and Lower Hatchie refuges, is a state-designated scenic river and is the 

only unchannelized river remaining in west Tennessee. 

Fishing opportunities are found at each national wildlife refuge, with facilities including fishing 

piers, boat ramps, and bank fishing areas. Reelfoot and Hatchie offer universally accessible 

fishing areas. Waterfowl hunting, as well as big and small game hunting, is offered on each 

west Tennessee national wildlife refuge. 
36 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Public use facilities at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 











To Ripley−−>

Barr Rd

Dee Webb Rd

Chisholm Lake Rd

Great River Rd

Watkins Rd

Hobe Webb Rd

Hales Point Barr Rd

Morris Rd.

Knob Creek Rd

Key Corner Rd

Suggs Rd

Porter Gap Rd

Brushy Ridge Rd

Sand Bluff Rd

 19 

88 

Mississippi River

Open Lake

Chisholm Lake

Obion River

S.Fork Forked Deer

Right Hand Arm

Camp Slough

Dry Arm

Coker Slough

Wardlows Chute

Wardlows Pocket

Gar Pond Gum Pond

Legend

 Office

 Observation Tower

Boat Ramps

Camping Hiking Trails

Chickasaw NWR Boundary
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency manages approximately 250,000 acres of state wildlife 

management areas and state wildlife refuges in Tennessee. All of these TWRA lands offer some 

fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation opportunities. Nearby state wildlife management areas 

include Anderson-Tully (12,000 acres); Moss Island (3,400 acres); and Tigrett (7,000 acres). The 

State of Tennessee allows the use of both modern and primitive weapons for deer hunting. During 

the 2002–3 season, the state offered in west Tennessee a total of 43 days of modern gun deer 

hunting; 53 days of muzzleloader deer hunting; and 105 days of archery deer hunting. Most of west 

Tennessee’s wildlife management areas are also open to waterfowl and small game hunting. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Refuge administration refers to the operation and maintenance of refuge programs and facilities, 

including new construction. The refuge staff currently consists of five permanent employees. The 

staff’s efforts are primarily focused on protection and restoration of critical habitats, especially 

bottomland hardwood forests, through land acquisition and forest management. The refuge’s 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. Of 

particular concern under management activities is providing quality habitats for migratory birds. 

The staff also coordinates extensively with landowners, conservation organizations, local agencies, 

and civic groups, attending meetings and providing presentations as needed to local groups. The 

staff’s current public information efforts concentrate on 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 Sand Bluff 

Road. The administrative site contains an office in a trailer, a large enclosed shop and 

storage barn, and two open pole barns. 

Much of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is accessible through a county-maintained road system 

(Figure 9). The refuge can be accessed from the north via State Highway 88 and from the south via 

State Highway 19. Barr Road and Watkins Road are the main refuge arteries. 

In addition to the road system, other refuge facilities include two boat ramps and one seasonal 

campground used primarily by hunters. The Ed Jones boat ramp on the northwest end of the refuge 

provides direct access to the Mississippi River. This boat ramp consists of a large concrete ramp and 

large gravel parking area, which was developed in partnership with the State of Tennessee. The second 

ramp, which can be used by visitors with smaller boats, is located off of Barr Road at Wardlows Pocket, a 

permanent backwater area that connects to the Mississippi River during high flow periods. 

In addition to the refuge’s normal road maintenance activities, the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA-21) provides funding for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the 

Federal Lands Highway program. The Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge staff is coordinating with 

Federal Highway Administration officials to assess refuge roads for possible enhancements or 

improvements with TEA-21 funding. Congress requires that the projects must be compatible with 

comprehensive management plans and must minimize impacts on refuge operations. The Federal 

Highway Administration is available to assist the Service in planning, design, and contract 

administration. Projects proposed for immediate work (2005 to 2010) under the TEA-21 grant funding 

process include the rehabilitation of Wardlows Pocket Parking Area; Camp Slough Road north; Rush 

Slough Road east; River Road; Rush Slough Road west; Loop Road; and Dry Arm Road. In addition, 

the refuge staff is working with the county to secure possible additional TEA-21 funding for county 

roads that pass through the refuge, including Dee Webb Road. 
38 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL OR HISTORIC RESOURCES 

Before the area was colonized by Europeans, the Chickasaw Indians occupied the portion of western 

Tennessee that now includes Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Initial European explorations 

included visits by the Spanish explorer De Soto in 1540 and the French explorer La Salle, who made 

contact with the Chickasaw Indians in the vicinity of current Fort Pillow State Park in 1682 (Anderson 

1995). After the American Revolution, the lands occupied by the Chickasaw were ceded to the new 

United States government, which made peace with the Chickasaw in 1786. In 1818, the Chickasaw 

Nation ceded all claim to lands in Tennessee, and in 1837, all remaining Chickasaw east of the 

Mississippi were removed to the West. 

Archaeological investigations that have been conducted on Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge lands 

consist of survey activities conducted in a 1,100-acre area at the site of proposed waterfowl 

impoundments (Anderson 1995). These investigations discovered ten archaeological sites, indicating 

Woodland period use. Mississippian pottery was observed at one site, and archaic projectile points 

were observed at several locations. The survey recommended that certain sites be tested and 

evaluated for their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The locations of 

all discovered cultural resources were mapped, and it was determined that these sites and areas 

should be avoided by all heavy earthmoving equipment. 

Numerous other archaeological investigations have been conducted in 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 the Reelfoot and Lake Isom national wildlife 

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. However, it is likely that 

numerous other undisturbed sites exist on the refuge, because the refuge was formerly owned by a timber 

company (Anderson-Tully Company), and was in private ownership prior to that time. Recommendations 

resulting from the surveys included that the Service develop a cultural resource management plan for the 

entire 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 area of 60,240 acres within the refuge’s current approved acquisition boundary, the 

Service had acquired 25,006 acres as of April 1, 2004, leaving a balance of 35,234 acres in private 

ownership. The refuge staff is focusing on land acquisition within the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary. The 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. 

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 Lauderdale County in lieu of real estate taxes, as required by the Refuge 

Revenue Sharing Act (Public Law 95-469). Payments for acquired land are computed on whichever 

of the following formulas yields the greatest result: (1) three-fourths of one percent of the fair market 

value of the lands acquired in fee title; (2) 25 percent of the net refuge receipts collected; or (3) 75 

cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the county. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Of the 324,570 acres in Lauderdale County, 192,010 acres consist of cultivated crop lands, and 

92,600 acres are forests. There are approximately 505 farms in Lauderdale County with an average 

size of 380 acres (U.S. Department of Agriculture website: www.usda.gov.nass/). The lands 

immediately adjacent to the refuge are privately owned and managed as farmlands and hunting 

clubs. The surrounding farmlands are cultivated primarily for soybeans, cotton, wheat, corn, and 

milo. Farm commodity prices, in general, have decreased since the mid-1980s, and more 

dramatically since the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill. Poor farm production, droughts, and low 

commodity prices in recent years have encouraged many producers to sell their farms or enroll them 

in some kind of conservation program. 

Private lands enrolled in conservation programs contribute significantly to wildlife conservation. In 

2000–2001, Lauderdale County claimed 11,593.4 acres in the Conservation Reserve Program 

(Donna Neal, pers. comm., Lauderdale County Farm Service Administration, Ripley, Tennessee). As 

of 2003, Lauderdale County claimed 239.9 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program (Dwayne 

Johnston, pers. comm., Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ripley, Tennessee). The Fish and 

Wildlife Service has an active partnership with several agencies and organizations to enroll private 

lands in these programs. Private land enrollment in conservation programs would continue to be 

encouraged to augment the Service’s program and mission requirements. 

A study of contaminants occurring on 26 national wildlife refuges in the Lower Mississippi River 

Ecosystem was conducted by North Carolina State University (Shea et al., 2001). Samples of water, 

sediment, and fish were collected, and sampling devices that accumulate persistent organic 

chemicals were employed. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) (including DDTs, toxaphene, mirex, 

endrin, dieldrin, and numerous other pesticides) were detected at every refuge. However, on 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, the total levels of DDT and toxaphene were well below 

published levels for the protection of fish or wildlife in both predator and benthic fish species. 

Mixtures of multiple pesticides were often detected in the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem refuges, and 

their detection frequency was clearly associated with their use and persistence. Total polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs) values in sampled predator and benthic fish and in sampled sediment and water were 

well below published levels for the protection of fish. Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in 

sediment and water samples were low throughout the region, except near oil and gas production facilities, 

which do not occur on or near the Chickasaw Refuge. Mercury levels in sediment and predator and 

benthic fish samples were well below threshold levels for fish-eating mammals and birds. Current use 

pesticides (CUPs) (including the herbicides 2,4-D, atrazine, and numerous others; and the insecticides 

diazinon, malathion, and numerous others) were detected at every refuge, but at only one-half the 

frequency as they were at nearby off-refuge areas. On the Chickasaw Refuge, water samples indicated 

the presence of five CUPs. On nearby lands outside the refuge, three CUPs were found at levels that 

exceeded the aquatic life criteria. According to the Shea study, hazards associated with CUPs are 

uncertain due to limitations of sampling techniques. Additional data are probably necessary to perform a 

quantitative risk assessment (Shea et al., 2001). In summary, the tests at Chickasaw indicated no likely 

hazard in regard to OCPs, PCBs, or PAHs, but further testing is needed to accurately determine the 

possible risks associated with current-use pesticides. 

REFUGE-RELATED PROBLEMS 

Bottomland hardwood forests within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) provide habitat for a rich 

diversity of wildlife species. Of 24 million acres of forested wetlands originally in the MAV, only about 

5 million acres remained forested by 1978 (MacDonald et al., 1979). Today, over 80 percent of the 

MAV lands are in agricultural production (Twedt et al., 1999). The remaining forested lands are 

typically isolated patches surrounded by agriculture. More than 35,000 forest patches exist in the 
40 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley; of these, the average size is less than 100 acres, and less than one 

percent are greater than 10,000 acres. Agricultural practices in the vicinity of Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge have resulted in large-scale clearing and fragmentation of bottomland hardwood 

forests, which equates to significant losses and degradation of valuable wildlife habitat. 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was formerly owned by the Anderson-Tully Timber Company, 

and the forest was logged on a reserve harvest basis (logging continued for five years after purchase) 

as part of the purchase agreement with the Service. This logging was completed in 1995. As a result 

of this harvest, approximately one-half of the existing sawtimber volume was removed, and a third of 

the sawtimber stems were removed, resulting in fewer, smaller trees. These timber practices by the 

former owner resulted in an overstory dominated by species that are less productive for wildlife, such 

as elm and sugarberry. It also produced a significant reduction in the proportion of red oaks, which 

produce valuable mast for waterfowl and numerous other wildlife species. 

A forest habitat inventory is being compiled in a Habitat Management Plan, and inventories of 

vertebrate species for the refuge are provided in Appendix IV. The relative newness of the refuge, as 

well as the limited operation and maintenance resources available to date, have played a role in the 

lack of inventory information thus far. More comprehensive surveys of refuge fauna should be 

completed as resources and opportunities become available. 

Massive navigation and flood-control works have severely impacted the natural processes of the 

rivers within and adjacent to the refuge. As a result, the physical and biological interaction between 

the rivers and floodplain has been impeded, and much of the natural hydrologic functioning of the 

system has been hindered significantly. Lauderdale County is one of 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 hydrology has been altered by agricultural and flood control interests, and so the natural 

hydrology is severely impacted nonetheless. 

Two heavily impacted systems that affect the refuge include Cold Creek and the Old Bed of the 

Forked Deer River. Cold Creek, which flows from the Chickasaw bluffs into the southeastern portion 

of the refuge, historically flowed directly into Chisholm Lake. The creation of levees and an 

agricultural field at the mouth of Cold Creek in recent history has changed the natural course of Cold 

Creek and caused it to flow across refuge woodlands and eventually into the Middle Fork of the 

Forked Deer River. As a result, tons of silt and sand are deposited just south of Chisholm Lake and 

onto refuge lands, and the area’s natural hydrology has been significantly impacted. 

The Old Bed of the Forked Deer River formerly connected the Obion River to Chisholm Lake. The 

construction of a dirt and concrete dam north of Chisholm Lake by private interests now restricts the 

low-water flows within the system, and has further disrupted its natural hydrology. 

CONSERVATION PRIORITIES 

The conservation priorities identified for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge include continued 

emphasis on habitat for migratory waterfowl and 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 midcontinental 

waterfowl populations serves to reinforce the value of the refuge for migrating waterfowl. The refuge 

and adjacent lands are known to be an important wintering and stopover area for mallards using the 

Mississippi Flyway. The refuge’s value as a waterfowl wintering area is enhanced by its proximity to 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

other refuges. The Chickasaw Refuge was authorized by the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 

1929 for “...use as an inviolate sanctuary or for other management purposes, for migratory birds.” 

Management of impoundments, agricultural lands, moist soil units, and bottomland hardwood forests 

would be carried out with an emphasis on providing habitat for migrating waterfowl. 

The vast amount of clearing and forest fragmentation in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley underscores the 

importance of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge as the largest contiguous block of bottomland 

hardwood forest remaining in west Tennessee. A priority is placed on protection and maintenance of the 

refuge’s bottomland hardwood forests, as well as the reforestation of most of the newly acquired open 

lands. Refuge management is working to maintain and increase the red oak component of the forest and 

develop a forest structure that provides a diversity of habitats for numerous species of wildlife. 

Significant declines in populations of many neotropical migratory songbirds serve to emphasize the 

importance of forest habitats for species that migrate through the Lower Mississippi Valley. Emphasis 

would continue to be placed on the study and management of the refuge’s forests for these species. 

Management efforts to enhance existing forests for songbirds would continue to be a refuge priority. 

The refuge’s focal species include the swallow-tailed kite, cerulean warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. 

Focal wildlife species would continue to be managed in support of the goals and objectives 

developed for the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000b). The 

resource goals and objectives developed cooperatively with the State of Tennessee (TWRA and 

USFWS, 2002) would continue to be a priority in the future planning and management of refuge 

lands. The Service would continue to work with partners and landowners to achieve common goals 

and form conservation partnerships. One such partnership involves the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. Landowner participation in the Wetlands Reserve Program and Cropland 

Reserve Program would assist the Fish and Wildlife Service in meeting its wildlife objectives through 

the restoration of thousands of acres in the vicinity of the refuge. 

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 Chickasaw 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. 
42 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service endeavors to manage fish and wildlife and their habitats, while considering the needs of 

the complete spectrum of natural resources in the decision-making process. But first and foremost, 

fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. A requirement of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, 

and integrity of national wildlife refuges. The refuges in the Lower Mississippi Valley include 

managed bottomland hardwood forests and moist soil areas, and are vital links in the overall function 

of the ecosystem. To offset the historic and continuing loss of these habitats within the ecosystem, 

the refuge and other public lands provide the biological “safety net” for migratory nongame birds and 

waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, and resident species. 

REFUGE VISION 

The wildlife and biological communities found on the refuge form the basis for the future management 

of refuge lands. The following vision statement, developed collaboratively by the planning team with 

input from the refuge staff and the public, describes the desired future conditions and management 

emphasis for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge: 

With a continued emphasis on wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds, in 

accordance with the purpose for which the refuge was established, to provide habitat for 

fish and wildlife; to protect, restore, enhance, and manage an outstanding example of 

the bottomland hardwood forest that once covered most of the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley; and to promote the enjoyment of this unique biological system for present and 

future generations. 

REFUGE GOALS 

The following nine goals were developed in keeping with the vision for the refuge and the purposes 

for which it was established: 

Goal 1 – Waterfowl: Provide a complex of managed wintering and migration habitats for waterfowl 

that support the population goals and objectives established in the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan, and the West Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Conservation Plan. 

Goal 2 – Endangered and Threatened Species: Protect, manage, and enhance refuge habitats in a 

manner that will sustain or increase species populations. 

Goal 3 – Migratory Land Birds: Provide a complex of habitats which meet the breeding, migration, 

and wintering needs of the species of management concern as identified in the goals and objectives 

of the Partners in Flight Plan and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. 

Goal 4 – Shorebirds and Waterbirds: Provide a complex of managed habitats for shorebirds and 

waterbirds during critical periods throughout the year to increase bird use on the refuge and develop 

a traditional use site. 
44 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Goal 5 – Aquatic Resources: Maintain or improve aquatic habitat quantity, quality, and diversity to 

sustain or increase population levels of aquatic resources on the refuge in accordance with the West 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan and other Service aquatic resource plans. 

Goal 6 – Resident Wildlife: Provide a complex of habitats suitable for a wide range of resident 

(endemic) wildlife species, including mammalian, avian, amphibian, and reptilian species, while 

achieving habitat management objectives and biological integrity with other native flora and fauna. 

Goal 7 – Public Use: Enhance public use of the refuge through development of an appropriate and 

compatible program of wildlife-dependent recreation and education/interpretation that is consistent 

with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 and that will promote an 

understanding of the Lower Mississippi River Valley ecosystem. 

Goal 8 – Administration and Operation: Ensure that present and future operational, administrative 

and personnel objectives are achieved in order that goals and objectives for refuge habitats, fish and 

wildlife populations, land conservation, and visitor services will be achieved. 

Goal 9 – Land Protection and Conservation: Protect natural and cultural resources through 

partnerships and land acquisitions and in accordance with federal and state historic preservation 

legislation and regulations. 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN – SUMMARY STATEMENT 

This management plan was derived from Alternative D of the Draft Environmental Assessment. The 

refuge would be managed using an ecosystem management approach that preserves the 

environmental health and diversity of natural resources on the refuge. At the same time, 

opportunities would be examined to allow greater access for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

During the planning process, oral and written comments received conveyed both a desire for 

increased public access and recreation and a desire to preserve the diverse flora and fauna of the 

refuge. The decisions to allow or prohibit certain uses were dependent upon the compatibility of 

those uses with resource protection (whether the proposed uses would have an adverse effect on the 

natural resources of the refuge), the establishing purposes for the refuge, and the professional 

judgment of the refuge staff and planning team. 

This management plan outlines how wildlife and habitats would be managed and enhanced by the 

refuge over the next 15 years. The goals, objectives, and strategies acknowledge that the refuge is a 

portion of the much larger Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. The actions considered and taken in 

implementing this plan would affect the remaining Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, natural areas 

that surround the refuge, and nearby municipalities and landowners. 

Crucial elements of this plan include managing wintering and migration habitats for wintering 

waterfowl and other migratory birds. Management of moist soil units, croplands, and bottomland 

hardwood forests, as well as acquisition and management of additional lands, would ensure that 

the refuge supports the population goals and objectives established in numerous regional plans, 

including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; the Lower Mississippi River Joint 

Venture Plan; and the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources (WTWR) Conservation Plan. 

Waterfowl impoundments, including moist soil units and flooded fields, would be managed to 

provide seasonal habitat for migratory shorebirds in support of the WTWR Conservation Plan and 

the Shorebird Management Manual. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Protection and management of refuge forests and grasslands would support target populations of 

migratory land birds and support population goals and objectives established in the Partners in Flight 

Plan and the WTWR Conservation Plan. Refuge land acquisitions and cooperative efforts with other 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations would work to assemble a 100,000-acre block of 

contiguous bottomland hardwood forest within the Mid-Tennessee Bird Conservation Area boundary. 

Active forest management would maximize the ability of the refuge’s forest lands to benefit all 

resident and migratory species. Protection of aquatic resources would promote self-sustaining 

fish populations and aquatic habitats necessary for resting, foraging, and breeding habitats for 

resident and migratory wetland-dependent wildlife species. Inventory and monitoring of 

threatened and endangered species would continue, and resource protection and management 

would contribute to their recovery. 

The refuge’s environmental education and outreach program would be enhanced to showcase the 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, and a wide range of partnering opportunities would be actively 

pursued and fostered to share in the protection of natural and cultural resources. Public use facilities, 

including a visitor center, boat ramps, observation platforms, kiosks, and trails would be developed to 

enhance public access and appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented below are the Service’s response to the issues and 

concerns expressed by the planning team, and by the public at open meetings and in written 

comments. All issues discussed during the public scoping process are listed in Appendix VII. The 

Service’s responses to relevant comments received during the public review of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan are addressed in this Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Following each goal is a list of objectives, and under each objective is a listing of strategies. Chapter 

V, Plan Implementation shows the support projects for the goals in priority order. 

The goals developed in this plan reflect the Service’s commitment to achieving the mandates of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The objectives and strategies in this plan are designed to contribute to the population goals 

and objectives established in regionally, nationally, and internationally significant management plans, 

including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

Plan; Partners in Flight Plan; Shorebird Management Manual; Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem 

Plan; WTWR Conservation Plan; and other plans relevant to the Lower Mississippi River Valley. 

With adequate resources as outlined in Chapter V Plan Implementation, the Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 

GOAL 1 – WATERFOWL 

Provide a complex of managed wintering and migration habitats for waterfowl that support the 

population goals and objectives established in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 

Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan, and the WTWR Conservation Plan. 

Objective 1.1: On an annual basis, through the management of existing refuge lands and resources, 

as well as the acquisition from willing sellers, development, and management of additional lands 

identified in the current approved acquisition boundary, provide migration and wintering habitats to 

support 13.5 million duck-use days and 500,000 goose-use days based on a 110-day wintering 

period, in addition to year-round habitat for resident wood ducks. 
46 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Guidelines for minimum duck-use days were set by the use of a series of step-down plans, starting 

with population objectives developed in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. These 

values were stepped down to the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture, which in turn determined 

minimum foraging requirements that needed to be met to support the established goals of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan; and these foraging requirements were then allocated to each 

state within the Joint Venture. Within each state, coordination meetings were held to determine who 

could provide the needed habitat requirements, and where among management units and between 

public and private lands the needed habitat could best be provided. Taking into account sanctuary 

and foraging requirements, public land managers determined what potential existed on various 

managed lands to meet the state objectives. For Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, these potential 

objectives were adjusted based on multi-species duck life history requirements, goose life history 

requirements, and refuge purposes and capabilities. 

Strategy 1.1.1: Maintain the current core waterfowl management area (1,410 acres) as an inviolate 

sanctuary for waterfowl and other migratory birds where few, if any, disturbance factors are allowed 

during the critical winter period (November to March). 

Strategy 1.1.2: Manage 1,186 acres of moist soil/agricultural areas through water manipulation, as 

well as mechanical and chemical treatments, to provide quality moist soil habitat and high-energy 

food resources for waterfowl. 

Strategy 1.1.3: Manage refuge forests to increase the red oak component on suitable sites in the red 

oak and potential red oak management units to 60 percent of the basal area. 

Strategy 1.1.4: Continue reforestation efforts and establish red oak and other mast species on newly 

acquired lands that are not scheduled for water management development. 

Strategy 1.1.5: In cooperation with private, state, and federal partners, establish a contiguous block of 

forest within the approved acquisition boundary that contains 60,240 acres and connects to other 

conservation lands under the designated 100,000-acre MAV Bird Conservation Area. 

GOAL 2 – ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 

Protect, manage, and enhance refuge habitats in a manner that will sustain or increase species populations.

 

Objective 2.1: Enhance, restore, protect, and manage imperiled species’ habitat using appropriate 

conservation tools, including habitat management on 25,006 acres of existing refuge lands. 

Part of the Service’s mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, in compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Refuge resource 

management emphasizes the protection of threatened and endangered species and efforts to protect 

and manage these habitats will be conducted. 

Strategy 2.1.1: Provide habitat to support the recovery of the threatened bald eagle through approved 

land acquisitions and resource management actions. 

Strategy 2.1.2: Provide feeding sites on refuge lands for interior least terns and cooperate with 

other resource agencies in minimizing disturbance to nesting colonies on Mississippi River 

sandbars adjacent to the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Strategy 2.1.3: Provide technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource agencies 

concerning efforts to restore or enhance Mississippi River or tributary river habitats which may 

provide habitat requirements for pallid sturgeon. 

Strategy 2.1.4: Enhance, restore, protect, and manage imperiled species’ habitat using all 

available conservation tools, including habitat management on existing lands (federal, state, 

and private), conservation easements, partnership agreements, conservation agreements, and 

land acquisition from willing sellers. 

GOAL 3 – MIGRATORY LAND BIRDS 

Provide a complex of habitats which meet the breeding, migration, and wintering needs of the species 

of management concern as identified in the goals and objectives of the Partners in Flight Plan and 

the WTWR Conservation Plan. 

Objective 3.1: Through acquisition and management of up to 60,240 acres of refuge lands, provide 

sufficient habitat to support species of management concern, and work with partners toward the 

assemblage of a 100,000-acre block of forested land in west Tennessee within the next 15 years. 

To support the establishment of sustainable populations of priority forest interior-nesting migratory 

songbirds, Partners in Flight and their cooperating partners have mapped blocks of forest that could 

provide appropriate habitat. The MAV Migratory Bird Conservation Plan has identified 101 patches 

that, with varying amounts of reforestation, could provide forest patches of 10,000, 20,000, or 

100,000 acres. Resource professionals believe that forest patches in these categories are the 

minimum sizes suitable to support breeding populations of various neotropical songbirds. In some 

cases, even larger forest patches may be needed to support breeding neotropical songbird 

populations, where the shape and/or isolation of a particular forest patch may dictate the need for 

even larger forest acreage. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in one of only thirteen 

100,000-acre forest blocks designated by Partners in Flight within the Lower Mississippi River Alluvial 

Plain. According to Partners in Flight research, a typical 100,000-acre block contains 84,000 acres of 

core habitat capable of supporting the species most dependent upon large forest blocks, including 

swallow-tailed kites, red-shouldered hawks, broad-winged hawks, pileated woodpeckers, and 

Cooper’s hawks (Mueller et al., 1999). These large forest blocks also are expected to support other 

less area sensitive forest-nesting migrants as well. Figure 5 shows the Mid-Tennessee Bird 

Conservation Area, as designated by Partners in Flight. 

Strategy 3.1.1: In cooperation with private, local, state, and federal partners, establish a contiguous 

block of forest within the approved acquisition boundary that contains 60,240 acres and connects to 

other conservation lands under the designated 100,000-acre forest block. 

Strategy 3.1.2: Develop and maintain a diversity of bottomland forest structure through sound 

silvicultural management. 

Strategy 3.1.3: Manage upland forests to provide quality habitat for migratory birds. 

Strategy 3.1.4: Manage 51 acres of grasslands and 515 acres of savanna to provide quality habitat 

for migratory land birds. 
48 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

GOAL 4 – SHOREBIRDS AND WATERBIRDS 

Provide a complex of managed habitats for shorebirds and waterbirds during critical periods 

throughout the year to increase bird use on the refuge and develop a traditional use site. 

Objective 4.1: Provide a minimum of 100 acres of shorebird habitat during spring migration and 30 

acres during fall migration, and a minimum of 40 acres of waterbird habitat during summer in 

managed impounded wetlands within three years of the plan’s approval. 

Shorebirds annually migrate through the Lower Mississippi River Valley (LMRV) from the 

southernmost parts of South America to the northernmost parts of North America. Foraging habitat 

(mudflats and shallow water areas) objectives were recommended for fall migrating shorebirds by the 

U.S. Shorebird Working Group and a smaller group of shorebird experts working in the LMRV (Elliott 

et al. 2000). These ecosystem objectives were then stepped down to private and public lands. 

Foraging habitat is not considered limiting during the spring migration, when river stages are typically 

falling and mudflats are common throughout the LMRV, but can be critical in the fall due to the lack of 

available sheet water along the Mississippi Flyway. The WTWR Conservation Plan identified 30 

acres of fall shorebird habitat for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 

Strategy 4.1.1: Time drawdowns of impounded wetlands to provide a minimum of 100 acres of 

shallowly flooded mudflat habitats with less than 25 percent vegetative cover and varying water levels 

(up to 8 inches in depth) to support shorebirds during spring migration (March to early June). 

Strategy 4.1.2: Provide a minimum of 30 acres of shallowly flooded mudflat habitats with less than 25 

percent vegetative cover and varying water levels (up to 8 inches in depth) during fall migration (late 

June to October). 

Strategy 4.1.3: Identify a minimum of 20 acres of impounded wetlands in management unit 8 to 

provide shallow-water feeding areas for wading birds and marsh birds during summer. 

Strategy 4.1.4: Provide a minimum of 20 acres of emergent marsh habitat. 

GOAL 5 – AQUATIC RESOURCES 

Maintain or improve aquatic habitat quantity, quality, and diversity to sustain or increase population 

levels of aquatic resources on the refuge in accordance with the WTWR Conservation Plan and other 

Service aquatic resource plans. 

Objective 5.1: Conserve, restore, and manage 966 acres of open-water wetlands (lakes, sloughs, 

side channels, etc.) and 20,293 acres of seasonally flooded bottomland hardwood forest to provide 

resting, foraging, and breeding habitats for resident and migratory wetland-dependent wildlife 

species, including native fish and invertebrates; and provide opportunities for recreational harvest of 

selected fish species on the refuge. 

Most of the refuge lies within the floodplain of the Mississippi River, in conjunction with two of its 

tributaries, the Obion River and the Middle Fork of the Forked Deer River, which regularly flow 

through the refuge when the rivers reach flood stage. The dynamic nature of this flooding regime and 

the associated wetland habitats provide diverse and renewable resources within the numerous 

aquatic features on the refuge. The creeks, sloughs, oxbows, lakes, and chutes within the project 

areas support a diversity of game and nongame fishes. When flooding occurs in the spring, these 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

areas provide good nurseries for juvenile fish, as well as breeding areas for frogs and toads, and 

feeding areas for reptiles. Through conservation, restoration, and management of lands and aquatic 

resources on the refuge, critical habitats are made available for resting, foraging, and breeding for 

resident and migratory wetland-dependent species as well as aquatic wildlife species. 

Strategy 5.1.1: Restore and maintain natural secondary channels, oxbows, natural banks, sloughs, 

and backwater areas that connect to the Mississippi, Forked Deer, and Obion rivers on the refuge. 

Strategy 5.1.2: Improve water quality and reduce annual flood damage by restoring floodplain 

hydrology on newly acquired lands where agricultural drainage is no longer needed. 

Strategy 5.1.3: Promote the enhancement and protection of riparian corridors. 

Strategy 5.1.4: Manage for sustainable harvest of recreational fish species. 

GOAL 6 – RESIDENT WILDLIFE 

Provide a complex of habitats suitable for a wide range of resident (endemic) wildlife species, 

including mammalian, avian, amphibian, and reptilian species, while achieving habitat management 

objectives and biological integrity with other native flora and fauna. 

Objective 6.1: Conserve, restore, and manage up to 25,006 acres of refuge lands to support resident 

wildlife species and population levels identified in the WTWR Conservation Plan. 

In keeping with refuge management objectives and establishing purposes, sound biological principles 

are used in the assessment of, and when feasible, management for resident species. In some 

resident species groups, little specifically targeted resource management is performed other than 

monitoring, protection, and awareness of any species of special concern that may exist on the refuge. 

However, management for priority habitat conditions often results in good management for a host of 

resident species. Resident game species lend themselves to active management in the form of hunt 

management, check station information collection, and biological assessment of harvested 

individuals. Targeted management efforts directed at resident species focus on maintaining viable 

populations rather than favoring certain species, age classes, or sexes. 

Strategy 6.1.1: Manage resident wildlife populations to achieve habitat management objectives and 

biological integrity with other priority species and species groups. 

GOAL 7 – PUBLIC USE 

Enhance public use of the refuge through development of an appropriate and compatible program of 

wildlife-dependent recreation and education/interpretation that is consistent with the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, benefiting visitors and promoting an understanding of the Lower 

Mississippi River Valley ecosystem. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies six high priority, wildlifedependent public use activities for national wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Fundamental to the provision 

of these uses are viable and diverse fish and wildlife populations and the habitats upon which they 

depend. These priority uses, along with all other proposed uses, must be compatible with the 

refuge’s establishing purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and will 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. 
50 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

If determined appropriate, recreation fees and concessions are tools available to assist in managing 

these uses. Refuge management will permit other uses only when it has been determined that they 

are legally mandated, provide benefits to the Service, occur due to special circumstances, or facilitate 

one of the priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. See 605 FW 1, General Guidance, and 603 

FW1, Appropriate Refuge Uses. 

Objective 7.1: Manage up to 25,006 acres of refuge lands to provide compatible opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent public use activities, including the six designated as high priority for national 

wildlife refuges: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

Strategy 7.1.1: Provide appropriate and compatible fishing opportunities at Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge, consistent with sound biological principles, by maintaining existing access and 

facilities, and by evaluating refuge resources for possible additional fishing opportunities. 

Strategy 7.1.2: Provide appropriate and compatible hunting opportunities at Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge by maintaining existing access and facilities and by evaluating refuge resources for 

possible additional hunting opportunities and access. 

Strategy 7.1.3: Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities at Chickasaw NWR by maintaining existing access and facilities and by evaluating 

refuge resources for additional opportunities and facilities. 

Strategy 7.1.4: Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible environmental education and 

interpretation programs at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge by maintaining existing programs and 

facilities and by evaluating opportunities for additional programs and resources. 

Strategy 7.1.5: Develop an effective program of public outreach and awareness that provides an 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge and the Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem, the 

refuge’s ecology, and the human influence on ecosystems of west Tennessee. 

Strategy 7.1.6: Examine existing methods of orienting visitors to the refuge, and develop more 

effective methods and facilities to accomplish refuge information dissemination and visitor orientation. 

Strategy 7.1.7: Evaluate and improve existing partnerships, and pursue opportunities for refuge 

support groups and other partnerships, including a refuge volunteer program. 

GOAL 8 – ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION 

Ensure that present and future operational, administrative, and personnel objectives are achieved in 

order that goals and objectives for refuge habitats, fish and wildlife populations, land conservation, 

and visitor services will be achieved. 

The administrative and operational functions associated with a refuge include a wide array of activities 

that are critical to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purpose of each refuge. 

These functions include staffing, training, budgeting, planning, refuge access, law enforcement, facilities, 

community relations, partnering, and maintenance. Refuges must have appropriate staff, facilities, 

equipment, and resources in order to accomplish their overall goals and objectives. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Office space is needed at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge for staff in five existing positions, 

including a refuge operations specialist, a forester, a forestry technician, a maintenance worker, and 

an engineering equipment operator. In addition, six new positions are proposed, including a 

secretary, two maintenance workers, a refuge manager, a forester, and a law enforcement position. 

Extra space is also needed for occasional refuge workers, including other law enforcement 

personnel, interns, or volunteers. The current office is located in a single-wide trailer with limited 

office space available for only three personnel. Existing maintenance facilities include an enclosed 

shop and storage barn, and two open pole barns. 

Objective 8.1: Provide adequate facilities, personnel, training, and equipment necessary to 

accomplish a comprehensive refuge management program, as proposed in this plan, by 2009. 

Strategy 8.1.1: Develop appropriate maintenance facilities and a new small office/visitor center, to 

ensure safe and efficient refuge operations, by 2007. 

Strategy 8.1.2: Develop staff resources, including personnel, equipment, and training, adequate to 

accomplish a comprehensive refuge management program, as proposed in this plan. 

Strategy 8.1.3: Maintain highly trained and effective law enforcement personnel to ensure trust 

resource protection, visitor safety, and enforcement of all refuge-related acts and regulations. 

GOAL 9 – LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Conserve natural and cultural resources through partnerships, protection, and land acquisition. 

To further conserve and protect natural and cultural resources on and in the vicinity of the refuge, the 

refuge staff would seek to develop and enhance partnerships with state and county natural resource 

agencies, conservation organizations, and neighboring landowners, and to protect additional lands 

and resources. Among critical issues to be addressed are water quality, erosion and sedimentation, 

and cultural resource protection. With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the federal 

government recognized the importance of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to 

protect archaeological sites and historic structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by 

the United States. The Service would work toward improving resource protection through offering 

technical advice, evaluating potential land acquisition opportunities from willing sellers, and identifying 

and protecting cultural and historic resources on refuge lands. 

 

Objective 9.1: Through land acquisitions from willing sellers, technical assistance to private 

landowners, and protection of cultural resources, protect the remaining 35,234 acres within the 

refuge’s approved acquisition boundary, as well as neighboring lands which have potential to 

significantly impact the refuge’s natural and cultural resources. 

Strategy 9.1.1: By 2008, work with the realty specialist to update address and contact lists for all 

inholders and make inquiries concerning their willingness to sell identified properties. 

Strategy 9.1.2: Work with partner conservation organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The 

Conservation Fund, Trust for Public Land, and others to acquire land for the refuge. 

Strategy 9.1.3: Acquire the remainder of the land within the 35,234-acre approved acquisition 

boundary as funding and willing sellers become available. 
52 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategy 9.1.4: Work with private landowners through the Partners for Wildlife program to improve 

wildlife habitat and reduce sedimentation and contaminants problems that affect the refuge. 

Strategy 9.1.5: Protect cultural and historic resources from disturbance or inadvertent damage that 

could occur as a result of refuge activities. 

Strategy 9.1.6: By 2008, assess the feasibility of conducting a refuge-wide archaeological survey. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

V. Plan Implementation 

BACKGROUND 

Refuge lands are managed under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, sound biological principles, and current research. Congress has 

distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges, which, 

unlike other public lands, are dedicated primarily to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and wildlife 

resources. Recreational values are accommodated where appropriate and compatible with the 

Congressional mandate of wildlife first. Priority projects emphasize the protection and enhancement 

of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but consideration is given to balancing the needs and 

demands for recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this plan for Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge, this chapter identifies the proposed projects, a cost summary for those 

proposed projects, resource needs, step-down management plans, partnership opportunities, a 

monitoring and evaluation plan, and a plan for review and revision of the plan. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

The following proposed projects describe the basic needs that have been identified by Service staff, 

the public, and planning team members for the management of fish and wildlife populations, habitats, 

visitor services and environmental education, refuge administration and operation, and land 

protection and conservation on the refuge over the next 15 years. 

For the purposes of achieving the goals and objectives developed for the refuge, the plan has 

grouped management strategies into specific projects. This plan describes 11 potential projects for 

development and management. Some of these projects include several different components, such 

as pieces of heavy construction equipment or staff positions, which would be needed to accomplish a 

particular project. Also, private lands have been identified for potential acquisition from willing sellers 

or possible enrollment in conservation programs offered by the Service or other partnering agencies. 

A cost summary of projects proposed for the refuge is provided in Table 1. These figures would be 

specifically updated and adjusted annually. There are no estimates of the cost of potential land 

purchases, because land values vary with the time of the sale and market value at the time of 

purchase. There are no assurances that these projects will be either fully or partially implemented. 

However, with the help and cooperation of conservation partners, the Service would use this plan to 

focus attention on achieving the management, operation, and maintenance needs of the refuge. 

The following proposed projects are categorized under four management categories: Fish and 

Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management; Visitor Services and Environmental Education; Refuge 

Administration and Operation; and Land Protection and Conservation. Each project description 

includes first-year costs, recurring annual costs (if any), and linkages of the proposed project to the 

specific goals and objectives developed during the course of the comprehensive planning process. 
54 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 

PROJECT CATEGORY 1: FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project 1: Waterfowl Sanctuary/Moist Soil and Agriculture Impoundment System. 

Man-made hydrological alterations have all but eliminated the natural flooding regimes that once 

supported historical numbers of waterfowl and shorebirds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge is located in one of the few remaining unleveed portions of the Mississippi River 

floodplain. Much of the refuge is inundated annually by seasonal flooding from the Forked Deer, Obion, 

and Mississippi rivers. However, a managed system of levees, water control structures, and wells is 

critical to not only meet the needs of migratory birds, but also to provide dependable flooded habitats that 

correspond with the migration chronologies of migratory birds. The timing of water releases from this 

system is also important to the production of desirable moist soil plants and control of undesirable plants. 

The refuge’s 1,186-acre moist soil and agricultural impoundment system is in need of additional resources 

and equipment for proper restoration, management, and operation, as well as expansion of the system. 

This system is used by 150,000 wintering waterfowl and 10,000 shorebirds annually. Numerous wetlanddependent species would benefit from this project. The improved impoundments would also provide 

additional feeding habitat for the bald eagles that migrate through or spend the winter on the refuge. This 

activity would also benefit resident wildlife, and would increase public education for the approximately 

100,000 annual visitors to the refuge. 

Project 1A: Expand Moist Soil Impoundment System. Improve the planned expansion and 

management of the 1,186-acre moist soil and agriculture impoundment system through the 

construction of 50,000 linear feet of additional low-level levees on the Chickasaw Refuge. Gravel, 

seed, water control structures, and fuel will be provided to enable this project. Effective water 

management (the ability to move water on and off the units), which is absolutely critical for proper 

system function, will be greatly enhanced by this project. Numerous wetland-dependent species, 

especially as many as a quarter-million mallard ducks that have historically used the refuge in one of 

the greatest concentrations in the Mississippi Flyway, will be benefited by this project. The improved 

impoundments will also provide additional feeding habitat for the large bald eagle populations that 

migrate through or spend the winter on the refuge. The estimated first-year cost is $111,000, with a 

recurring annual cost of $10,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1.) 

Project 1B: Farm 200 Additional Acres. Initiate farming activities on 200 additional acres to improve 

degraded wildlife habitats on the Chickasaw Refuge. Up to 150,000 migrating waterfowl, as well as 

endangered species and other wildlife, will benefit from this project. The 25,006 acres of Chickasaw 

Refuge, which represent the largest tract of bottomland hardwood forest in the State of Tennessee, 

are located within 50 miles of one million people. This project will greatly increase wildlife-viewing 

and other wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities. The estimated first-year cost is $167,000, with 

no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 6.1, 7.1.) 

Project 1C: Full-time Secretary Position (1 FTE). This position would support the additional 

administrative workload associated with expanded fish and wildlife populations and habitat 

management on the refuge. Up to 150,000 migrating waterfowl, as well as endangered species and 

other wildlife, will benefit from this project. The 25,006 acres of Chickasaw Refuge, which represent 

the largest tract of bottomland hardwood forest in the State of Tennessee, are located within 50 miles 

of one million people. This project will greatly increase wildlife-viewing and other wildlife-oriented 

recreational opportunities. The estimated first-year cost is $114,000, with a recurring annual cost of 

$49,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Project 1D: Maintenance Worker Position (1 FTE). Provide for a maintenance worker to enhance and 

maintain public facilities and habitat improvement projects at the Chickasaw Refuge, which has historically 

been an important wintering and stopover area for a large portion of the Mississippi Flyway mallard 

population, attracting as many as 150,000 ducks each year. The refuge also provides valuable bald 

eagle wintering grounds, as well as year-round habitat for numerous declining species dependent upon 

forested wetlands. Public visitation has increased in conjunction with urban growth, as one million people 

live within 50 miles of the refuge. However, lack of resources at this 25,006-acre refuge has resulted in 

many habitat management projects and facilities maintenance projects not getting completed. This 

project will enable refuge management to provide services and management activities beneficial to wildlife 

and expected by the public. The estimated first-year cost is $119,000, with a recurring annual cost of 

$54,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1E: Gravel Levee System in Waterfowl Impoundment. The levee system within the 

waterfowl/shorebird sanctuary on the refuge has not been graveled. In addition, many of the roads 

on newly acquired tracts are partially graveled but mostly inaccessible to the public for recreational 

activities. The levee system and newly acquired roads will be graveled to provide access for 

water/wildlife management, farming, and visitor use. A motor grader is needed to maintain the levees 

and gravel roads. Waterfowl and shorebird use will increase, visitor use will increase, and 

maintenance and safety liabilities will be eliminated. The estimated first-year cost is $235,000, with a 

recurring annual cost of $5,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1.) 

Project 1F: Rehabilitation of Water Management System in Moist Soil Impoundments. Rehabilitate four 

low-level levees and ditches used to deliver and maintain water in four impoundments in the waterfowl 

and shorebird sanctuary used by 150,000 ducks and 10,000 shorebirds annually. The levees and ditches 

associated with impoundments encompassing 1,186 acres of moist-soil and agricultural habitats are 

becoming overgrown with invasive species, including willows and buttonbush, limiting their ability to 

deliver and maintain water in the impoundments. The ability to control water levels throughout the year is 

critical to maintaining high quality moist-soil habitat. Without rehabilitation, this habitat will become 

undesirable to waterfowl and shorebirds. Approximately 4 miles of levees and 2 miles of ditches need to 

be rehabilitated to enable efficient water level management in the impoundment system. This will allow 

the staff to provide higher quality habitat by maintaining more natural moist-soil plants and fewer noxious 

and invasive species. Rehabilitation of the levees will also enable the staff to perform more reliable 

surveys of wildlife populations using the sanctuary. The estimated first-year cost is $97,000, with no 

recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1.) 

Project 1G: Replace Crawler Tractor. Replace dilapidated 1967 D-7 crawler tractor. Repairs have 

become excessive and the engine needs to be overhauled. Parts are difficult to find and it is hard to 

find anyone who will work on it, due to the age of the machine. The tractor is required for 

management of a 1,186-acre moist soil impoundment system used by 150,000 ducks and 10,000 

shorebirds, and for forest management. The machine would be fitted with a shearing blade to assist 

with forest management activities. The estimated first-year cost is $366,000, with no recurring annual 

cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1H: Replace Dump Truck. Replace 1972 dump truck. The brakes and electrical systems on 

the truck are not working so the truck is currently unusable. The truck is military surplus and parts are 

difficult or impossible to find. Replacing the truck is critical to most aspects of management on the 

refuge. The truck is necessary for the construction and maintenance of more than 12 miles of levees 

in the moist soil area to provide preferred habitat for the 150,000 ducks and 10,000 shorebirds that 

use the area. The truck is also essential for the upkeep of 10 miles of refuge roads and 4 parking 

areas used by 100,000 visitors annually. The estimated first-year cost is $164,000, with no recurring 

annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 
56 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 1I: Replace 4-wheel Drive Tractor. Replace 1993 four-wheel drive tractor used for many 

aspects of resource management on the refuge. The tractor is required for mowing, disking, and 

spraying in the 1,186-acre waterfowl/shorebird sanctuary, as well as on refuge roads and in parking 

areas. Efficient control of invasive plants in the moist-soil impoundments is essential to maintaining 

preferred habitat for thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds that use the area. The tractor is also 

used to prepare areas for new levees. The estimated first-year cost is $90,000, with no recurring 

annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1J: Replace Backhoe. Replace John Deere 710D backhoe used for many maintenance 

activities on the refuge. A backhoe is required to maintain water control structures to effectively 

manage the 1,186-acre waterfowl/shorebird sanctuary used by 150,000 ducks and 10,000 shorebirds 

annually. The backhoe is also used to maintain the gravel parking lots and roads used by 100,000 

visitors and staff. The estimated first-year cost is $126,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: 

Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1K: Replace Excavator. Replace excavator used for management of moist-soil 

impoundments and forest management activities. An excavator is required to maintain ditches and 

water control structures in the 1,186-acre moist soil impoundment system used by 150,000 ducks and 

10,000 shorebirds. It is also used to rehabilitate areas overgrown with willows, cottonwoods, and 

maples. The estimated first-year cost is $211,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: 

Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1L: Replace Disk. Replace Krause 23-foot disk used for force-account farming to provide hot 

foods for waterfowl. Farming is a management tool that provides hot foods for waterfowl and sets 

back succession to promote good moist-soil habitat the following year. The production of hot foods is 

critical to sustain the 150,000 waterfowl that use the refuge during migration and over winter. The 

estimated first-year cost is $20,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 

4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1M: Replace Corn Planter. Replace John Deere corn planter used for force-account farming 

to provide hot foods for waterfowl. Farming is a management tool that provides hot foods for 

waterfowl and sets back succession to promote good moist-soil habitat the following year. The 

production of hot foods is critical to sustain the 150,000 waterfowl that use the refuge during 

migration and over winter. The estimated first-year cost is $15,000, with no recurring annual cost. 

(Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 1N: Replace Dirt Pan. Replace 2001 dirt pan used to build and maintain levees. The ability 

to control water levels is critical to the management of moist-soil habitat in the waterfowl/shorebird 

sanctuary. The sanctuary provides habitat for more than 150,000 waterfowl and 10,000 shorebirds 

that migrate and winter in the area annually. The estimated first-year cost is $10,000, with no 

recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 2: Wetland Restoration. 

With the approved refuge expansion of 35,234 additional acres, the refuge is in need of 

restoration of over 4,000 acres of wetlands, including the restoration of hydrology, as well as the 

reforestation of large tracts of wetlands to bottomland hardwoods. As many as 2,000 acres of 

new moist soil areas would be designed and developed. Hunting and fishing opportunities would 

increase by an estimated 50 percent and wildlife viewing and other wildlife-compatible recreation 

would also increase significantly. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Project 2A: Refuge Manager Position (1 FTE). Provide a refuge manager at Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge to ensure effective habitat management and coordinate appropriate wildlife-oriented 

recreation. With no on-site management guidance and with five essential staff positions vacant, the 

challenges of pressing habitat and public use management issues overwhelm off-site managers, who 

have other refuges and responsibilities. This position will focus extensively on the restoration of 

thousands of acres of degraded wetlands such as with the Forked Deer Watershed where natural 

flows are impacted by private properties maintaining unnaturally high water levels nearby. One 

million people live within 50 miles of this refuge, the largest tract of bottomland hardwood forest in the 

State of Tennessee. Greater partnership building and habitat restoration activities, as well as 

improved public use programs and daily refuge operations, will result from this project. The estimated 

first-year cost is $128,000, with a recurring annual cost of $63,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 

3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 

Project 2B: Maintenance Position (1 FTE). A maintenance position is needed to assist the complex 

forester in conducting timber stand improvement projects on the refuge and to assist in reforestation 

programs on the refuge, as well as on the Lower Hatchie, Reelfoot, and Lake Isom refuges. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $119,000,, with a recurring annual cost of $54,000. 

(Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 2C: Restoration of 1,000 Acres Bottomland Hardwoods Annually. Restoration of bottomland 

hardwood habitat is fundamental to the mission of Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Reforestation 

of wetlands cleared for agricultural purposes will be accomplished by planting seedlings. Timber 

stand improvement and beaver control will be used to support the refuge’s forest management 

objectives in forested areas. Most of the land was owned by a timber company prior to acquisition; 

and management practices on the area focused on keeping the company’s sawmills supplied with 

lumber, resulting in poor habitat for most wildlife species. Without treatment, the oak regeneration will 

continue to decline. Approximately 1,000 acres will be restored annually, with the goal of creating a 

species composition favoring red oak. The estimated first-year cost is $80,000, with a recurring 

annual cost of $10,000. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1.) 

Project 3: Forest Habitat Restoration and Management. 

Prior to European settlement, the Lower Mississippi River Valley contained over 20 million acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest that supported a wide variety of wildlife species. Today, over 80 percent 

of the original forest has been lost to land clearing for agriculture, transportation, industrialization, and 

urbanization. The remaining 4.8 million acres of bottomland hardwoods lie in numerous isolated 

islands that are often surrounded by a sea of agriculture. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is part 

of a forest complex that comprises one of the largest remaining contiguous blocks of bottomland 

hardwood forest in the state. In addition, pre-refuge land management included a high-grading of 

marketable timber, resulting in poor habitat for all wildlife species. 

Reforestation of selected open lands on the refuge and on other nonforested lands surrounding the 

refuge would contribute to regional and national objectives for forest-dwelling birds, as well as 

numerous resident species. Reforested areas would be monitored for seedling survival and growth. 

The complex would be conducting reforestation of wetlands (seedling and acorn planting), timber 

stand improvement, and beaver control to support the objectives of the West Tennessee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, as well as regional and national objectives. 

Project 3A: Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement. With this project, approximately 700 acres 

would be restored annually with the goal of restoring a strong red oak component in the refuge’s forests. 

The project would include timber stand improvements on over 10,000 acres within the complex. Through 
58 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

recent boundary expansions, an additional 20,000 acres of wetlands could be reforested over the next 10 

years. This is a joint project between Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie national wildlife refuges. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $138,000, with a recurring cost of $128,000 per year, to be 

shared between the two refuges. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 7.1.) 

Project 3B: Forester Position (1 FTE). A forest habitat inventory is necessary for effective 

management of the refuge’s 25,006 acres, as well as additional lands which may be acquired within 

the 35,234-acre approved acquisition boundary. This project calls for a comprehensive forest 

inventory and would require an additional forester position, vehicle, and all-terrain vehicle (ATV). In 

addition, aerial photos, a computer, and related software are needed to acquire, analyze, and 

maintain the data. This information is indispensable in the preparation and maintenance of the 

habitat management plan. This position would also support forest management efforts on nearby 

Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuge. The estimated first-year cost is $118,000, with a recurring 

annual cost of $53,000. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 3C: Replace Ford Explorer. Replace worn-out 1994 Ford Explorer used in forest 

management on three refuges. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to repair the front end 

of this vehicle, which causes it to shake when driven. Forest management activities frequently 

require the staff to travel long distances, and reliable transportation is vital. This vehicle is essential 

to ensure the forested habitat on all refuges is managed to meet the needs of the 820,000 waterfowl, 

other migratory birds, and resident wildlife, as well as the 100,000 visitors that use the refuges in the 

complex annually. The estimated first-year cost is $38,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: 

Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 4: Fire Management. 

The new Native Warm Season Grasses Restoration project would require regular prescribed burns. 

Prior to this project, prescribed burns were not used on the complex. Therefore, equipment is 

needed to restore this critical ecosystem function that benefits myriad wildlife species. 

Project 4A: Replace Slip-on Fire Pumper. A 20-year-old fire pumper is used in battling wildfires 

throughout the complex. It is the first line of defense used by station personnel to protect 30,000 acres of 

habitat and facilities on the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie refuges. These lands and facilities are crucial 

for the public use programs on the refuges, and their loss would affect more than 100,000 annual visitors. 

Additionally, the manufacturer of the current pumper is no longer in business and parts are no longer 

available. Breakdowns are frequent and fabricating parts is costly. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $8,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objective 2.1, 3.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 5: Nuisance Plant Control. 

There are three main noxious and/or invasive plants that occur on the complex: a hybrid cocklebur, 

hemp sesbania, and kudzu. All three are fast-growing and all outcompete native vegetation, in some 

cases killing the native species. This area has become home to a hybrid cocklebur that is resistant to 

flooding and wet soil conditions. The species is prolific and will outcompete native moist soil 

vegetation. Hemp sesbania also invades the moist soil units and will outcompete the moist soil 

vegetation. Kudzu resides in the upland habitat and is common along refuge boundaries and 

drainages. Kudzu is an aggressive vine that can grow up to 60 feet per year and will eventually 

outcompete all native vegetation. It will even cover trees, denying them sunlight. 

Project 5A: Eradicate Invasive Plants through Chemical and Mechanical Means. This project calls for 

control of approximately 200 acres of moist soil units through chemical treatment and mechanical 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

means. Kudzu infestations would be treated with chemicals. This is a complex-wide project. The 

estimated first-year cost is $49,000, with a recurring annual cost of $15,000 per year, to be shared 

among the four refuges. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 3.1, 4.1, 6.1) 

PROJECT CATEGORY 2: VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 

Project 6: Rehabilitation of Roads, Boat Ramps, and Parking Areas. 

Poor access roads severely hamper public opportunities to visit and enjoy Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge. As many as 100,000 annual visitors come to the refuge to view over 200 species 

of birds, including more than 150,000 migrating ducks and geese and 10,000 shorebirds. 

Currently, several refuge roads, boat ramps, and parking areas are in poor condition as a result 

of Mississippi River floodwaters. These roads have little gravel and poor drainage makes them 

impassable at times to all but four-wheel-drive vehicles during wet weather. This project would 

reconstruct these roads to minimum public use standards by raising the road beds, adding 

drainage culverts, and surfacing with gravel. 

Project 6A: Rehabilitate Camp Slough Road. Years of weathering and daily use have rutted the 

road, making it impassable in some areas. This road leads from a public gravel road to Camp 

Slough, a popular fishing area, and serves as a hiking trail for many of the 100,000 annual 

visitors to the refuge. This road is also vital for daily refuge operations, including resource 

protection and habitat management. The estimated first-year cost is $53,000, with no recurring 

annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6B: Rehabilitate Dry Arm Road. This road serves as a hiking trail for many of the refuge’s 

100,000 annual visitors, and has become overgrown and rutted from years of use. From this 

road, visitors have the opportunity to view over 200 species of birds. This road provides access 

to a popular fishing area and is critical for forest management activities. This road is vital for 

refuge staff working to meet resource protection and habitat management objectives. This road 

is needed to provide access for forest management activities on 3,000 acres. Beaver damage 

can be high in this area and access is vital to prevent habitat loss. This road also provides 

access for staff to perform eagle wintering and nesting surveys. The estimated first-year cost is 

$161,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6C: Rehabilitate Parking Area at Wardlow's Chute Boat Ramp, FHA Route Number 901. This 

area provides access for many of the 100,000 annual visitors for recreational fishing and hunting on 

the refuge and the Mississippi River, and has become overgrown and rutted from years of heavy use. 

Flooding of the area washes out the gravel parking area, creating deep ruts. Flooding also deposits 

silt, logs, and trash, making the area inaccessible. The estimated first-year cost is $113,000, with no 

recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6D: Rehabilitate Ed Jones Road and Parking Area. This road and parking area provide 

access for many of the 100,000 annual visitors to the Mississippi River for recreational purposes, 

including boat launching. Potholes require filling and the eroded gravel needs replacing. 

Flooding washes away the gravel, creating deep ruts; and deposits silt and trash, making the 

road impassable. Ed Jones Road is FHA Route Number 100, Section 1. The parking area is 

FHA Route Number 900. The estimated first-year cost is $268,000, with no recurring annual 

cost. (Linkages: Objectives 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6E: Rehabilitate Loop Road, FHA Route Number 101, Section 1. The current substrate 

has become impassable and is inadequate for vehicular traffic. This road provides access for 
60 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

many of the 100,000 annual visitors for hunting, fishing, and bird-watching. This road is the 

only access to approximately 7,500 acres for public recreation and habitat management. The 

estimated first-year cost is $1,900,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 

2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6F: Rehabilitate Rush Slough Road East, FHA Route Number 102, Section 1. This road 

provides access for many of the 100,000 annual visitors for public use activities, as well as refuge 

management. It has become worn-out and overgrown. The road is in need of repair because it has 

been eroded extensively and has developed potholes. Beaver activity in the area has created 

impassable areas on this road and threatens to kill large areas of trees. The estimated first-year cost 

is $1,118,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6G: Rehabilitate Camp Slough Road South, FHA Route Number 102, Section 1. This road 

has become overgrown and impassable. It is needed to provide access for refuge management and 

public use to 5,000 acres of the refuge. This is a popular hunting and fishing area used by many of 

the 100,000 visitors annually, with very little access currently. Access to this area for refuge staff is 

critical for resource management and law enforcement purposes. Private encroachment by ATVs 

has increased in recent years and beaver damage is high in this area. The estimated first-year cost 

is $1,957,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 6H: Rehabilitate Barr Road Parking Area, FHA Route Number 902. This area provides 

parking and access for many of the 100,000 visitors annually for hunting and fishing and has become 

washed-out and rutted from heavy use and flooding. Hunters and anglers use this area to access the 

Forked Deer River, Gar Pond, and approximately 5,000 acres of forested habitat. Flooding has 

eroded much of the gravel, creating deep potholes and muddy areas that have been rutted by 

vehicles. The estimated first-year cost is $210,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: 

Objectives 2.1, 3.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 7: Provide Increased Visitor Services at Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 

The refuge has more than 100,000 visits per year, a visitor contact station, and hunting and fishing 

programs. Improvements are needed to basic public use facilities, interpretation, and resource 

protection, and visitor services are needed to meet public expectations. Visitor information and safety 

would be enhanced. This project would help strengthen partnerships and outreach to visitors, local 

communities, school districts, and universities, and it would allow the refuge to meet its environmental 

education goals. With one million people within a one-hour drive of the refuge and the refuge actively 

acquiring lands, there is a great need for offices and a visitor contact station that would allow staff to 

effectively administrate refuge activities, as well as meet the needs of refuge visitors. 

Project 7A: Construct a Visitor Center/Education Center/Administration Office. The staff assigned to 

the 25,006-acre refuge has an office located in a trailer. It is small and does not provide the 

opportunity to fully develop or meet the refuge’s goals and objectives. The new office and visitor 

center will serve the Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie refuges as well as Sunk Lake Public Use Natural 

Area, which together cover more than 35,000 acres. The visitor center will include exhibits, site work, 

and exterior interpretive facilities. The building will incorporate the unified design approach being 

developed by the National Wildlife Refuge System and its engineering staffs. It is estimated that the 

cost of the Visitor Center will be $1.5 million and the cost of the office space will be $180,000, with a 

recurring annual cost of $15,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

PROJECT CATEGORY 3: REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATION 

Project 8: Replacement of Maintenance Equipment and Facility. 

It is essential that the refuge maintenance equipment remain in proper working condition for effective 

management of the 1,186 acres of moist soil/agricultural habitat and 20,293 acres of bottomland 

hardwood forest habitat on the refuge. This equipment is used for habitat projects that benefit more than 

150,000 migrating and wintering waterfowl and 10,000 shorebirds annually, as well as provide 

recreational opportunities for more than 100,000 annual visitors to the refuge. 

Project 8A: Replace 15-foot Batwing Mower. The mower is used to maintain the refuge’s roads, 

parking areas, levees, and moist soil impoundments, and is worn out. The mower is essential to 

maintaining the levee system to provide access for the staff to work in the impoundment system used 

by thousands of waterfowl and shorebirds. It is needed to help control invasive species such as 

willows and cocklebur. The mower is also used to provide access for 100,000 visitors annually on 

refuge roads. The estimated first-year cost is $16,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: 

Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 8B: Replace 4-wheel Drive Pickup. This Chevrolet pickup is used by the staff to maintain equipment 

in the field. The truck is required for refueling and maintaining equipment in the field. Field work often 

involves long distances from the maintenance shop and fuel tanks. There may be long delays in refueling 

and maintaining equipment if these tasks cannot be completed in the field. The estimated first-year cost is 

$22,000, with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

Project 8C: Replace Maintenance Facility. The current maintenance facility and storage shed is an old barn 

that does not meet Service policy or OSHA standards as mentioned in a recent environmental audit. The 

current maintenance facility has a leaking roof, electrical problems, plumbing problems, and rodent 

infestations. Security of the current facility is also a problem. Due to its proximity to a public road, there is 

no way to enclose it within the security fence of the compound. The estimated first-year cost is $757,000, 

with no recurring annual cost. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1.) 

PROJECT CATEGORY 4: LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Project 9: Law Enforcement. 

Increased law enforcement activities over the 30,000+ acres on the southern half of the West Tennessee 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex are needed to properly protect wildlife, habitats, and increasing numbers 

of visitors. Approximately one million people currently live within 50 miles of the refuges. The expansion of 

recreational uses has overwhelmed the present staff, with known violations going unenforced. Improved 

visitor safety and wildlife protection would be made possible by this project. As many as 150,000 ducks and 

numerous other wildlife species, including a growing population of bald eagles, depend on the refuges’ 

habitats, which represent some of the largest protected areas in the State of Tennessee. 

Project 9A: Replace Radio System. This project calls for replacement of the current low-band radio 

system in order to meet the new Service guidelines. The current radio system is inadequate and 

unreliable. The new high-band system would increase management efficiency over a 70-mile radius. 

The system would allow law enforcement personnel to be in continual contact with other law 

enforcement agencies and would also give other agencies the ability to contact Service personnel. 

This system would prove very beneficial in search and rescue operations. This is a complex-wide 

project. The total cost is $255,000, with a recurring annual cost of $5,000, to be shared among the 

four refuges in the complex. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 
62 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Project 9B: Full-time Law Enforcement (LE) Position (1 FTE) and LE Equipment. Increased law 

enforcement activities over the 30,000+ acres on the southern half of the West Tennessee National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex are needed to properly protect wildlife, habitats, and increasing numbers of 

visitors. Approximately one million people currently live within 50 miles of the refuges. The 

expansion of recreational uses has overwhelmed the present staff, with known violations going 

unenforced. Improved visitor safety and wildlife protection will be made possible by this project. As 

many as 150,000 ducks and numerous other wildlife species, including a growing population of bald 

eagles, depend on the refuges' habitats, which represent some of the largest protected areas in the 

State of Tennessee. The LE program would also be improved in safety and efficiency through the 

purchase of equipment including a safe, a shotgun, a vehicle, three public address/siren/directorstrobe systems, and three mobile radios. This is a complex-wide project. The total cost is $129,000, 

with a recurring annual cost of $65,000, to be shared among the four refuges in the complex. 

(Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 

Project 10: Expand Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge to include an Additional 35,234 acres. 

Much of the land within the refuge’s approved expansion boundary is currently farmed extensively due to 

the clearing of former bottomland hardwood habitat. Expansion of the refuge would preserve, protect, 

reestablish, and manage habitats for migratory birds and resident wildlife. Waterfowl and shorebirds will 

benefit from 2,000 acres of marginal cropland that will be restored and managed as moist soil habitat. 

Preservation and management of 9,072 additional acres of forest will provide critical habitat for migratory 

songbirds and resident wildlife. Reforestation of approximately 20,000 acres of marginal farmland back to 

bottomland hardwood forest is necessary to restore healthy ecosystem functions in the area. Restoration 

and management of these areas would require the following equipment: 100-hp tractor, 185-hp dozer, disk, 

planter, and sprayer with booms. The estimated first-year cost is $506,000, with a recurring annual cost of 

$74,000. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 

Project 11: Landscape Conservation Planning. 

National, regional, and state conservation objectives for waterfowl, shorebirds, and forest-breeding 

birds are being stepped down to guide the formulation of objectives for the refuge focus area. Hence, 

there is a need to integrate science-based monitoring and inventory data with restoration and habitat 

management efforts on the refuge and surrounding landscape. In west Tennessee, the planning 

effort would cover five refuges and is being expanded to include state and private lands that provide 

habitat for migratory birds. In the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, migratory bird habitat requirements have 

been developed. This information is being expanded to include areas in west Tennessee outside the 

MAV. Given these recommendations, it is clear that sufficient habitat cannot be provided on the 

national wildlife refuges alone. Therefore, if we are to achieve the habitat goals that have been 

established, we must look beyond the respective refuge boundaries and incorporate into the 

comprehensive conservation plan any public or private lands that may be available. The primary 

objective of this 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 west Tennessee habitats. This project calls for the comprehensive conservation 

planning effort to be completed by 2006. This is a complex-wide project. The total cost is $105,000, 

with a recurring annual cost of $100,000, to be shared among the four refuges in the complex. 

(Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

STAFFING AND FUNDING 

Currently, a staff of five permanent positions has been approved for the West Tennessee Refuge 

Complex. To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management and restoration projects and 

conduct the necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, more staff is needed. 

Figure 10 shows the proposed staffing plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and the West 

Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The proposed staffing increases would enable the 

refuge to achieve its plan objectives and strategies within the next 15 years. The initial project 

costs (including salaries and benefits) would total $11.7 million, with annual recurring costs of 

$0.7 million (Table 1). The rate at which this refuge realizes its full potential to contribute locally, 

regionally, and nationally to wildlife conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education is contingent upon receiving adequate resources. 

Table 1. Cost summary of proposed projects. 

Projects Initial* Project 

Cost 

Recurring** 

Base Cost 

Project Category 1: Fish and Wildlife Populations and Habitat Management

Project 1. Waterfowl Sanctuary 

1A. Expand Moist Soil Impoundment System $111,000 $10,000 

1B. Farm 200 Additional Acres $167,000 ---- 

1C. Full-time Secretary Position (1 FTE)*** $114,000 $49,000 

1D. Maintenance Worker Position (1 FTE)*** $119,000 $54,000 

1E. Gravel Levee System $235,000 $5,000 

1F. Rehabilitate Water Management System $97,000 ----- 

1G. Replace Crawler Tractor $366,000 ----- 

1H. Replace Dump Truck $164,000 ----- 

1I. Replace 4-wheel Drive Tractor $90,000 ----- 

1J. Replace Backhoe $126,000 ----- 

1K. Replace Excavator $211,000 ----- 

1L. Replace Disk $20,000 ----- 

1M. Replace Corn Planter $15,000 ----- 

1N. Replace Dirt Pan $10,000 ----- 

Project 2. Wetland Restoration 

2A. Refuge Manager Position (1 FTE)*** $128,000 $63,000 

2B. Maintenance Worker Position (1 FTE)*** $119,000 $54,000 

2C. Restore 1000 Acres of Bottomland Forest Annually $80,000 $10,000 
64 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Projects Initial* Project 

Cost 

Recurring** 

Base Cost 

Project 3. Forest Habitat Restoration and Management 

3A. Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement $138,000 $128,000 

3B. Forester Position (1 FTE)*** $118,000 $53,000 

3C. Replace Ford Explorer $38,000 ----- 

Project 4. Fire Management 

4A. Replace Fire Pumper $8,000 ----- 

Project 5. Nuisance Plant Control 

5A. Eradicate Invasive Plants $49,000 $15,000 

Project Category 2: Visitor Services and Environmental Education

Project 6. Rehabilitation of Roads, Boat Ramps, and Parking Areas 

6A. Rehabilitate Camp Slough Road $53,000  ----- 

6B. Rehabilitate Dry Arm Road $161,000** ** ----- 

6C. Rehabilitate Wardlow’s Chute Parking Area $113,000  ----- 

6D. Rehabilitate Ed Jones Road and Parking Area $268,000** ** ----- 

6E. Rehabilitate Loop Road $1,900,000  ----- 

6F. Rehabilitate Rush Slough Road East $1,118,000** ** ----- 

6G. Rehabilitate Camp Slough Road South $1,957,000  ----- 

6H. Rehabilitate Barr Road Parking Area $210,000** ** ----- 

Project 7. Provide Increased Visitor Services 

7A. Construct Visitor Center/Office $1,680,000 $15,000

Project Category 3: Refuge Administration and Operation

Project 8. Replace Maintenance Equipment and Facility 

8A. Replace Mower $16,000 ----- 

8B. Replace 4-wheel Drive Pickup $22,000 ---- 

8C. Replace Maintenance Facility $757,000 ----- 

 Project Category 4: Land Protection and Conservation 

Project 9. Law Enforcement 

9A. Replace Radio System $255,000 $5,000 

9B. Full-time LE Position and Equipment (1 FTE)*** $129,000 $65,000 

Project 10. Expand Chickasaw NWR by 35,234 Acres $506,000 $74,000 

Project 11. Landscape Conservation Planning $105,000 $100,000 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Projects Initial* Project 

Cost 

Recurring** 

Base Cost 

Grand Total $11,773,000 $700,000 

* The Initial Project Cost is the projected sum for getting the project started the first year. 

** The Recurring Base Cost is the amount that would be incurred each year thereafter to continue the project. 

*** A total of 6 new FTE positions are included in the proposed projects under this plan. 

**** All or part of funds would come from TEA-21 Refuge Roads funds.

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

This comprehensive conservation plan is a broad-scale strategic plan that guides the future direction 

of the refuge. In order for these strategies and projects to be implemented, detailed step-down 

management plans need to be prepared or updated. 

Step-down plans are individual and specific plans that guide the management of particular resources on 

the refuge. These step-down plans outline proposed actions as well as the benefits and potential impacts 

of the proposed actions. Some step-down plans would be revised as a result of the planning process, 

while others would be more fully developed to better address the refuge’s management needs. To assist 

in preparing and implementing the step-down plans, the refuge staff develops partnerships with local 

agencies and organizations, which provide comments and input during the development of the plans. 

The Service prepares step-down plans in accordance with the provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Act requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives 

and public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 

The step-down plans that are currently being prepared or updated for Chickasaw National Wildlife 

Refuge are listed below. 

Habitat Management Plan (new plan), completion 2005: This plan will describe the overall desired future 

habitat conditions needed to fulfill the refuge's purpose, goals, and objectives. Procedures, techniques, and 

timetables for achieving the desired future conditions will be developed into a comprehensive plan for 

management of refuge habitats. (This plan incorporates components of step-down plans formerly written for 

Forest Management, Moist Soils Management, and Cropland Management.) 

Wildlife Inventory Plan (update), plan completed 2002: This plan describes inventory and monitoring 

techniques and time frames. Numerous species, including waterfowl, songbirds, neotropical 

migrants, bald eagles, white-tailed deer, wild turkey, amphibians, and other key resident species, are 

inventoried and their population trends are monitored. These data are essential to guide the 

management of the refuge’s wildlife habitats. 

Sport Fishing Plan (update), completion 2004: This plan will address specific aspects of the refuge’s 

fishing program. It will define season structures, areas open to fishing, legal methods of fishing, 

universal accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations. 

Hunt Management Plan (update), completion 2004: This plan will address specific aspects of the 

refuge’s hunting program. It will define species to be hunted, season structures, areas open to 
66 Chickasaw Nation

Figure 10. Proposed staffing plan for West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

V

GS -04 50 -0 7/ 09

Fore ster*

GS -04 50 -0 9/ 11

Fo re ste r*

GS -04 50 -1 1

Fore ster*

GS -04 01 -0 9/ 11

W ildlife Bio lo g ist*

GS -04 01 -1 2

Natura l Re sour ce s P la nner*

GS -04 01 -1 1

Fis h & W ildlife Biologi st*

 (Pvt. La nd s)

GS -04 85 -0 9/ 11

W ildl ife Biologis t*

Reso u rce M gm t.

GS -0025 -07/09

Pu blic Use S pe cialist

GS -03 18 -0 4

Of fice Assist an t

GS -04 85 -0 5/ 07 /0 9

Ref ug e Op eratio ns Sp ec.

W G-4 74 9-06 /0 7/08

M ain ten an ce W orke r

GS -04 85 -0 7/ 09 /1 1

Refug e Ma na ge r

W G-5 71 6-06 /0 7/08 /0 9

En gin ee rin g Eq uip me n t O pe r.

W G-5 71 6-06 /0 7/08 /0 9

Enginee ring Equi pment O per.

W G-5 71 6-08

Enginee ring Equi pment O per.

Ass t Mg r:

Refuge Ope ra ti ons Spe c.

GS -0485 -09/11

L ower Ha tch ie NW R

GS -03 28 -0 5

Office Au to m at io n Asst . (P art t im e)

GS -00 25 -0 7/ 09

Pu blic Use S pe c.

GS -04 85 -0 5/ 07 /0 9

Refug e Op erat io ns Sp ec.

W G-4 74 9-08

M ain ten an ce W orke r

GS -04 85 -0 7/ 09 /1 1

Ref ug e Ma na ge r

GS -04 85 -0 9/ 11

W ildlife Bio lo g ist

W G-5 71 6-10

Engi nee ring Equipment O per.

W G-4 74 9-08

Mainte nanc e W orke r

Ass t Mg r:

Refuge Operations Spec.

GS -04 81 -1 1

Chicka saw NW R

GS -04 99 -0 5/ 07 /0 9

Stude nt Trai nee (W ildli fe )

W G-5 71 6-06 /0 7/08 /0 9

Enginee ring Equi pment O per.

W G-5 71 6-08

Enginee ring Equi pment O per.

GS -04 85 -0 5/ 07 /0 9

Refuge Ope ra ti ons Spe c.

Ass t Mg r: 

Refuge M ana ger

GS -04 85 -1 2

Ree lfo ot/ La ke Iso m NW R

GS -03 28 -0 5

Offic e Automa tion Ass t.*

GS -04 85 -1 3

Refuge M ana ger *

GS -03 41 -0 9

Administrati ve Office r*

GS -04 85 -1 4

Refuge M ana ger *

* 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

hunting, legal hunting methods, all-terrain vehicle use, universal accessibility, facilities needed, 

and refuge-specific hunting regulations. Visitor Services and Education Plan (update), plan 

completed 2002: This plan describes the refuge’s wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental 

education, and interpretation. Specific items or issues that will be addressed include facility 

needs, access, and partnerships and outreach opportunities. (The Sport Fishing Plan and Hunt 

Management Plans are referenced in this plan.) 

Step-down plans currently being prepared or updated for the West Tennessee National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex (including Lower Hatchie, Reelfoot, Lake Isom, Hathie, and Chickasaw) include: 

Beaver Control Management Plan (update), completion 2004: This plan includes a description of 

beaver control methods and an explanation of the necessity to control excess beaver populations in 

order to protect refuge habitats and the species that are dependent upon those habitats. 

Safety/Hazcom/Pollution Prevention Plan (update), plan completed 2001: This plan identifies 

specific hazards in the workplaces of the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, and 

defines the staff responsibilities and procedures for providing and maintaining a safe work 

environment. The plan also provides guidance for staff in responding to various types of 

emergencies and dangerous occurrences. 

Fire Management Plan (update), plan completed 2001: This plan describes the use of prescribed fire 

on refuges in the West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex, as well as a contingency plan 

in the case of wildfire activity on or in the vicinity of the refuges. Safety considerations for fire-fighting 

personnel are also addressed in this plan. 

Law Enforcement Plan (update), to be completed 2006: This plan describes the basic framework 

and policy for law enforcement on refuge lands, and the implementation thereof, in cooperation with 

other local law enforcement entities. 

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES 

A major objective of this comprehensive conservation plan is to establish or enhance partnerships 

with local volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource 

agencies. At regional and state levels, partnerships already exist with organizations such as the 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Ducks Unlimited. In the vicinity of the refuge, other 

opportunities exist to establish partnerships with elementary and secondary schools, private 

landowners, and community organizations. 

The refuge’s volunteer program and the other partnerships generated will be dependent to a large 

degree upon the number of staff positions provided at the refuge. As staff and resources are 

committed to the refuge, opportunities to expand the volunteer program and develop new 

partnerships would be enhanced. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of resources that is directed over 

time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other acquired information. More specifically, 

adaptive management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically 

driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 
68 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

In order to apply adaptive management, specific inventory, survey, and monitoring methods would be 

adopted for the refuge which best assess the effects of ongoing refuge management. Based on the 

results of these inventories, surveys, and monitoring efforts, habitat management strategies would be 

systematically evaluated to determine the management effects on wildlife populations. This 

information would then be used to refine management and determine how effectively the refuge 

objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations would include appropriate staff and partner 

participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for targeted or nontargeted 

species and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects would be made. If 

appropriate, the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan would be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities would be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to determine the need for revision. 

A revision will be made whenever important changes occur or pertinent information becomes 

available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan will 

be supported by detailed step-down management plans that direct on-the-ground management 

activities designed to accomplish specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. 

Revisions to the comprehensive conservation plan and the step-down management plans will be 

subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Appendices 69

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management – A process in which projects are implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions outlined within the 

comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of the outcome of project implementation 

helps managers determine whether current management should continue as is or whether it 

should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alternative – One set of objectives and strategies that could be used to achieve refuge goals and the 

desired future condition. 

Approved Refuge Acquisition Boundary – A refuge boundary approved by the Director of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service for acquisition, contingent upon completion of the planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

Biological Diversity or Biodiversity – The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur. The National Wildlife Refuge System’s focus for biodiversity is on 

indigenous species, biotic communities, and ecological processes. 

Bottomland Hardwood Forests – A community of hardwood tree species that are adapted to growing in 

seasonally saturated soils and may have their roots inundated for a portion of the growing season. 

Canopy – A layer of foliage; generally the uppermost layer in a forest stand. Canopy can be used to 

refer to mid- or understory vegetation in multilayered stands. Canopy closure is an estimate 

of the amount of overhead tree cover (also canopy cover). 

Categorical Exclusion – A classification given to federal actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use – A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the mission or the purposes of the refuge. A compatibility determination 

supports the selection of compatible uses for a specific refuge and identifies stipulations or 

limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan – A document that describes the desired future conditions of the 

refuge; provides long-range guidance and management direction for the refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes, goals, and objectives of the refuge; and contributes to the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Conservation Easement – A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary 

party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation and management 

rights to a party in perpetuity. 
70 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Cooperative Agreement – A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are required. 

Such an agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by either partner. Lands under a 

cooperative agreement do not necessarily become part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Cooperative Farming – Farming of refuge cropland by private individuals under the terms of a 

cooperative agreement. 

Corridor – A route that allows movement of individuals from one region or place to another. 

Cover Type – The present dominant vegetation type of an area. 

Cultural Resources – The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people of the past. 

 

Deciduous – Pertaining to perennial plants that are leafless for some time during the year. 

Ecological Succession – The orderly progression of an area through time, in the absence of 

disturbance, from one vegetative and faunal community to another. 

Ecosystem – A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Approach – A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, and 

species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all components are interrelated. 

Ecosystem Management – Management of the resources of an ecosystem, taking into account all 

ecological, social, and economic components that make up the whole of the system. Ecosystem 

management attempts to ensure that all plants and animals in the ecosystem are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and that basic ecosystem processes are perpetuated. 

Emergent Growth/Revegetation – Farmland or logged timber that has been reforested (early 

succession) or may be naturally revegetated. 

Endangered Species – A plant or animal species defined through the Endangered Species Act as 

being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and published 

in the Federal Register. 

Endemic Species – Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Environmental Assessment – A concise document, prepared in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for a federal action as 

well as alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to 

determine whether or not to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no 

significant impact. Preparation of the document consists of a systematic analysis to determine 

if proposed actions would result in a significant effect on the quality of the environment. 

Even-aged Forests – Forests that are composed of trees with a time span of less than 20 years 

between the age of the oldest and youngest individuals. 

Fauna – All of the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 
Appendices 71

Federal Trust Species – All species for which the federal government has primary jurisdiction, 

including federally threatened or endangered species, migratory birds, anadromous fish, and 

certain marine mammals. 

Fee title – The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land accomplished by a transfer of 

property rights with the formal conveyance of a title. While a fee title acquisition involves most 

rights to a property, certain rights may be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, 

mineral rights, or a use reservation (for example, the ability to continue using the land for a 

specified time period, or the remainder of the owner=s life). 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) – A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents 

why a federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared. 

Force-account Farming – Farming of refuge cropland using the refuge’s staff, equipment, and materials. 

Fragmentation – The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches through land 

clearing or other development practices, often resulting in the disruption of extensive habitats 

into isolated and small patches. 

Goals – Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired future conditions that 

convey a purpose but do not define measurable units. 

Geographic Information System (GIS) – A computer system capable of storing and manipulating 

spatial (geographical) data; it is used widely in land resource quantification and management. 

Habitat – The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental conditions required by an 

organism for survival and reproduction. 

Indicator Species – A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat changes 

and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

Indigenous – Having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a 

particular region or environment. 

Inholding – Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

Issue – Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision. Examples could include: a threat 

to natural resources, a conflict in uses, or the presence of an undesirable resource condition. 

Mid-successional Forest – A forest generally characterized by an even-aged structure resulting from 

human disturbance such as timber harvest. Mid-successional forest may contain mature 

trees, but the forest as a whole does not exhibit the functional or structural characteristics 

associated with old-growth conditions. 

Migratory – Relating to the seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Monitoring – The process of collecting information to track changes of selected parameters over time. 
72 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 – Legislation that requires all federal agencies, including 

the Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions and incorporate 

environmental information and public participation in the planning and implementation of such 

actions. Federal agencies must integrate this Act with other planning requirements, and 

prepare appropriate policy documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making. 

National Wildlife Refuge – A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge System – All lands, waters, and interests therein administered by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife 

management areas, waterfowl production areas, or other areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources. 

Native Species – Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem and are indigenous 

to the region. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird – A bird species that breeds north of the United States/Mexican border and 

winters primarily south of that border, in an area that includes Mexico, the West Indies, 

Central America, and part of South America. 

Natural Levee – Natural embankment created by soil deposited as a stream over-tops its banks. 

Located adjacent to a stream, a natural levee is often the highest ground in a bottomland or 

swamp type area. 

Objective – A concise, quantitative (where possible) target statement of a desired management 

outcome. Objectives are derived from goals and provide the basis for determining 

management strategies. Objectives should be attainable and time-specific. 

Old-growth Forest – Forested areas lacking frequent disturbance to vegetation, usually characterized 

by dominant species entered into a late successional stage and usually associated with a high 

diversity of species, specialization, and structural complexity. 

Planning Area – A designated area encompassed by a specific planning activity. In refuge planning, 

a planning area may include lands outside the existing unit (refuge) boundaries that are being 

studied for inclusion in the unit and/or in partnership planning efforts. 

Planning Team – A planning team prepares the comprehensive conservation plan. Planning teams are 

interdisciplinary in membership and function. A team generally consists of the planning team 

leader; refuge manager and staff biologists; staff specialists or other representatives of Service 

programs, ecosystems, or regional offices; and state partnering wildlife agencies, as appropriate. 

Preferred Alternative – This is the Service=s selected management alternative as identified in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. This is the alternative determined by the decision-maker to 

best achieve the refuge’s purpose, vision, and goals; contribute to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and address the significant issues; and be consistent with principles of 

sound fish and wildlife management. 

Refuge Operating Needs System – A national database that contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge. Projects included are those required to implement approved plans and meet 

goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 
Appendices 73

Refuge Purposes – These are the purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or expanding a Refuge, Refuge unit, or Refuge subunit. 

Scoping – A process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a comprehensive 

conservation plan and for identifying the significant issues to be addressed in that plan. 

Involved in the scoping process are federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private 

organizations and individuals. 

Species – A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can 

interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification. 

Step-down Management Plans – Step-down management plans provide the details necessary for 

implementation of management strategies and projects identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan. 

Strategy – A specific action, tool, or technique or combination thereof, used to achieve unit objectives. 

Threatened Species – A plant or animal species that is likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are 

identified and defined in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and are 

published in the Federal Register. 

Trust Species – Species over which the Service has legal authority or managerial responsibility, such 

as threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and migratory birds. 

Understory – Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the ground than the canopies of other 

plant layers. 

Vegetation – Plants in general, or the sum total of the plant life in an area. 

Vegetation Type – A categorical description of the existing dominant plant species in a particular area. 

Watershed – The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or stream system. 

Similar in meaning to drainage area or drainage basin. 

Wetland – Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are inundated by surface or ground water 

for a long enough period of time each year to support, and that do support under natural 

conditions, plants and animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wildlife Corridor – A landscape feature that facilitates the biologically effective transport of animals 

between larger patches of habitat. Such corridors may facilitate several kinds of traffic, 

including frequent foraging movement, seasonal migration, or the once-in-a-lifetime dispersal 

of juvenile animals. These are transition habitats and need not contain all the habitat 

elements required by migrants for long-term survival or reproduction. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation – A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 specifies that these are the six priority general public uses of the system. 

Wildlife Diversity – A measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and their relative abundance. 
74 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 75

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Anderson, David G. 1995. Archaeological Survey on the Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Prepared by the Interagency Archaeological Services 

Division, National Park Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 

Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory birds in eastern 

North America. Current Ornithology 7:1-57. 

Barrett, John W. 1980. Regional Silviculture of the United States. Institute of Agriculture, the 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 

Bonney, Rick, David N Pashley, Robert J. Cooper and Larry Niles, eds. 1999. Strategies for Bird 

Conservation: The Partners in Flight Planning Process. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell 

University, Ithaca, New York. 

Bonney, Rick, David N. Pashley, Robert J. Cooper and Larry Niles, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird 

conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process. In Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in 

Flight Workshop, 1995, Cape May, New Jersey. 

Dickson, D. Bruce, Jr., and L. Janice Campbell. 1979. Reelfoot and Lake Isom National Wildlife 

Refuges: A Cultural Resources Survey. New World Research, Inc., Pollock, Louisiana. 

Elliott, L. and K. McKnight. 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Lower Mississippi/Western Gulf 

Coast Regional Shorebird Plan. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 63 pp. 

Etnier, David A. and Wayne C. Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee: 

The University of Tennessee Press. 

Ford, Bob. 1998. The Mississippi Alluvial Valley in Tennessee: Habitat Implementation Plan for 

Waterfowl, Shorebirds, and Songbirds. Tennessee Conservation League, Memphis, Tennessee. 

Ford, R.P. and G. Wathen. 2001. Habitat Implementation Plan for Migratory Landbirds: 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley and Eastern Gulf Coastal Plain. Unpublished report. North American 

Waterfowl and Wetlands Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Virginia. 28 pp. 

Gray, M.J., R.M. Kaminski, G. Weerakkaody, B.D. Leopold and K.C. Jensen. 1999. Aquatic 

invertebrate and plant responses following mechanical manipulations of moist-soil habitat. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:770-779. 

Hamel, P.B. 1992. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, 

Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 437 pp. 

Hamel, P.B., W.P. Smith and R.J. Cooper. 1994. Cerulean Warbler Populations in Bottomland 

Hardwood Forests: Distribution, Abundance and Productivity. USDA Forest Service Study Plan. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Southern Hardwoods Laboratory, Stoneville, Mississippi. 
76 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Lauderdale County Economic and Community Development Board. n.d. Lauderdale County 

Community Overview/Livability, Population/Demographics. 

http://www.lauderdalecountytn.org/overview/population.html (accessed December 3, 2004). 

Loesch, C.R., K.J. Reinecke and C.K. Baxter. 1994. Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Evaluation 

Plan. North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 34 pp. 

MacDonald, P.O., W.E. Frayser and J.K. Clauser. 1979. Documentation, Chronology, and Future 

Projections of Bottomland Hardwood Habitat Losses in the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley. 

Vol. 1. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 133 pp. 

Mainfort, Robert C., Jr. 1994. Archaeological Investigations in the Obion River Drainage: The West 

Tennessee Tributaries Project. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 

Division of Archaeology. Nashville, Tennessee. 

Manning, D. 1989. Freshwater mussels (Unionidae) of the Hatchie River, a tributary of the 

Mississippi River, in west Tennessee. Sterkiana 72:1128. 

McMurl, Curt, and Randy Cook. 2001. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Annual Narrative Report, 

Ripley, Tennessee, Calendar Year 2000. Unpublished report on file. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, Tennessee. 

Miller, J.H. and E. Boyd. 1983. Kudzu: Where did it come from and how can we stop it? Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry 7(3):165-169. 

Monteith, Steven E. 1990. Soil Survey of Lauderdale County, Tennessee. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 

Moyle, P.B. and R.A. Leidy. 1992. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: Evidence from fish 

faunas. In Fielder, P.L. and S.K. Jans, eds., Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice 

of Nature Conservation, Preservation, and Management. New York: Chapman and Hall. 

Mueller, Allan J., Daniel J. Twedt, and Charles R. Loesch. 1999. Development of Management 

Objectives for Breeding Birds in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Conway, Arkansas. http://birds.cornell.edu/pifcapemay/mueller.htm (accessed December 3, 2004). 

Nichols, Marvin L. 1990. Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Lauderdale County, Tennessee, 

Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year 1990. Unpublished report on file. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 

Nicholson, C.P. 1997. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee: The 

University of Tennessee Press. 426 pp. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee, 1998. Expanding the Vision: 1998 Update, 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Printed in Quebec, Canada. 

http://www.nawmp.ca/ (accessed December 3, 1004). 

Ortmann, A.E. 1926. Unionidae from the Reelfoot Lake region in west Tennessee. Nautilus 39:8974. 

Parmalee, P.W. and A.E. Bogan. 1998. The Freshwater Mussels of Tennessee. Knoxville, 

Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press. 328 pp. 
Appendices 77

Robinson, J.C. 1990. An Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Tennessee. Knoxville, Tennessee: The 

University of Tennessee Press. 274 pp. 

Shea, Damian, Christopher S. Hofelt, Drew R. Luellen, Amy Huysman, Pater R. Lazaro, Robert 

Zarzecki and John R. Kelly. 2001. Chemical Contamination at National Wildlife Refuges in the 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem. North Carolina State University, Raleigh North Carolina. 

Short, M.R. 1999. Shorebirds in Western Tennessee: Migration Ecology and Evaluation of 

Management Effectiveness. Technical Report 99-9, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, 

Nashville, Tennessee. 145 pp. 

Shurtleff, W. and A. Aoyagi. 1977. The Book of Kudzu. Brookline, Massachusetts: Autumn Press. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2000. Conservation Plan for the Hatchie River. Hatchie River Project, 

The Nature Conservancy of Tennessee, Brownsville, Tennessee. 15 pp. 

Twedt, Dan, David Pashley, Chuck Hunter, Alan Mueller, Cindy Brown and Bob Ford. 1998. 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan. Unpublished report. U.S.Geological 

Survey, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 49 pp. 

Twedt, Daniel, David Pashley, Chuck Hunter, Allen Mueller, Cindy Brown and Bob Ford. 1999. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Partners in Flight, 

Memphis, Tennessee. http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/MAV_plan.html. 

 

TWRA and USFWS. 2002. West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. 

Draft in progress. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Population, Housing Units, Area, and Density: 2000. 

http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed December 3, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2001. Tennessee Fact Sheet: 

Population, Employment, and Income. http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/TN.htm (accessed 

December 3, 2004). 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Land Acquisition Planning Report, Chickasaw National Wildlife 

Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Reelfoot Lake Water Level Management: Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. 052 FW 1, Concept: Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation. In Fish and Wildlife Service Manual. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. http://policy.fws.gov/052fw1.html (accessed 

December 3, 2004). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 
78 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997b. National Outreach Strategy: A Master Plan for 

Communicating in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, D.C. 29 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a. Final Environmental Assessment and Land Protection Plan: 

Proposed Expansion of Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife Refuges. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000b. Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem Plan. Final Draft. 

Unpublished report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. A Profile of Land Protection Actions. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Realty, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Conserving America’s Fisheries: Fisheries Program, Vision for the 

Future. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 26 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996. The 

1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2001. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Lower Mississippi 

Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, 

Massachusetts. 

Williams, J.E., J.E. Johnson, D.A. Hendrickson, S. Contreras-Balderas, J.D. Williams, M. NavarroMendoza, D.E. McAllister and J.E. Deacon. 1989. Fishes of North America: Endangered, 

threatened, or of special concern, 1989. Fisheries 14(6):2-20. 

Woodrey, Mark S., Robert P. Ford, William C. Hunter and Jim Taulman. 1998. East Gulf Coastal 

Plain Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Unpublished report. Mississippi Museum of 

Natural History, Jackson, Mississippi. 85 pp. 
Appendices 79

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978): Directs agencies to consult with native traditional 

religious leaders to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to protect and preserve Native 

American religious cultural rights and practices. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and services. 

Antiquities Act (1906): Authorizes the scientific investigation of antiquities on federal land and 

provides penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or collected without a permit. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1974): Directs the preservation of historic and 

archaeological data in Federal construction projects. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (1979), as amended: Protects materials of 

archaeological interest from unauthorized removal or destruction and requires federal managers to 

develop plans and schedules to locate archaeological resources. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major 

wetland modifications. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): Promotes the conservation of migratory waterfowl and 

offsets or prevents the serious loss of wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitats. 

Endangered Species Act (1973): Requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the 

conservation of endangered and threatened species. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

Executive Order 11990: Directs federal agencies to (1) minimize destruction, loss, or degradation of 

wetlands and (2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands when a 

practical alternative exists. 

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs): Directs the Service to 

send copies of environmental assessments to state planning agencies for review. 

Executive Order 12898 (1994): Establishes environmental justice as a federal government priority 

and directs all federal agencies to make environmental justice part of their mission. Environmental 

justice calls for fair distribution of environmental hazards. 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the System. 
80 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Executive Order 13006, Locating Federal Facilities on Historic Properties in our Nation's 

Central Cities: Directs federal agencies to select, utilize, and maintain historic properties and 

districts, especially those located in cities central business districts, whenever operationally 

appropriate and economically prudent. 

Executive Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate, maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (1981), as amended: Minimizes the extent to which 

federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to 

control or contain undesirable plant species, and an interdisciplinary approach with the 

cooperation of other federal and state agencies. 

Federal Records Act (1950): Directs preservation of evidence of the government's organization, 

functions, policies, decisions, operations, and activities, as well as basic historical and other information. 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934), as amended: Requires that the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and state fish and wildlife agencies be consulted whenever water is to be impounded, 

diverted, or modified under a federal permit or license. The Service and state agency 

recommend measures to prevent the loss of biological resources, or to mitigate or compensate 

for the damage. The project proponent must take biological resource values into account and 

adopt justifiable protection measures to obtain maximum overall project benefits. A 1958 

amendment added provisions to recognize the vital contribution of wildlife resources to the Nation 

and to require equal consideration and coordination of wildlife conservation with other water 

resources development programs. It also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide 

public fishing areas and accept donations of lands and funds. 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act (1978): Improves the administration of fish and wildlife 

programs and amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on behalf 

of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out a volunteer program. 

Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (1935), as amended: Declares it a national policy to 

preserve historic sites and objects of national significance, including those located on refuges. 

Provides procedures for the designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition 

under several authorities. 
Appendices 81

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or nonfederal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act (1966), as amended: Requires the federal government to 

provide leadership in the preservation of the Nation’s prehistoric and historic resources. 

National Trails System Act: Assigns responsibility to the Secretary of the Interior and thus the Service to 

protect the historic and recreational values of congressionally designated national historic trail sites. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (1966) as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997),16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee (Refuge Administration 

Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of 

a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation); establishes a formal 

process for determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior 

for managing and protecting the System; and requires a comprehensive conservation plan for each 

refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (1997): Considered the “Organic Act” of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Defines the mission of the System, designates priority wildlifedependent public uses, and calls for comprehensive refuge planning. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act 

(1998): Amends the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to promote volunteer programs and community 

partnerships for the benefit of national wildlife refuges, and for other purposes. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990): Requires federal 

agencies and museums to inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural items 

under their control or possession. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are compatible 

with a refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (1935), as amended: Requires revenue-sharing provisions to all feetitle ownerships that are administered solely or primarily by the Secretary through the Service. 
82 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires programmatic accessibility in addition to physical 

accessibility for all facilities and programs funded by the federal government to ensure that 

anybody can participate in any program. 

Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) (U.S.C. 403): Section 10 of this Act requires the authorization by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United States. 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977), as amended (Public Law 95-87): Regulates 

surface mining activities and reclamation of coal-mined lands. Further regulates the coal industry by 

designating certain areas as unsuitable for coal mining operations. 

Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife Conservation Purposes Act (1948): Provides 

that upon a determination by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration, real 

property no longer needed by a federal agency can be transferred without reimbursement to the 

Secretary of the Interior if the land has particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency 

for other wildlife conservation purposes. 

Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (1970), as 

amended: Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their homes, 

businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any purchase offer be no less than the 

fair market value of the property. 

Wilderness Act (1964), as amended: Directs the Secretary of the Interior, within 10 years, to review 

every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless island (regardless of size) within the 

National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems and to recommend to the President the suitability 

of each such area or island for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System, with final 

decisions made by Congress. The Secretary of Agriculture was directed to study and recommend 

suitable areas in the National Forest System. 
Appendices 83

Appendix IV. Refuge Biota 

MAMMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Scientific Name Common Name 

Blarina carolinensis Southern Short-tailed Shrew 

Canis latrans Coyote 

Castor canadensis Beaver 

Corynorhinos rafinescruii Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 

Cryptotis parva Least Shrew 

Dasypus novemcinctus Nine-banded Armadillo 

Didelphis marsupialis Opossum 

Eptesicus fuscus Big Brown Bat 

Felis rufus Bobcat 

Glaucomys volans Southern Flying Squirrel 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired Bat 

Lasiurus borealis Red Bat 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat 

Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat 

Lutra canadensis River Otter 

Marmota monax Woodchuck 

Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk 

Microtus ochrogaster Prairie Vole 

Microtus pinetorum Pine Vole 

Mus musculus House Mouse 

Mustela frenata Longtail Weasel 

Mustela vison Mink 

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern Myotis 

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Bat 

Neotoma floridana Eastern Woodrat 

Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat 

Ochrotomys nuttallii Golden Mouse 

Odocoileus virginianus White-tailed Deer 

Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat 
84 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Oryzomys palustris Marsh Rice Rat 

Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton Mouse 

Peromyscus leucopus White-footed Mouse 

Peromyscus maniculatus Deer Mouse 

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern Pipistrelle 

Procyon lotor Raccoon 

Rattus norvegicus Norway Rat 

Reithrodontomys humulis Eastern Harvest Mouse 

Reithrodontomys megalotis Western Harvest Mouse 

Scalopus aquaticus Eastern Mole

Sciurus carolinensis Eastern Gray Squirrel 

Sciurus niger Eastern Fox Squirrel 

Sigmodon hispidus Hispid Cotton Rat 

Sorex longirostris Southeastern Shrew 

Spilogale putoris Spotted Skunk 

Sylvilagus aquaticus Swamp Rabbit 

Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern Cottontail 

Synaptomys pinetorum Southern Bog Lemming 

Tamias striatus Eastern Chipmunk 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox 

Vulpes fulva Red Fox 

Zapus hudsonius Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Source: TWRA and USFWS, 2002. 
Appendices 85

AMPHIBIANS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

Scientific Name Common Name Current 

Status* 

Frogs and Toads: 

Acris crepitians crepitians Northern Cricket Frog A 

Acris gryllus grullus Southern Cricket Frog LC 

Bufo americanus charlessmithi Dwarf American Toad C 

Bufo woodhousii fowleri Fowler’s Toad SA 

Gastrophryne carolinensis Eastern Narrow-mouthed Toad A 

Hyla avivoca Bird-voiced Treefrog LC 

Hyla chrysoscelis versicolor Gray Treefrog SA 

Hyla cinerea Green Treefrog LC 

Pseudacris crucifer crucifer Northern Spring Peeper A 

Pseudacris triseriata feriarum Upland Chorus Frog A 

Rana areolata circulosa Northern Crawfish Frog U 

Rana catesbieana Bullfrog A 

Rana clamitans clamitans or melanota Greenfrog A 

Rana palustris Pickerel Frog U 

Rana utricularia Southern Leopard Frog A 

Scaphiopus holbrooki holbrooki Eastern Spadefoot Toad LC 

Salamanders:

Ambystoma maculatum Spotted Salamander LC 

Ambystoma opacum Marble Salamander LC 

Ambystoma talpoideum Mole Salamander U 

Ambystoma texanum Small-mouthed Salamander C 

Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum Eastern Tiger Salamander R 

Amphiuma tridactylum Three-toed Amphiuma C 

Desmognathus fusus conanti Spotted Dusky Salamander LC 

Eurycea cirrigera Southern Two-lined Salamander A 

Eurycea longicauda Long-tailed Salamander SU

Necturus maculosus maculosus Mudpuppy U 

Notophthalmus viridescens 

louisianensis 

Central Newt LC 

Plethedon mississippii Mississippi Slimy Salamander C 

Pseudotriton ruber vioscai Southern Red Salamander A 

Siren intermedia nettingi Western Lesser Siren LC

* Current Status = Indicates current status of species in west Tennessee. 

Key: SA – Super-abundant; A – Abundant; C – Common; LC – Locally Common; U – Uncommon; R – 

Rare; SU – Status Unknown. 

Source: TWRA and USFWS 2002. 
86 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

REPTILES KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND THEIR 

RESIDENCE STATUS 

Scientific Name Common Name Current 

Status* 

Lizards:

Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus Six-lined Racerunner U 

Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined Skink A 

Eumeces laticeps Broad-head Skink A 

Ophisaaurus attenuatus longicaaudus Eastern Slender Glass Lizard U 

Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus Northern Fence Lizard A 

Scincella lateralis Ground Skink SA 

Snakes:

Agkistrodon contortrix contortrix or mokasen Southern or Northern Copperhead C 

Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma Western Cottonmouth Snake LC 

Carphphis amoenus helenae Midwest Worm Snake U 

Cemophora coccinea copei Northern Scarlet Snake R 

Coluber constrictor priapus or latrunculus Southern Black Racer A 

Crotalus horridus atricaudatus Canebrake Rattlesnake U 

Diadophis punctatus strictogenys Mississippi Ringneck Snake A 

Elaphe obsoleta spiloides Gray Rat Snake A 

Faracura abacura reinwardtii Western Mud Snake R 

Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern Hognose Snake U 

Lampropeltis caligaster caligaster or

rhombomaculata

Prairie King Snake U 

Lampropeltis getula nigra or holbrooki Speckled King Snake C 

Lampropeltis triangulum syspila of elapsoides Red Milk Snake U 

Nerodia cyclopion Green Water Snake U 

Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster Yellow-bellied Water Snake C 

Nerodia fasciata confluens Broad-banded Water Snake C 

Nerodia rhombifer Diamondback Water Snake C 

Nerodia sipedon pleuralis Midland Water Snake C 

Opheodrys aestivus Rough Green Snake C 

Storeiria decayi wrightorum Midland Brown Snake C 

Storeiria occipitmaculata occipitmaculata or

obscura 

Northern or Florida Red-bellied 

Snake 

U 

Tantilla coronata Southeastern Crowned Snake U 

Thamnophis proximus proximus Western Ribbon Snake U 

* Current Status - Indicates current status of species in west Tennessee. Key: SA - Super-abundant; A – 

Abundant; C – Common; LC - Locally Common; U – Uncommon; R – Rare; SU - Status Unknown. 
Appendices 87

Scientific Name Common Name Current 

Status* 

Thamnophis sauritus sauritus Eastern Ribbon Snake C 

Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastern Garter Snake SA 

Virginia valeriae elegans Western Smooth Earth Snake U 

Turtles:

Apalone mutica mutica Smooth Softshell Turtle U 

Apalone spinifera spinifera Eastern Spiny Softshell C 

Chelydra serpentina Common Snapping Turtle A 

Chrysemys picta dorsalis Southern Painted Turtle U 

Graptemys kohnii Mississippi Map Turtle U 

Graptemys pseudogeographica ouachitensis Ouachita Map Turtle C 

Kinosternon subrubrum subrubrum or 

hippocrepis

Eastern or Mississippi Mud 

Turtle 

U 

Macroclemys temminckii Alligator Snapping Turtle R 

Pseudemys cocinna hieroglyphica or metteri Missouri River Cooter A 

Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot Turtle SU 

Terrapene carolina carolina Eastern Box Turtle C 

Trachemys scripta carolina Red-eared Slider SA 

* Current Status = Indicates current status of species in west Tennessee. Key: SA – Super-abundant; A – 

Abundant; C – Common; LC – Locally Common; U – Uncommon; R – Rare; SU – Status Unknown. 

 

Source: TWRA and USFWS 2002. 
88 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

BIRDS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND THEIR 

RESIDENCE STATUS 

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk Permanent 

resident State Thr. 

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk Migrant State Thr. 

Actitis macularia Spotted Sandpiper Migrant 

Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged Blackbird Permanent 

resident 

Aix sponsa Wood Duck Breeds 

Ammodramus leconteii LeConte’s Sparrow Migrant 

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Breeds State Thr 

Ammospiza caudacuta 

nelsoni

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow Migrant 

Anas acuta Northern Pintail Migrant 

Anas americana American Widgeon Migrant 

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Migrant 

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal Migrant 

Anas discors Blue-winged Teal Migrant 

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Breeds 

Anas rubripes American Black Duck Migrant 

Anas strepera Gadwall Migrant 

Anhinga anhinga Anhinga Migrant 

Anser albifrons Greater White-fronted 

Goose Migrant 

Anthus spinoletta American Pipit Migrant 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle Migrant State End. 

Archilochus colubris Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird Breeds 

Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron Permanent 

resident 

Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl Migrant 

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup Migrant 

Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck Migrant 

Aythya marila Greater Scaup Migrant 

Aythya mericana Redhead Migrant 

Aythya valisineria Canvasback Migrant 
Appendices 89

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Batramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper Migrant 

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing Migrant 

Botaurus lentiginosus American Bittern Migrant 

Branta canadensis Canada Goose Resident/migrant 

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl Permanent 

resident 

Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret Summer resident 

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead Migrant 

Bucephala clangula Conmon Goldeneye Migrant 

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk Permanent 

resident 

Buteo lagopus Rough-legged Hawk Migrant 

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk Permanent 

resident 

Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk Summer resident 

Butorides striatus Green Heron Breeds 

Calcarius lapponicus Lapland Longspur Migrant 

Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper Migrant 

Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper Migrant 

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper Migrant 

Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper Migrant 

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated 

Sandpiper Migrant 

Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will’s-widow Migrant 

Caprimulgus vociferus Whip-poor-will Migrant 

Cardinalis cardinalis Northern Cardinal Permanent 

resident 

Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin Migrant 

Carduelis tristis American Goldfinch Permanent 

resident 

Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch Breeds 

Carpodacus purpureus Purple Finch Migrant 

Casmerodius albus Great Egret Summer resident 

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture Permanent 

resident 

Catharus fuscescens Veery Migrant 
90 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush Migrant 

Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush Migrant 

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s Thrush Migrant 

Catoptrophorus

semipalmatus Willet Migrant 

Certhia americana Brown Creeper Migrant 

Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher Permanent 

resident 

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift Summer resident 

Charadrius melodus Piping Plover Migrant 

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover Migrant 

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Permanent 

resident 

Chen caerulescens Snow Goose Migrant 

Chen rossii Ross’ Goose Migrant 

Chlidonias niger Black Tern Migrant 

Chondestes grammacus Lark Sparrow Migrant 

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk Summer resident 

Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier Migrant State Thr 

Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren Migrant 

Cistothorus plaustris Marsh Wren Migrant 

Coccothraustes 

vespertinus Evening Grosbeak Accidental 

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Migrant/Breed 

Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker Permanent 

resident 

Colinus virginianus Northern Bobwhite Permanent 

resident 

Columba livia Rock Dove Permanent 

resident 

Colymbus auritus Horned Grebe Migrant 

Contopus borealis Olive-sided Flycatcher Breeds 

Contopus virens Eastern Wood Peewee Breeds 

Coragyps atratus Black Vulture Permanent 

resident 

Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow Permanent 

resident 
Appendices 91

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow Permanent 

resident 

Cyanocitta cristata Blue Jay Permanent 

resident 

Cygnus columbianus Tundra Swan Migrant 

Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica cemlea Cerulean Warbler Breeds 

Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated 

Warbler Breeds 

Dendroica fusca Blackbumian Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler Breeds 

Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica striata Black-poll Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica tigrina Cape May Warbler Migrant 

Dendroica virens Black-throated Green 

Warbler Migrant 

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink Permanent 

resident 

Dryocopus pileatus Pileated Woodpecker Permanent 

resident 

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird Breeds 

Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron Summer 

Resident 

Egretta thula Snowy Egret Summer 

Resident 

Empidonax minimus Least Flycatcher Migrant 

Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher Breeds 

Empidonax virescens Acadian Flycatcher Breeds 

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark Permanent 

resident 

Eudocimus albus White Ibis Migrant 

Euphagus carolinus Rusty Blackbird Migrant 

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s Blackbird Migrant 
92 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 

Falco sparverius American Kestrel Permanent 

resident 

Fulica americana American Coot Migrant 

Gallinago gallinago Common Snipe Migrant 

Gallinula chloropus Common Moorhen Migrant 

Gavia immer Common Loon Migrant 

* Introduced Bird Species 

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat Breeds 

Guiraca caerulea Blue Grosbeak Breeds 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle Migrant/Breeds Fed. Thr. 

Helmitheros vermivorus Worm-eating Warbler Migrant 

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt Migrant 

Hirundo pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow Breeds 

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow Breeds 

Hydranassa tricolor 

ruficollis Tri-colored Heron Summer 

occasional 

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush Breeds 

Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat Breeds 

Icterus galbula Northern Oriole Breeds 

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole Breeds 

Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite Migrant/Breeds State End. 

Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite Migrant/Breeds State End. 

Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittem Migrant 

Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco Migrant 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Permanent 

resident 

Larus argentatus Herring Gull Migrant 

Larus delawarensis Ringed-billed Gull Migrant 

Larus philadelphia Bonaparte’s Gull Migrant 

Limnodromus griseus

scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher Migrant 

Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher Migrant 

Limnothlypis swainsonii Swainson’s Warbler Breeds 
Appendices 93

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Permanent 

resident 

Melanerpes carolinus Red-bellied 

Woodpecker 

Permanent 

resident 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

Red-headed 

Woodpecker 

Permanent 

resident 

Meleagris gallopavo Wild Turkey Permanent 

resident 

Melospiza georgiana Swamp Sparrow Migrant 

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s Sparrow Migrant 

Melospiza melodia Song Sparrow Permanent 

resident 

Mergus merganser Common Merganser Migrant 

Mergus serrator Red-breasted 

Merganser Migrant 

Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird Permanent 

resident 

Mniotilta varia Black and White 

Warbler Migrant 

Molothrus ater Brown-headed Cowbird Permanent 

resident 

Myiarchus crinitus Great Crested 

Flycatcher Breeds 

Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned NightHeron 

Permanent 

resident 

Nycticorax violaceus Yellow-crowned 

Night-Heron 

Summer 

Resident 

Oporomis formosus Kentucky Warbler Breeds 

Otus asio Eastern Screech Owl Permanent 

resident 

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck Migrant 

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Migrant State End. 

Parula Americana Northern Parula Breeds 

Parus bicolor Tufted Titmouse Permanent 

resident 

Parus carolinensis Carolina Chickadee Permanent 

resident 

Passer domesticus House Sparrow* Permanent 

resident 
94 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Passerculus 

sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow Migrant 

Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow Migrant 

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting Breeds 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American White 

Pelican Year-round 

Pelidna alpine sakhalina Dunlin Migrant 

Phalacrocorax auritus Double-crested 

Cormorant Migrant 

Phalaropus fulicarius Red-necked Phalarope Migrant 

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak Migrant 

Picoides pubescens Downy Woodpecker 

Permanent 

resident 

Picoides villosus Hairy Woodpecker Permanent 

resident 

Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided Towhee Breeds 

Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager Migrant 

Piranga rubra Summer Tanager Breeds 

Pisobia bairdi Baird's Sandpiper Migrant 

Pisobia fuscicollis White-rumped 

Sandpiper Migrant 

Pluvialis dominica Lesser Golden Plover Migrant 

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe Migrant/Breed 

Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Breeds 

Pooecetes gramineus Vesper Sparrow Migrant 

Porzana carolina Sora Migrant 

Progne subis Purple Martin Breeds 

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler Breeds 

Quiscalus quiscula Common Grackle Permanent 

resident 

Rallus elegans elegans King Rail Breeds 

Rallus limicola Virginia Rail Migrant 

Recurvirostra americana American Avocet Migrant 

Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned Kinglet Migrant 

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned 

Kinglet Migrant 
Appendices 95

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow Breeds 

Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe Breeds 

Scolopax minor American Woodcock Breeds 

Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird Migrant 

Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush Migrant 

Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush Migrant 

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart Breeds 

Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird Permanent 

resident 

Sitta canadensis Red-breasted Nuthatch Migrant 

Sitta carolinensis White-breasted 

Nuthatch 

Permanent 

resident 

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker Migrant 

Spiza americana Dickcissel Breeds 

Spizella passerina Chipping Sparrow Breeds 

Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow Permanent 

resident 

Squatarola squatarola Black-bellied Plover Migrant 

Steganopus tricolor Wilson’s Phalarope Migrant 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Roughwinged Swallow Breeds 

Sterna antillarum Least Tern Summer resident 

Sterna caspia Caspian Tern Migrant 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s Tern Migrant 

Sterna hirundo Common Tern Migrant 

Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian CollaredDove* 

Permanent 

resident 

Strix varia Barred Owl Permanent 

resident 

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark Permanent 

resident 

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling * Permanent 

resident 

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow Breeds 

Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina Wren Permanent 

resident 
96 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name Residence Status 

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher Breeds 

Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs Migrant 

Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs Migrant 

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper Migrant 

Troglodytes aedon House Wren Migrant 

Troglodytes troglodytes Winter Wren Migrant 

Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted 

Sandpiper Migrant 

Turdus migratorius American Robin Permanent 

resident 

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern Kingbird Breeds 

Tyto alba Common Barn Owl Permanent 

resident 

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned 

Warbler Accidental 

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler Migrant 

Vermivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler Migrant 

Vermivora pinus Blue-winged Warbler Migrant 

Vermivora ruficapilla

ruficapila

Nashville Warbler Migrant 

Vireo bellii Bell’s Vireo Accidental 

Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo Breeds 

Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo Breeds 

Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo Breeds 

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo Breeds 

Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo Migrant 

Vireo solitarius Blue-headed Vireo Migrant 

Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler Migrant 

Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler Breeds 

Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s Warbler Migrant 

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove Permanent 

resident 

Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned 

Sparrow Migrant 

Sources: Hamel 1992; Nicholson 1997; and Robinson 1990. 
Appendices 97

FISH LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER PROPER AND ITS DIRECTLY 

WETWARD-FLOWING TRIBUTARIES IN WESTERN TENNESSEE (HATCHIE, OBION, AND 

FORKED DEER SYSTEMS) 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Chestnut Lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus

Least Brook Lamprey Lamptera aepyptera

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculatus

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus

Bowfin Amia calva

Goldeye Hiodon alosoides

Mooneye Hiodon tergisus

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense

Goldfish* Carassius auratus

Grass Carp* Ctenopharyngodon idella

Bluntface Shiner Cyprinella camura

Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis

Blacktail Shiner Cyprinella venusta

Common Carp* Cyprinus carpio

Cypress (Silver) Minnow Hybognathus hayi

Mississippi Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis

Pallid Shiner Hybopsis amnis

Striped Shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus

Ribbon Shiner Lythrurus fumeus

Redfin Shiner Lythrurus umbratilis

Speckled Chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis

Sturgeon Chub Machrhybopsis gelida

Silver Chub Machrhybopsis storeriana

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Orangefin Shiner Notropis ammophilus

Emerald Shiner Notropis atherinoides

River Shiner Notropis blennius

Taillight Shiner Notropis maculatus
98 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Silverband Shiner Notropis shumardi

Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus

Pugnose Minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae

Bluntnose Minnow Pimephales notatus

Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax

Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus 

River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio

Quillback Carpiodes cyprinus

Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus

Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

Northern Hogsucker Hypentelium nigricans

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops

Golden Redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum

Blacktail Redhorse Moxostoma poecilurum

Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus

Least Madtom Noturus hildebrandi

Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus

Freckled Madtom Noturus nocturnus

Brown Madtom Noturus phaeus

Northern Madtom Notorus stigmosus

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Grass Pickerel Esox americanus

Chain Pickerel Esox niger

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Northern Starhead Topminnow Fundulus dispar

Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus

Blackspotted Topminnow Fundulus olivaceus

Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis

Brook Silverside Labidesthes sicculus

White Bass Morone chrysops

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum
Appendices 99

Common Name Scientific Name 

Flier Centrarchus macropterus

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

Orange Spotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Dollar Sunfish Lepomis marginatus

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus

Bantam Sunfish Lepomis symmetricus 

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Naked Sand Darter Ammocrypta beani

Scaly Sand Darter Ammocrypta vivax

Mud Darter Etheostoma asprigene

Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma chlorosomum

Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme

Slough Darter Etheostoma gracile

Harlequin Darter Etheostoma histrio

Brighteye Darter Etheostoma lynceum

Goldstripe Darter Etheostoma parvipinne

Cypress Darter Etheostoma proeliare

Speckled Darter Etheostoma stigmaeum

Gulf Darter Etheostoma swaini

Bandfin Darter Etheostoma zonistium

Blackside Darter Percina maculata

Dusky Darter Percina sciera

River Darter Percina shumardi

Saddleback Darter Percina vigil

Sauger Stizostedion canadense

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

* = Introduced. 

Sources: Etnier and Starnes 1993; and personal communication with Alex Wyss, The Nature 

Conservancy, 2001. 
100 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

MUSSELS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE OBION AND FORKED DEER RIVERS

Scientific Name Common Name Obion River Forked Deer 

River Status* 

Anadonta suborbicula Flat Floater X X CS 

Arcidens confragosa Rock Pocketbook X CS 

Fusconaia flava Wabash Pigtoe X CS 

Lampsilis cardium Plain Pocketbook X SC 

Lampsilis teres Yellow Sandshell X CS 

Lasmigonia complanata White Heelsplitter X CS 

Leptodea fragilis Fragile Papershell X CS 

Megalonaias nervosa Washboard X CS 

Plectomerus dombeyanus Bankclimber X CS 

Pyganodon grandis Giant floater X CS 

Quadrula pustulosa Pimpleback X CS 

Quadrula quadrula Mapleleaf X CS 

Tritogonia verrucosa Pistolgrip X CS 

Truncilia truncate Deertoe X CS 

Uniomerus tetralasmus Pondhorn X CS 

Utterbackei imbecilis Paper Pondshell X CS 

Villosa lineosa Little 

Spectaclecase X CS 

* Status: CS – Currently Stable SC – Special Concern 

X indicates that the species is present; a blank space, that it is not. 

Source: Parmalee and Bogan 1998. 
Appendices 101

FOREST TREES AND SHRUBS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Acer barbatum Florida Maple 

Acer negundo Boxelder 

Acer rubrum Red Maple 

Asimina triloba Pawpaw 

Carya aquatica Bitter Pecan (Water Hickory) 

Carya illinoensis Sweet Pecan 

Carya laciniosa Shellbark Hickory 

Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory 

Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory 

Celtis laevigata Sugarberry 

Celtis occidentalis Hackberry 

Cephalanthus occidentalis Buttonbush 

Cercis canadensis Redbud 

Cornus drummondii Roughleaf Dogwood 

Cornus florida Flowering Dogwood 

Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 

Fagus grandifolia American Beech 

Forestiera acuminata Swamp Privet 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 

Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust 

Gymnocladus dioica Coffeetree 

Ilex decidua Possum Haw (Deciduous Holly) 

Juglans nigra Black Walnut 

Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 

Liquidambar styraciflua Sweetgum 

Liriodendron tulipifera Yellow Poplar 

Maclura pomifera Osage Orange (Bois D’arc) 

Morus rubra Red Mulberry 

Nyssa aquatica Tupelo 

Nyssa sylvatica Black Gum 

Planera aquatica Water Elm 

Platanus occidentalis Sycamore 

Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 

Quercus alba White Oak 

Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak 

Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia Cherrybark Oak 
102 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common Name 

Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 

Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 

Quercus nigra Water Oak 

Quercus nuttallii Nuttall Oak 

Quercus palustris Pin Oak 

Quercus phellos Willow Oak 

Quercus shumardii Shumard Oak 

Quercus stellata Post Oak 

Salix nigra Black Willow 

Sassafras albidum Sassafras 

Taxodium distichum Baldcypress 

Ulmus americana American Elm 

Source: Forestry Records, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 
Appendices 103

HERBACEOUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR ON CHICKASAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Scientific Name Common name 

Amaranthus retroflexus Pigweed 

Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common ragweed 

Ambrosia trifida Giant ragweed 

Andropogon gerardii Big bluestem 

Andropogon virginicus Broomsedge 

Ammania coccinea Toothcup 

Aster spp. Aster 

Azolla caroliniana Waterfern 

Bidens spp Beggartick 

Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge pea 

Cyperus erythrorhizos Red rooted sedge 

Cyperus esculentus Chufa 

Cyperus spp. Flatsedge 

Ceratophyllum demersum Coon’s tail 

Digitaria didactyla Crabgrass 

Echinochloa colona Jungle rice 

Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard Grass 

Echinochloa muricata Wild millet 

Eleocharis obtusa Blunt spikerush 

Elodea canadensis Elodea 

Hibiscus moscheutos Swamp rosemallow 

Ipomoea purpurea Common morning glory 

Iva frutescens Marsh elder 

Leersia oryzoides Rice cut-grass 

Lemna spp. Duckweeds 

Leptachloa filiformis Sprangletop 

Nelumbo lutea American lotus 

Nymphaea advena Yellow pond-lily 

Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall panicum 

Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 

Polygonum lapathafolium Lady’s thumb 

Polygonum pennsylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed 

Potamogeton crispus Curlyleaf pondweed 

Pueraria montana Kudzu 

Rhynchospora corniculata Horned beaked-rush 

Sagittaria platyphylla Delta arrow-head 
104 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scientific Name Common name 

Saururus cernuus Lizard’s tail 

Schizachyrium scoparium Little bluestem 

Sesbania cannabina Sesbania 

Solidago altissima Goldenrod 

Sorgastrum nutans Indiangrass 

Sorghum bicolor Grain sorghum 

Utricularia spp. Bladderwort 

Xanthium strumarium Cockleburr 

Source: Habitat Management Plan, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. 
Appendices 105

Appendix V. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

Originating Person: Randy Cook, Refuge Manager 

Telephone Number: 731-287-0650 E-Mail: Randy_Cook@fws.gov

Date: ________3/28/05________________ 

PROJECT NAME: Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

_X_Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: Tennessee/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Names: Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action (attach additional pages as needed): Implementation of 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw NWR by adopting the preferred 

alternative of Balanced Public Use and Habitat Management which will provide guidance, 

management direction, and operation plans for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

As many as 16 bald eagles are known to winter in the vicinity of Chickasaw NWR, with 

3 active nests known to exist currently on Refuge lands. 

There are 3 active nesting colonies of Interior least tern known to exist on Mississippi 

River sand bars immediately adjacent to the western boundary of Chickasaw NWR, 

and one other active colony approximately 1 mile north of the Refuge. Interior least 

terns feed regularly on sand bars and in drainage canals within the Refuge boundary. 

Pallid sturgeon are known to occur within the Mississippi River. It is possible that 

pallid sturgeon could enter waterways on Chickasaw NWR during high river stages, 

however this has never been documented and is unlikely due to their small numbers. 
106 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Bald Eagle T

Interior Least Tern E 

Pallid Sturgeon E 

 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: No. 27, Lower Mississippi River 

B. County and State: Lauderdale, Tennessee 

C. Latitude and longitude: 

 Approximate center of Refuge: 89.66 W 35.83 N 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Approximately 8 miles SSE to 

Ripley, TN. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Bald eagles occur on the Refuge during winter months. At least 3 active nests are known to 

currently exist on Refuge lands. 

Interior least terns have active nesting colonies on Mississippi River sandbars immediately 

adjacent to Chickasaw NWR and occasionally feed on Refuge lands. 

Pallid sturgeon are known to occur in the Mississippi River in Dyer County (adjacent to 

Lauderdale County) and are likely to occur within the Mississippi River in close 

proximity the Refuge. 
Appendices 107

VII. Determination of Effects: 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B 

(attach additional pages as needed): 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Bald Eagle No negative impacts foreseen; more protection. 

Interior Least Tern No negative impacts foreseen; more protection. 

Pallid Sturgeon No negative impacts foreseen; more protection. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Bald Eagle Maintain and expand potential nesting and feeding habitat. 

Interior Least Tern Cooperate with COE to monitor occurrence and protection. 

Pallid Sturgeon Continue to monitor for possible occurrence in Mississippi River.

 

 

 

 

 

 
108 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

DETERMINATION1 RESPONSE1

REQUESTED 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

NE NA AA

Bald Eagle X Concurrence

Interior Least Tern X Concurrence

Pallid Sturgeon X Concurrence

 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact, 

either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response 

Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely impact 

any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to these 

resources. Response Requested is a “Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely impact any 

listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is “Formal 

Consultation”. Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is “Conference”. 
Appendices 109
110 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

This set of compatibility determinations describes the wildlife-dependent and other uses included 

under the preferred alternative (Alternative D), as described in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. It determines the conditions under which each use is 

considered compatible with the purposes, vision, and goals of the refuge and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. Descriptions and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are 

addressed separately. However, refuge uses through National Wildlife Refuge System Mission 

sections and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations apply to each use. If one of these uses is 

considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, 

then those sections become part of that compatibility determination. 

Under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and agency policy, the Service 

may not permit recreational uses on a national wildlife refuge unless those uses are first determined 

to be compatible wildlife-dependent uses. The needs of fish, wildlife, and plant resources come first. 

All public uses must be compatible with these resources. A use is compatible if it is determined that 

the activity does not materially interfere with, or detract from, the fulfillment of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission or the purposes of the refuge. Furthermore, compatible activities, which 

depend on healthy fish and wildlife populations, will be recognized as priority public uses. The 1997 

law established the priority public uses to be: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Refuge Uses: The following uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the Refuge 

System mission and the purposes of the refuge: 1) Hunting; 2) Firewood Cutting (personal); 3) Offroad Vehicles (for use by visitors with disabilities only); 4) Recreational Fishing; 5) Forest 

Management; 6) Environmental Education and Interpretation; 7) Outdoor Recreation; 8) Raccoon dog 

field trails; 9) Resource Research Studies; 10) Horseback Riding; 11) Chickasaw Farming Program.

Refuge Name: Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Location: Lauderdale County, Tennessee 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Refuge Recreation Act, Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act, Fish and Wildlife Act 1956 

Refuge Purpose(s):

“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. § 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“... suitable for— (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ...” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-1 “ . . . the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... 

property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of 

restrictive covenants imposed by donors . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act 

(16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4), as amended). 
Appendices 111

“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife resources . . . ” 16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4) “... for the benefit of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the 

terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 742f (b) 

(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: “The mission of the System is to administer a national 

network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans.” 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Hunting has been permitted as a compatible public use activity on the Chickasaw National Wildlife 

Refuge since acquisition. The original hunting plan was completed, reviewed by the public, and 

approved in 1986. A revised hunt plan (2003) supersedes the original document and subsequent 

revisions. Hunting is a priority public use. Refuge hunting seasons generally coincide with 

Tennessee state hunting seasons and require only minor changes annually. Portions of the refuge 

are closed annually to all activity, including hunting to protect migratory waterfowl wintering on the 

refuge, and overlapping hunting seasons may be limited to reduce conflicts, and/or prevent safety 

hazards. Turkey hunting, due to limited populations and extensive interest, is permitted only through 

limited "quota" drawings. All other hunting activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and 

appropriate state licenses. 

The refuge hunts have been a useful wildlife management and public relations tool by providing 

quality recreational opportunities for the general public while maintaining specific animal populations 

at desired levels. The refuge hunting plan was developed to insure the associated public recreation 

and wildlife management objectives are met in a responsible and consistent manner by means that 

are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Service policy concerning hunting on National Wildlife Refuges, as recorded in the National Wildlife 

Refuges Manual section 8 RM 5.1, states: "The Secretary of the Interior is authorized by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, and the Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962 to permit hunting on any refuge within the Refuge System upon a determination that hunting is 

compatible with the major purposes for which such areas were established. 

Camping is permitted only at the Barr Rd. Campground only during the small game and deer hunts. 

Camping is authorized through a lease agreement between TWRA and the Service. 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge is located in the western most portion of Tennessee between the 

Chickasaw Bluff and the Mississippi River. Bottomland hardwood forests dominate the refuge and 

are interspersed with managed moist soil impoundments and agricultural fields. The entire refuge is 

open to hunting activities during all or part of the hunting seasons, with the exception of 

administrative sites. Portions of the refuge area are closed seasonally to all public access to provide 

sanctuary for wintering migratory birds. 

All hunting seasons are established annually through coordination with the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency. 
112 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

A. Squirrel season dates and bag limits coincide with state seasons and regulations, except the 

season is closed during open firearms and muzzleloader deer hunts. There is no spring squirrel 

season on the refuge. 

B. Raccoon Season dates and bag limits coincide with state season and regulations. 

C. Quail Season dates and bag limits coincide with state season and regulations, except the season 

is closed during open firearms and muzzleloader deer hunts. 

D. Rabbit Season dates and bag limits coincide with state season and regulations, except the season 

is closed during open firearms and muzzleloader deer hunts. 

E. Opossum Season dates and bag limits coincide with state season and regulations. 

F. Deer hunting on the refuge runs concurrently with Tennessee state seasons and bag limits. The 

deer hunts are conducted to maximize hunter utilization and minimize disturbance to wintering 

waterfowl. All deer harvested on Chickasaw NWR count toward the Unit A bag limit established by 

the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 

G. Turkey seasons consist of two or three quota hunts in April of each year. Hunter numbers will be 

adjusted annually based upon the level of the turkey population. The bag limit will be one male 

turkey per hunter. 

H. Waterfowl Season dates and bag limits coincide with state seasons, except legal shooting hours 

are 30 minutes before sunrise to 12:00 noon. 

All hunting activities on the refuge are subject to refuge specific regulations published annually in the 

Federal Register and in the refuge public use brochure/permit, as well as regulations published by the 

state of Tennessee. Where these regulations differ, the refuge regulations shall supersede those 

published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 

Public hunting opportunities in west Tennessee are limited, with FWS-managed refuges and statemanaged Wildlife Management Areas representing virtually all the public lands open to hunting. 

Private lands offer hunting opportunities only to those willing and able to purchase hunting rights 

through long term leases, or private ownership. The demand for public hunting areas is increasing at 

an alarming rate, as we shift toward a more urbanized society, and refuges are expected to meet an 

ever increasingly important part of this demand. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the hunting program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which supports activities involving the public, such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, hunting, and fishing. The cost of operating and maintaining the present 

upland game and big game hunts and a wild turkey season will be approximately $8,000.00 annually. 

Within the annual refuge budget of approximately $300,000, the necessary funds are available for 

administration of the hunting program. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific funding 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None. 

Maintenance costs: 

Trail Maintenance - $500 

Kiosks - $100 

Parking areas and boat ramps - $1,000 

Signs - $250 

Monitoring costs: $1,000 
Appendices 113

Offsetting revenues: The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Project which 

currently returns 80% of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. At current 

levels this provides approximately $500 to the refuge to provide hunting opportunities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Long-term impacts: There has been substantial historical use of this forested wetland area for hunting. Based 

on available information, there is no indication of adverse biological impacts associated with these activities. 

The refuge has the latitude to adjust hunting seasons and bag limits annually, or even close the 

refuge entirely due to safety or concerns about habitat conditions. This latitude coupled with 

monitoring of wildlife populations and associated habitat conditions by both the state Wildlife 

Resources Agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service ensures that a long term impacts to either 

wildlife populations and/or habitats on the refuge are unlikely. 

As hunting pressure increases on the refuge, alternatives such as limited quota hunts can be utilized 

to limit impacts, as well as expanded sanctuaries to provide additional critical habitats for trust 

species and/or threatened and endangered species. 

Cumulative impacts: Timing and duration of the refuge's hunting program does not coincide with 

other popular programs on the refuge and would not result in cumulative impacts to refuge resources. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination: 

Hunting (big game) 

Hunting (other migratory birds) 

Hunting (upland game) 

Hunting (waterfowl) 

Camping 

Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Hunting seasons and bag limits are established 

annually and generally fall within the state framework for Tennessee as agreed upon during annual hunt 

coordination meetings with state personnel. The refuge has the ability to establish more restrictive 

seasons and bag limits to prevent over harvest of individual species on the refuge. All hunters are 

required to possess a free refuge hunting brochure/permit or quota permit while participating in refuge 

hunts. Steel shot is required for all persons using shotguns while hunting on the refuge. 
114 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

All other refuge regulations apply. Law Enforcement patrols are conducted throughout the hunt seasons 

to ensure compliance with refuge laws and regulations. Waterfowl hunting is limited to 1/2 day. No 

hunting or access is allowed in the waterfowl sanctuary areas from November 15 to March 15. 

Justification: A primary objective for which the refuge was established is to provide the public with 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Hunting which adheres to the refuge regulations is an activity which is 

compatible with this purpose. Hunting is a viable management tool for controlling populations, 

especially deer and raccoons. Allowing these uses to continue is consistent with the refuge's 

establishing purpose, management objectives, and follows current Service policy. 

Camping is allowed through a lease agreement with the TWRA. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2021
Appendices 115

Description of Use: Firewood Cutting (Personal) 

Collection and removal of residual wood (limbs, tree tops, logs) left as a result of reserve timber 

harvest and stand thinnings by private individuals for personal home heating, and recreational 

camping. This is a secondary use of resources not suited for commercial harvest as prescribed 

by the habitat management for timber stand improvements. This use is directly linked to 

management actions on the refuge, and reserve harvests within limited blocks of timber on the 

refuge, and is expected to be very limited, due to availability of resources outside the refuge. As 

future development diminishes resources outside the refuge the demand for utilization of refuge 

resources is expected to increase. This is not an economic use, rather an alternative to refuge 

funded cleanup following timber management activities. 

Firewood cutting would be conducted in hardwood forests throughout the refuge following 

commercial harvest or thinning operations as designated by the habitat management plan and 

annual habitat management plan. 

This activity would take place only when ground conditions which would limit disturbance and damage exist. 

Individuals would apply for a special use permit for the collection of a limited amount of firewood for 

personal use to be harvested from selected areas on the refuge. Individual is responsible for his/her 

equipment, safety, and all aspects of the removal of firewood from the refuge. 

Firewood cutting is a management tool to remove slash to reduce fuel loads associated with timber 

harvest and accelerate the growth of shade-intolerant oak seedlings for which the management is 

directed in the habitat management plan. While this opportunity exists outside the refuge, it is seen as 

an alternative to refuge funded cleanup following approved timber sales. 

Availability of Resources: Administration and management are discussed in the habitat 

management plan. Administrative costs are expected to be less than those associated with refuge 

cleanup on treatment areas, and are outlined in the habitat management plan. 

Review and issuance of special use permits. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: 

Signing designated access routes, and harvest areas: $200/unit 

Signs: $125 (these signs would be utilized on multiple units for several years, and considered a one time cost) 

Monitoring costs: 

As this is considered to be an accompanying use to commercial timber harvest activities on the 

refuge, all monitoring activities would be attributable to those commercial activities, as covered in the 

habitat management plan. 

Offsetting revenues: None 
116 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: No negative short term impacts are expected. Firewood cutting occurs 

immediately after contractor has vacated a harvest compartment so no new disturbance of plants or 

wildlife will occur. Removal of debris and trees accelerates opening of the forest floor for oak 

regeneration, as well as reducing potential fuel loads within the harvest compartment. Permits set 

specific conditions and locations to minimize impacts. 

Long-term impacts: This activity will potentially provide positive long term impacts through the accelerated 

release of hardwood species, thus creating diverse vertical structure within the management unit, as well as 

reducing ground litter and debris often associated with managed timber harvest. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination: 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Firewood cutting is administered by refuge 

personnel through special use permits and is allowed in designated areas only. Failure to meet the 

conditions of the SUP constitutes a violation of the Refuge Administration Act whereby the permittee 

is subject to termination of the permit and issuance of a Notice of Violation. 

Justification: Personal firewood cutting is compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. It is an effective way to remove slash left by timber cutting operations and 

accelerates the growth of shade intolerant oak seedlings for which the management is directed 

in the habitat management plan. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016

Firewood Cutting Compatible with the following stipulations. 
Appendices 117

Description of Use: Off-road Vehicles (for use by visitors with disabilities only) 

Use of off-road vehicles (ORVs) or four-wheel all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) by hunters with disabilities is 

essential in providing adequate hunting opportunities for these individuals. The difficult and often 

swampy terrain on the refuge makes individual use of ATVs the most cost effective method of 

providing access for hunters with disabilities. Use is restricted to transportation to and from 

designated hunting locations, including the transport of personal gear and game taken by the 

physically challenged hunter. Carrying another person or their game is not permitted. 

This use would be allowed in designated areas open to hunting on the refuge. 

Use is only allowed during established refuge hunting seasons. 

Access by hunters with disabilities is allowed on a case by case basis, with applicants providing 

necessary documentation of disability, request for areas to be accessed, and species sought. Currently 

the refuge receives 3–5 requests annually from hunters with disabilities primarily seeking access for deer 

hunting. The hunters are responsible for providing all equipment, and associated assistance during their 

hunt. This permit grants no other privileges other than access by ATV on designated trails on the refuge, 

and permittee must comply with all other refuge and state hunting regulations. 

Physically challenged hunters routinely apply for a special use permit to participate in hunting programs 

currently offered on the refuge. While these opportunities currently exist on private lands and state WMAs, we 

still have an obligation to provide access to hunters with disabilities wishing to utilize the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: 

Review and issuance of special use permits. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Several existing trails will be utilized by hunters with disabilities, as these trails 

are currently maintained to support other recreational activities; no additional costs would be 

attributable to this program. 

Monitoring costs: All monitoring of this use would be conducted in conjunction with the refuge 

hunting program, and no additional costs would be attributed to this program. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Impacts to wildlife, plants, and habitat by the use of ORVs are well documented 

and some disturbance to wildlife, plants and their habitats is expected to occur. The impact to the 

refuge however, this minor impact is acceptable in providing suitable access to physically challenged 

hunters who use ATV's to access hunting opportunities on the refuge. 

Long-term impacts: No long term impacts are expected, due to the short duration, and limited 

scope of anticipated use. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated with this use. 
118 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 

29, 2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public 

review and comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination: 

Off-road vehicles (other) Use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The refuge has established a policy for the level 

of disability that permits the use of ORVs for hunting. Persons applying for disabled hunter status 

must possess written proof of disability from their physician, and must adhere to Service policy for 

operation and use of ATVs prior to issuance of a special use permit. 

Justification: A primary objective for which the refuge was established is to provide the public with 

wildlife-oriented recreation. Allowing hunters with disabilities to use off-road vehicles to pursue their sport 

provides this group with no more opportunity that which is afforded to the general public. Provided this 

activity adheres to the refuge regulations, it is an activity which is compatible with refuge objectives. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
Appendices 119

Description of Use: Recreational Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the refuge prior to its inclusion to the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and continues to be a popular recreational pursuit with the public. Fishing is a 

priority public use. Refuge fishing will continue to provide additional public fishing opportunities in a 

region that is lacking sufficient amounts of acreage open to the public, and current fish populations 

will continue to support a sustainable harvest under a regulated fishing program. 

Fishermen regularly visit the refuge to fish in the river cutoffs and sloughs, or access the Mississippi 

River via boat ramps located at Wardlow's Chute and the Ed Jones boat ramp. 

Chickasaw NWR is located 10 miles west of Ripley, Tennessee, and covers more than 25,000 acres 

adjacent to the Mississippi River. The refuge is dominated by bottomland hardwoods, river oxbows 

and wooded sloughs, and the most common fish include bluegill, crappie, largemouth bass, channel 

catfish, carp, buffalo, and gar. The portion of the refuge that borders the Mississippi River consists of 

a series of sandbars and islands that provide habitat for big river fish such as flathead catfish, blue 

catfish, and pallid sturgeons. 

Fishing is open year round, with the exception of the waterfowl sanctuary, which is closed to all public 

access from November 15 - March 15. 

Fishing is conducted on Chickasaw NWR subject to seasons and regulations established by the 

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Fishing is further restricted on the refuge by special refuge 

regulations which limit access to established boat ramps, prohibit access after dark, prohibit certain 

fishing methods, prohibit the taking of frogs and turtles, and provide seasonal closures to benefit 

wintering waterfowl and other trust species. 

While ample fishing opportunities exist in west Tennessee, the refuge affords visitors unique access 

to undisturbed oxbow lakes, meandering sloughs, and a large stretch of the Mississippi River. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for the fishing program is borne by annual operation and 

maintenance funds, which include activities involving the public such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and conduct of the refuge hunting and fishing programs. The refuge spends 

approximately $5,000 of an annual budget of approximately $300,000 in direct support of the fishing 

program on Chickasaw. Therefore, the program is in compliance with specific funding portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: 

Annual maintenance of existing boat ramps - $200 

Annual maintenance of existing parking areas - $250 

Annual maintenance of existing roads and trails - $1,000 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring - $1,000 

Offsetting revenues: None 
120 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Minor impacts such as littering and gasoline contamination will occur but not at a 

level that would cause great concern. 

Historically, fishing has been one of the most prominent activities on the refuge, resulting in only 

temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations and causing no noticeable impact 

on the abundance of species sought or other associated wildlife. Seasonal closure of sanctuary 

areas virtually eliminates any impacts of sport fishing during critical periods on wintering trust species. 

Long-term impacts: No long term impacts are expected. 

Cumulative impacts: No known cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 

Determination: 

Recreational Fishing Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Refuge fishing seasons are set within the 

constraints permitted by the State of Tennessee and participants must comply with state fishing and 

boating regulations. Law Enforcement efforts will be directed at ensuring compliance with state and 

refuge regulations. Boat launching is allowed at ramps located at Wardlow's Chute and Ed Jones Rd. 

A. All public access is prohibited from November 15 to March 15 in the waterfowl sanctuary. 

B. Possession or use of trot lines, limb lines, jug lines, yo-yo's, nets, and associated equipment is prohibited. 

C. The taking of frogs and turtles is prohibited. 
Appendices 121

Justification: Historically, fishing has been one of the most prominent activities on these refuges 

resulting in only temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations, and has caused no 

noticeable impact on the abundance of species sought or other associated wildlife. Current 

regulations and restrictions limit the impacts to trust species and provide a safe and rewarding 

experience for the refuge visitor. Therefore, the fishing program is compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established and is in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Act, 

the Refuge Recreation Act, and the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2021
122 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Forest Management 

The forest management objectives for the refuge are to: 

1. Maintain and enhance necessary habitat for threatened and endangered species by promoting 

plant communities beneficial to these species. 

2. Manage timber stands to enhance waterfowl habitat by manipulating stand composition in order to 

produce high quality food and to provide adequate nesting areas. This will include promoting red oak 

and other favored tree species, and by assuring that adequate den and snag trees remain 

in the stands. 

3. Manipulate forest stands to provide diverse plant successional stages ranging from regeneration 

to mature timber, which will support a variety of wildlife species. 

4. Perform management actions that will compliment recreational and educational activities, 

by carefully planning when and where management actions should take place. 

5. Utilize management techniques which do not adversely affect soils, water bodies, or any other natural 

resources present. These techniques should include harvesting under proper climatic conditions and 

placing buffer strips where necessary to protect water quality or other natural resources. 

Various silvicultural treatments will be used to accomplish these forest management objectives. 

Silvicultural decisions will be based upon the favored wildlife species and their habitat requirements 

as it relates to the favored tree species as outlined in the habitat management plan. Our goal is to 

promote the favored trees species which will meet the wildlife habitat requirements. We must 

recognize the importance of these tree species and the special management considerations which 

they must have in order to assure that they remain a high percentage of the stand composition. 

Silvicultural decisions should consider the age and vigor of the existing stands and the availability of 

desirable reproduction. When harvesting timber, we will be concerned with the promotion of diverse, 

vigorous stands of timber which benefit trust species. 

An important factor to consider when making silvicultural decisions is the availability of advanced red oak 

regeneration. After reviewing the data collected and surveying the refuge, there is a great concern about 

the future of red oak species on the refuge. Much of our time will be spent implementing those 

silvicultural practices which enhance the reestablishment of productivity for the historical red oak 

component. During the initial survey of the refuge, extensive data were collected concerning 

reproduction. These areas will receive high priority management attention. It is crucial that this 

reproduction be released to promote the growth of new stands with a relatively high red oak component. 

Various silvicultural treatments will be used to promote favored timber species. These treatments 

include intermediate cuttings, timber stand improvement, shelterwood, clearcut, and patch cuts. 

Chickasaw NWR is located 10 miles west of Ripley, Tennessee, adjacent to the Mississippi River. 

Chickasaw NWR consists of 25,006 acres and includes one of the largest contiguous blocks of 

bottomland hardwood forest remaining in west Tennessee. Forest management activities will take 

place throughout the 20,794 acres of bottomland hardwood forest on the refuge. 

Activities will be conducted during the driest months of the year, usually July through November. 
Appendices 123

Timber harvest operations will be conducted using local contractors who will bid on the timber to be 

harvested. Timber stand improvements will be conducted by the staff using a dozer with shearing 

blade or chemical injection of undesirable species. 

This use is being proposed by the refuge as a management tool, designed to improve habitat 

conditions on the refuge for trust species. 

Availability of Resources: Complex forestry staff will spend an estimated 50% of their time at 

Chickasaw NWR. The habitat management plan goes into sufficient detail regarding station 

resources needed to accomplish forest management activities. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: All maintenance activities associated with commercial timber harvest will be 

carried out by the contractor. While this will reduce the payment to the government for the value of 

the timber, no additional costs will be incurred by the refuge. 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring of timber sales is an administrative function and all costs associated 

with this activity are previously accounted for. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Short term impacts will vary with the scope of the timber harvest technique 

utilized. Thinning and timber stand improvement projects will result in very limited impacts to habitats, 

and virtually no impacts to trust species. Clearcuts and patch cutting will have moderate impacts to 

localized blocks of habitats, and may temporarily displace trust species. 

Long-term impacts: Long term impacts will be beneficial for all timber harvest operations, as they are 

designed to improve habitat conditions over time for trust species. Benefits include, but are not limited 

to, increased vigor of key species, increased diversity both in structure and species composition of 

the forest habitats, and improved wildlife habitat. 

Cumulative impacts: No negative cumulative impacts are expected as a result of timber 

management. Timber management, in concert with other refuge management activities will greatly 

enhance the suitability of the various habitats on the refuge for a variety of wildlife species. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days. 
124 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Determination (check one below): 

Forest Management Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All commercial activities will be conducted 

under the regulations set forth by Special Use permits. These regulations will follow all 

guidelines outlined in the Chickasaw Habitat Management Plan. Forest management activities 

will follow the Tennessee Forest Best Management Practices. 

Justification: The forest management program is compatible with the purposes for which the 

refuge was established and is in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Act, the 

Refuge Recreation Act, and the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. These activities also support 

the following plans: Partners in Flight, Lower Mississippi Joint Venture, and West Tennessee 

Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
Appendices 125

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

The refuge’s environmental education and interpretation program seeks to increase the public's 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute to the conservation of such wildlife. Activities 

would include traditional environmental education such as teacher-led or staff-led onsite field trips, 

offsite programs in classrooms, nature study such as teacher and student workshops, and 

interpretation of the wildlife resources incorporated in support of facilities such as interpretive trails 

and the visitor contact station. These activities are priority uses. 

The entire refuge has the potential to be utilized for environmental education and interpretation. 

This is a year round activity, conducted on an as-requested basis. Although this activity does not require a 

special use permit, it is most often closely coordinated with the refuge manager. Opportunities for 

classroom activities on those portions of the refuge open to the general public, which do not violate general 

refuge regulations may be conducted without coordination with the refuge manager. 

The refuge will serve as an outdoor classroom for a variety of audiences with an interest in wildlife 

conservation and management. Typically, teachers, students, and other groups will learn from hands on 

demonstrations, projects, and activities delivered by refuge staff. Activities will be conducted on site utilizing 

existing refuge facilities. Group size will be typically limited to ensure effective presentation of desired 

materials which may be specifically tailored to meet the educational needs of the group. 

Environmental education is utilized to encourage understanding in citizens of all ages to develop land 

ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, and improve the image of the Service. 

Availability of Resources: Currently these activities are conducted as time and resources permit. 

Expanding the refuge's volunteer program with additional personnel will provide for the future 

development of the environmental education and interpretation program. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: 

Maintenance and enhancement of existing kiosks – $1,000 

Materials for onsite activities – $200 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term impacts: The use of on-site, hands on, action oriented activities by groups of 

teachers/students to accomplish environmental education objectives may impose a low level impact on 

the sites used for these activities. Impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate vicinity during such activities. It is not anticipated that 

such impacts would be permanent. 

Off-site education, such as classroom visits, would not impose any biological impacts to the resource. 
126 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Long-term impacts: Current utilization of this use is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term negative impacts have been experienced. Long-term beneficial impacts include the 

furthering of the refuge mission through the education of the general populace. 

Cumulative impacts: No negative cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Environmental education and interpretation Compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-site activities should be held where minimal 

impacts will occur. Evaluation of sites and programs should be held periodically to assess if objectives 

are being met and the resources are not being degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts 

begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the location of outdoor classroom activities. 

Justification: Environmental education is used to encourage understanding in citizens of all ages to 

act responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. It is a tool to use in building the land ethic, 

developing political support, and decreasing wildlife violations. It constitutes one method of 

increasing visibility in the community and improving the image of the Service. 

Environmental education at the refuge is incidental since full-time staff to conduct activities has 

only recently been established. However, the program is important and provides visitors with an 

awareness of refuge specific issues such as wetland ecology, endangered species protection, 

and migratory bird management, as well as issues relating to the entire refuge system. 

Environmental education activities are expected to increase while ensuring compatibility with the 

purpose for which the refuge was established. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2021
Appendices 127

Description of Use: Outdoor Recreation 

Outdoor recreation activities include non-motorized boating, hiking, jogging, walking, and bicycling. 

Chickasaw NWR is open to public use year-round except for areas on the refuge that are designated 

as waterfowl sanctuary which are closed from November 15 through March 15. Much of the refuge is 

subject to flooding which may result in parts or all of the refuge being closed for safety reasons. 

Motorized vehicles must remain on designated gravel roads within the refuge. Bicycles are permitted 

only on open designated motorized vehicle routes. 

The refuge is open to these activities year-round, except that portions of the refuge are closed from 

November 15 through March 15. 

Most of the recreational activities on the refuge are centered on wildlife viewing, which is conducted 

on refuge roads and at the observation tower. Hiking, jogging, walking, and bicycling all occur on 

refuge roads and areas that are open to such activities. Non-motorized boating is permitted on all 

open refuge waters. 

Providing the public with wildlife oriented recreation is one of the priority uses on the refuge. Outdoor 

recreation is a very popular activity in the surrounding area, and the refuge is one component in a 

complex of public lands that lie in west Tennessee. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these programs is borne by annual operations and 

maintenance funds which include activities involving the public such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and conduct of refuge hunting and fishing programs. The refuge spends 

approximately $3,000.00 of an annual refuge budget of $300,000.00 in direct support of these 

programs on Chickasaw NWR. Therefore, the program is in compliance with the specific funding 

portions of the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are not directly attributable to these incidental uses on the refuge. 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Most of the impacts that could occur will involve some violation of refuge 

regulations such as deliberate disturbance of wildlife or plants, littering, or vandalism. Some animals 

are killed or injured by vehicles while crossing refuge roads. Disturbance to trust species during 

critical wintering periods is avoided by seasonal closure of sanctuary areas. Short term impacts to 

facilities such as roads and structures can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: No long-term negative impacts are anticipated. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated; however, programs may be 

modified in the future to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 
128 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Jogging 

Walking 

Bicycling 

Non-motorized boating 

Hiking 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrolling of public use areas 

should continue to minimize violations. The current regulation that prohibits entry after daylight hours 

will be maintained. All seasonal closures are designed to coincide with peak waterfowl use periods. 

Any major change in waterfowl use patterns that creates a conflict with public use will prompt further 

consideration of refuge regulations. Expansion of wildlife viewing opportunities beyond the current 

level may be explored with the acquisition of additional lands. 

Justification: A primary objective for which the refuge was established is to provide the public with 

wildlife oriented recreational opportunities. Non-motorized boating, jogging, walking, hiking, 

backpacking, and bicycling at the refuge which adhere to the established regulations are activities 

that are compatible with that purpose. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
Appendices 129

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography 

Chickasaw NWR is open to public use year-round except for areas on the refuge that are designated 

as waterfowl sanctuary which are closed from November 15 through March 15. Much of the refuge is 

subject to flooding which may result in parts or all of the refuge being closed for safety reasons. 

The refuge is open to these activities year-round, except that portions of the refuge are closed from 

November 15 through March 15. 

Most of the recreational activities on the refuge are centered on wildlife viewing, which is conducted 

on refuge roads and at the observation tower. 

Providing the public with wildlife oriented recreation is one of the priority uses on the refuge. Wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography is a very popular activity in the surrounding area, and the refuge 

is one component in a complex of public lands that lie in west Tennessee. 

Availability of Resources: Funding for these programs is borne by annual operations and 

maintenance funds which include activities involving the public such as recreation, interpretation, 

environmental education, and conduct of refuge hunting and fishing programs. The refuge spends 

approximately $3,000 of an annual refuge budget of $300,000 in direct support of these programs on 

Chickasaw NWR. Therefore, the program is in compliance with the specific funding portions of the 

Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Maintenance costs are not directly attributable to these incidental uses on the refuge. 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Most of the impacts that could occur will involve some violation of refuge 

regulations such as deliberate disturbance of wildlife or plants, littering, or vandalism. Some animals 

are killed or injured by vehicles while crossing refuge roads. Disturbance to trust species during 

critical wintering periods is avoided by seasonal closure of sanctuary areas. Short term impacts to 

facilities such as roads and structures can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe conditions. 

Long-term impacts: No long-term negative impacts are anticipated. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative negative impacts are anticipated; however, programs may be 

modified in the future to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 
130 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Wildlife Photography and Wildlife 

Observation 

Use is compatible w/ the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrolling of public use areas 

should continue to minimize violations. The current regulation that prohibits entry after daylight hours 

will be maintained. All seasonal closures are designed to coincide with peak waterfowl use periods. 

Any major change in waterfowl use patterns that creates a conflict with public use will prompt further 

consideration of refuge regulations. Expansion of wildlife viewing opportunities beyond the current 

level may be explored with the acquisition of additional lands. 

Justification: A primary objective for which the refuge was established is to provide the public with 

wildlife oriented recreational opportunities. Wildlife observation and wildlife photography, at the 

refuge, which adhere to the established regulations are activities that are compatible with that 

purpose. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2021
Appendices 131

Description of Use: Raccoon dog field trials 

American Kennel Club-sanctioned and nonsanctioned raccoon dog field trials held by local hunters 

and raccoon hunting clubs will occur primarily on the forested areas of the refuge. 

Hunts are conducted during the mid- to late-summer months, typically two to three months prior to the 

raccoon season, and occur for 2–3 consecutive nights. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge does not have the resources to administer this use. 

Currently, the refuge and Complex have no law enforcement personnel to monitor this activity. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Most of the impacts that could occur will involve some violation of 

refuge regulations such as deliberate destruction of wildlife or plants, littering, or vandalism. Wildlife 

disturbance is a major factor during these activities. This disturbance stresses wildlife in the area, 

forcing changes in behavior and movements to other areas. Some animals are killed or injured by 

vehicles while crossing refuge roads. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Raccoon Field Trials Use is not compatible. 

Justification: A primary objective for which the refuge was established is to provide the public 

with wildlife-oriented recreational opportunities. However, raccoon dog field trials can have 

detrimental effects on wildlife through increased disturbances. The activity also occurs at night 

and safety is a major concern. The refuge currently does not have the resources to administer 

field trials. The Complex currently has no law enforcement personnel. Also, other lands (state 

and private) are available for this activity. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
132 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Resource Research Studies 

This activity would allow university students and professors, nongovernmental researchers, and 

governmental scientists access to the refuge's natural environment to conduct both short-term and 

long-term research projects. The outcome of this research would result in better knowledge of our 

natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect the refuge resources. 

Availability of Resources: 

No additional fiscal resources are needed to conduct this use. Existing staff can administer permits 

and monitor use as part of routine management duties. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: There should be no significant negative impacts from scientific research on the 

refuge. The knowledge gained from the research would provide information to improve management 

techniques and better meet the needs of trust resource species. Impacts such as trampling 

vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife would occur, but should not be significant. A small 

number of individual plants and animals may be collected for further study. These collections would 

have an insignificant effect on the refuge plant and animal populations. 

Long-term impacts: None 

Cumulative impacts: None 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Research Use is compatible with the following stipulations. 
Appendices 133

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

would be examined on its individual merit. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why would be 

asked to determine if the requested research contributes to the refuge purposes and could best be 

conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the researcher would be 

issued a Special Use Permit. Progress would be monitored and the researcher would be required to 

submit annual progress reports and copies of all publications derived from the research. 

Justification: The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of species 

and the environmental communities present on the refuge. These benefits far outweigh any shortterm disturbance or loss of individual plant and animals that might occur. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
134 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Horseback Riding 

Recreational horseback riding on established trails and roads within Chickasaw NWR, while not one 

of the "Big 6," is often associated with priority public uses. 

Horseback riding is permitted on refuge roads open to the public for vehicle traffic. 

Horseback riding will be permitted year-round during daylight hours only, on roads open to vehicular 

traffic. Areas closed to the general public for management or safety purposes will be closed to 

horseback riding as well. 

Horseback riding will be a self-initiated activity on the refuge, with no amenities provided specifically for this 

activity. Participants in this activity will be responsible for all aspects of their visit and use of the refuge. 

This is a popular activity which has historically occurred on lands which are now refuge lands within 

west Tennessee. Development and the paving of most of the roads in west Tennessee have 

significantly decreased the amount of gravel roads available for horseback riding. 

Availability of Resources: No additional administrative costs are associated with this activity. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Negative impacts are expected to be severe on underdeveloped hiking trails on 

the refuge. These impacts include trampling of vegetation, hoof damage during wet periods, and 

potential browse damage adjacent to trails. 

Long-term impacts: No long-term impacts are expected. However, increased long-term maintenance 

costs associated with rehabilitation of damaged foot trails may be incurred. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are expected. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.
Appendices 135

Determination (check one below): 

Horseback riding Use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Horseback riding will be limited to daylight hours 

only, and restricted to graveled public roads open to vehicle traffic. 

Justification: Horseback riding supports wildlife observation by providing an alternative mode of 

travel on refuge roads. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
136 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Chickasaw Farming Program 

Cooperative farming has been a management tool on Chickasaw NWR since 1986. Primarily serving 

as a supplement to natural food resources, this program is designed to assist the refuge in meeting 

wintering waterfowl population goals. Contracts with cooperative farmers are established annually 

prior to the planting season. These contracts describe the location and amount of acreage to be 

planted during the coming year. The contract is then signed by the cooperative farmer and the 

Service representative (refuge manager). Shares are acreage-based with a 75% cooperator’s share 

and 25% refuge share. The cooperator assumes responsibility for all associated costs for the crops 

raised. Modifications to the original contract may occur throughout the farming season, with 

amendments agreed upon and signed by all parties involved. 

In addition to providing winter food resources, this program may be utilized to maintain newly acquired 

tracts of land in an open condition until permanent natural habitat communities can be established. 

Farming is used to compliment natural food production on the refuge and assist in meeting the 

minimum waterfowl maintenance objectives of 13.5 million use-days. Providing wintering and 

migrating habitats can be achieved in part through a successful cropland program. By incorporating 

a system of impoundments with the cropland program, the waterfowl maintenance objectives should 

be easily achieved. Preferred waterfowl crops include corn, milo, millet, wheat, buckwheat, and 

natural (moist soil) foods. By planting crops such as corn or millet in impoundment areas, their 

availability to waterfowl can be enhanced through flooding in the fall/winter. 

Cooperative farming is primarily utilized within the waterfowl sanctuary to provide for the needs of 

wintering waterfowl species without subjecting them to hunting pressure. Newly acquired tracts outside 

the existing waterfowl sanctuary may be farmed in preparation for the establishment of native habitats. 

Cooperative farming contracts are generally valid from March 15–November 15 annually. 

This activity is a contracted activity, with the cooperator providing all materials, equipment, and labor to fulfill 

the requirements of the contract. Facilities such as roads and access points are maintained by refuge staff. 

This use is deemed necessary to fulfill refuge obligations to provide for the wintering needs of 

waterfowl. While agricultural lands are abundant off the refuge, they do not provide a secure habitat 

for wintering waterfowl. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge currently spends approximately $8,000 per year in the 

administration of the refuge cooperative farming program. The cost of providing the same resources 

for waterfowl utilizing refuge staff and equipment would cost approximately $50,000 per year. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Maintenance of roads, trails, and access points for cooperative farmers – $3,000 

(this maintenance also benefits numerous refuge-conducted activities.) 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring cooperative contracts, and cooperator activities – $ 2,500 

Offsetting revenues: None 
Appendices 137

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Soil disturbance is likely to occur when the areas are disked during spring planting 

season, but these impacts can be lessened by the implementation of no-till and conservation tillage farming 

methods. A buffer strip adjacent to a waterway and sensitive areas help trap sediments and hold 

agricultural runoff. Impacts from unapproved or improperly applied chemicals may occur. 

Monotypic stands of agricultural crops reduce the diversity and suitability of refuge lands for a variety 

of migratory and resident wildlife species. 

Long-term impacts: None 

Cumulative impacts: The cumulative impacts should be minimal if integrated pest management 

practices and conditions within the cooperative farming agreement are followed. 

Public Review and Comment: The period of public review and comment began on December 29, 

2005, and ended on January 30, 2006. The following methods were used to solicit public review and 

comment: 

 Posted notice at refuge headquarters 

 Public notice in newspapers with wide local distribution 

 Public meeting(s) 

This compatibility determination was part of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, which was announced in the 

Federal Register and made available for public comment for 30 days.

Determination (check one below): 

Farming Use is compatible with the following stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Cooperative farming agreements, which are contractual 

agreements between the refuge and local farmers, require special conditions to be met. Cooperators are 

subject to dismissal for not meeting those conditions. Integrated Pest Management administered by the 

refuge and implemented by cooperators will help to reduce the potential for chemical misuse. 

See the Habitat Management Plan for the list of special conditions. 

Justification: Section 6 RM 4.1 of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Refuge Manual states, 

"Service policy is to use the most natural means available to meet wildlife objectives. In situations where 

objectives cannot be met through maintenance of more natural ecosystems, the more intensive and artificial 

method of cropland management may be employed. The acreage devoted to croplands will be that 

required to meet minimum habitat objectives." The specific objective is as follows: 

1. To provide wintering waterfowl habitat for: 

Ducks – 13 million use days 

Geese – 0.5 million use days 
138 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Although cropland management will be directed primarily to satisfy certain habitat and life 

requirements of waterfowl, other bird and mammal species will also benefit. The production of crops 

is essential for waterfowl management to meet the primary objectives for which the refuge was 

established. Farming is an essential management tool for providing "hot" foods for migratory birds. 

The Habitat Management Plan addresses the management of the refuge farm fields. These fields are farmed 

by a cooperator under a contractual agreement, issued annually, with the refuge. Under this agreement, the 

refuge receives a 25% share of each cooperative farmer's allotment where one acre out of four is planted for 

waterfowl food production. For their share (75%), the cooperative farmers plant primarily soybeans. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision: Place an X in appropriate space.

____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: April 10, 2016
Appendices 139

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the comprehensive 

conservation plan. If one of the described uses is considered for compatibility outside of the plan, the 

approval signature becomes part of that determination. 
140 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 141

Appendix VI. Management Methods and 

Procedures 

PARTNERSHIPS

The Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program helps accomplish its mission by offering technical and 

financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats 

on their land. The program emphasizes the reestablishment of native vegetation and ecological 

communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife in concert with the needs and desires of private landowners. 

The Service also enlists the assistance of a wide variety of other partners to help restore wildlife 

habitat on private lands. These partners include other federal agencies, tribes, state and local 

governments, conservation organizations, academic institutions, industries and other businesses, 

school groups, and private individuals. While not a program requirement, a dollar-for-dollar cost 

share is usually sought on a project-by-project basis. 

Since the project’s inception in 1987, these partnerships have generated significant habitat 

restoration accomplishments on private lands, primarily focused on the restoration of wetlands, native 

grasslands, stream banks, riparian areas, and in-stream aquatic habitats. These restored habitats 

now provide important food, water, and cover for federal trust species, including migratory birds (e.g., 

waterfowl, shore and wading birds, songbirds, and birds of prey), anadromous fish, and threatened 

and endangered species, as well as other fish, wildlife, and plant species that have experienced 

population declines in the recent past. Many of these projects are located near existing National 

Wildlife Refuge System lands, or state wildlife management areas, providing increased benefits to 

fish and wildlife that rely on these lands for survival. 

The assistance that the Service offers to private landowners may take the form of informal advice on 

the design and location of potential restoration projects, or it may consist of designing and funding 

restoration projects under a voluntary cooperative agreement with the landowner. Under the 

cooperative agreements, the landowner agrees to maintain the restoration project as specified in the 

agreement for a minimum of 10 years. 

Typical restoration projects may include, but are not limited to: 

• Restoring wetland hydrology by plugging drainage ditches, breaking tile drainage systems, 

installing water control structures, constructing levees, and reestablishing old connections with 

waterways. 

• Installing fencing and off-stream livestock watering facilities to allow for restoration of stream 

and riparian areas. 

• Removal of exotic plants and animals which compete with native fish and wildlife and alter 

their natural habitats. 

• Prescribed burning as a method of removing exotic species and to restore natural disturbance 

regimes necessary for some species survival. 

• Reconstruction of instream aquatic habitat through bioengineering techniques. 

In addition to providing restoration assistance to private landowners, the Service also provides 

biological technical assistance to U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies implementing key 

conservation programs of the Farm Bill. The Service’s assistance helps the Department of 
142 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Agriculture meet the technical challenges presented by these programs while maximizing benefits to 

fish and wildlife resources. The Service also assists in on-the-ground habitat restoration actions 

associated with several of these programs. 

Under the Wetlands Reserve Program, conservation easements are required to protect and restore 

formerly degraded agricultural wetlands. The Service provides technical assistance to Department of 

Agriculture agencies and to private landowners on site selection, restoration planning, and compatible 

uses for easements offered voluntarily by interested landowners. 

AVIFAUNAL ANALYSIS 

Wintering Waterfowl 

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) identified a continental waterfowl 

population goal of 62 million breeding ducks, goals for specific populations of geese, and the actions 

needed to achieve those goals. The NAWMP identified the Lower Mississippi Valley (LMV) as one of 

the priority habitat areas, and a plan of action for the LMV was implemented in 1990 to achieve 

NAWMP goals. The goal of the LMV Plan focused on providing an adequate quantity, quality, and 

distribution of habitats on public and private lands to ensure that the LMV could support a wintering 

population of at least 8.7 million ducks and 1.4 million geese. The geographic area covered by the 

West Tennessee Wildlife Resources (WTWR) Conservation Plan needs to provide an adequate 

quantity, quality, and distribution of habitats to support a wintering population of 599,000 ducks and 

61,000 Canada geese. Achieving this goal will require maintaining the current 10,600 acres 

managed in west Tennessee for ducks and geese and developing a minimum of 6,300 additional 

acres of habitat with water management capability for ducks. 

The WTWR Conservation Plan identified minimum waterfowl foraging objectives for the Obion, 

Forked Deer, and Hatchie/Wolf river watersheds, along with strategies and actions designed to meet 

those needs. It should be recognized that providing adequate foraging habitats to support duck 

population objectives depends upon current habitat conditions and food availability which vary 

annually. In some years, food resources will be abundant and readily available, but much less in 

other years. Therefore, management efforts should focus, at a minimum, on meeting foraging needs 

during critical periods. It was assumed that if adequate foraging habitats are available, other habitat 

types needed by waterfowl will also be adequate. Other life history needs related to sanctuary, water, 

cover, molting, pairing, etc., will be considered throughout the planning area as well as species 

specific requirements such as nest and brood habitat for wood ducks. 

Duck population and habitat carrying capacity goals for the WTWR Conservation Plan were stepped 

down from the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Plan (Loesch et al. 1994), which was 

developed to implement the NAWMP. Duck population goals were calculated using data from the 

Midwinter Waterfowl Inventory, county duck harvest estimates, and continental population goals. 

This method involves calculating the number of ducks that must winter in the WTWR Conservation 

Plan area if the NAWMP is to achieve the 62 million average continental breeding population 

objective. The steps involved in making these calculations were described in the Lower Mississippi 

River Joint Venture Evaluation Plan. Other documents that provided guidance in formulating goals 

and objectives for the WTWR Conservation Plan were the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Strategic 

Plan for 2000-2006 and the Tennessee Implementation Plan for the NAWMP. 
Appendices 143

Guidelines from the WTWR Conservation Plan used in this CCP included: 

• The average number of geese counted during the January Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey for 

the 1985-89 period was selected as the population goal for the WTWR Conservation Plan. 

• Procedures used to calculate waterfowl objectives in the LMV (Loesch et al. 1994) were 

also used for the WTWR Conservation Plan. However, since calculated foraging 

objectives are considered to be the minimum needed and the Tennessee Wildlife 

Resource Agency’s (TWRA) Strategic Plan calls for a 15% increase in populations and 

habitat, objectives were increased by 15%. 

Under existing management, Chickasaw NWR provides 1,050 acres of managed impoundments, 835 

of which are flooded. In addition, 525 acres of winter wheat or corn are planted annually on 

agricultural lands that surround the impoundments. According to objectives and strategies developed 

as part of the WTWR Conservation Plan, Chickasaw NWR has target objectives of 13.5 million duck 

use days and 500,000 goose use days. 

Transient Shorebirds 

Habitat objectives (acres) derived from shorebird population estimates have been developed by the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Migratory Bird Initiative (MBI) and adopted by the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan (USSCP). Whereas these acre objectives are useful in shorebird management, it 

is generally recognized that intensive management of smaller basins likely results in consistently 

greater carrying capacity for shorebirds than does less intensive management on extensive areas 

(Short 1999; USSCP 2000). This results mainly from the fact that optimal habitat conditions for 

shorebirds occupy a relatively narrow band in the water depth and vegetation density continuums. 

Providing mudflat/shallow water (i.e. < 2 in. water) conditions with less than 25% vegetative cover 

over extensive areas is difficult under most management situations in west Tennessee, especially 

during the fall. As a result, the approach in developing the WTWR Conservation Plan is not only to 

identify areas potentially suitable for shorebird habitat management (i.e. acquisition, protection, etc.), 

but also to provide information necessary to manage effectively for shorebirds on existing and 

potential management areas. Note that this is in contrast to an approach of taking the existing 

acreage objective and stepping it down to various specific management units (WMAs, refuges, etc.). 

Stopover habitat during southward migration has been identified by the U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan as the critical factor for shorebird habitat management in the LMV region. Quality habitat for 

shorebirds during this portion of the annual cycle consists of shallow (0-2 in.) water with little standing 

vegetation (< 25% cover) from late July through October. Because this typically is a dry time of year 

in west Tennessee, sites that naturally hold water (i.e. low-lying sites with poorly drained, hydric soils) 

likely offer the most favorable conditions for effective wetland restoration and management. 

Current public land habitat objectives for shorebirds in the MAV of Tennessee total 224 acres, 

whereas planned shorebird habitat acres total 230. In 1999, publicly managed areas within the 

MAV in west Tennessee provided 97 acres of habitat in the fall specifically for shorebirds (LMV 

Joint Venture Office, unpublished data). Shorebird habitat goals for TWRA in fall 2000 for the 

Eagle Lake, White Lake, and Reelfoot WMAs were 90, 120, and 80, respectively, totaling 290 

acres. This would have provided well over half of the MBI objective (457 acres). However, due 

to excessively dry conditions, these goals were not met. If properly managed, a small 

percentage of the areas identified as potentially suitable for shorebird habitat management in 

the WTWR Conservation Plan, plus the objective acreage on existing TWRA areas, would more 

than satisfy the MBI shorebird habitat objective for Tennessee. 
144 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Shorebird habitat is largely compatible with waterfowl habitat. Perhaps the most substantial difference 

between shorebird and waterfowl habitat management is the timing of prescribed actions. Fall shorebird 

migration occurs earlier than migration for most waterfowl species. However, managing for early fall 

migrant shorebirds will provide optimal habitat for southward-migrating blue-winged teal. Basins drawn 

down in late summer for shorebird habitat can be reflooded in November, making seeds in the substrate 

available to waterfowl. Additionally, shallow water habitat during late summer/early fall is beneficial to 

many species of wading birds, including herons, egrets, and wood storks. 

Waterfowl and shorebirds also differ somewhat in their use of water depth. Generally, dabbling ducks 

use a wider range of water depths than shorebirds. Hence, maintaining shallow water (< 6 inches) 

accommodates both shorebirds and dabbling ducks, whereas deeper water (8-12 inches) excludes 

most of the shorebird species common to this region. Likewise, ducks tolerate a greater density of 

standing vegetation than shorebirds. Fortunately, reducing standing vegetation by disking in late 

summer/fall enhances benthic invertebrate density, creates conditions suitable for shorebird use, and 

can increase seed density for waterfowl in the subsequent growing season (Gray et al. 1999). 

However, note that disking or mowing prior to October (as is recommended for some fall shorebird 

habitat scenarios) will reduce seed production by late-seeding grasses, such as millet and panic 

grasses, which are heavily utilized by waterfowl. Managing multiple units under a variety of regimes 

will ensure that such loss of potential waterfowl food occurs on only a few units (< 2) in a given year. 

Under existing management on Chickasaw NWR, approximately 100 acres are managed during the spring 

shorebird migration period, and approximately 30 acres are provided during the fall migration period. 

Forest-breeding Birds 

Habitat objectives for land birds in the MAV have been established by Partners in Flight in the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation Plan (Twedt et al. 1998). Swallow-tailed kite restoration, 

stable or increasing cerulean warbler populations, and stable or increasing Swainson’s warbler 

populations are the primary land bird goals in the MAV Bird Conservation Plan. In order to meet the 

population objectives for these species, the Plan has identified 87 Bird Conservation Areas, broken 

down into 52 10,000-to-20,000-acre blocks, 36 20,000-to-100,000-acre blocks, and 13 blocks of over 

100,000 acres each, as MAV Bird Conservation Areas were identified by Ford (1998). 

Bottomland hardwoods have been identified as the habitat of primary concern in the MAV, with at 

least 70 species of land birds occurring in this habitat type in the physiographic area (Twedt et al. 

1998). The highest priority land birds species in the MAV include Swainson’s warbler, cerulean 

warbler, and swallow-tailed kite, all of which occur in bottomland hardwood forests. 

In the MAV in Tennessee, there are currently 70,475 acres of bottomland hardwoods currently under 

some kind of conservation protection that benefits land birds. The majority of these acres are in public 

ownership. An additional 6,964 acres of bottomland hardwoods are planned for future conservation 

actions, and an additional 89,941 acres of bottomland hardwoods are desired for future conservation 

action in order to attain target objectives for land birds in the MAV of Tennessee (TWRA and USFWS 

2002). These conservation activities have been further refined into implementation zones. 

Migratory bird habitat objectives are segregated by implementation zones, and the “Middle 

Implementation Zone” for the west Tennessee MAV is shown in Figure 5 of the Chickasaw CCP. The 

Middle Implementation Zone includes Moss Island Wildlife Management Area and extends south to 

encompass Lower Hatchie NWR. The total acreage is 165,472 acres. Currently, 46,328 acres are under 

migratory bird management, with an additional 2,627 acres planned or under development. An additional 

57,631 acres are necessary to meet migratory bird habitat objectives in this zone. These acreage figures 
Appendices 145

reflect actual migratory bird habitat; the total acreage is higher to include open water, buildings, and other 

miscellaneous land uses. The necessary future condition for migratory land birds will require bottomland 

hardwood forests, dry scrub/shrub, and managed grasslands. 

A primary focus for the middle implementation zone should be the acquisition of core forested areas, 

such as the John T. Tully Wildlife Management Area (formerly the Anderson-Tully property) in 

Lauderdale County, acquired by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency in 2002. This property is 

comprised of 11,500 acres of mature bottomland hardwood forest, and serves as a core area for 

high-priority interior forest neotropical migrants such as the cerulean warbler and Swainson’s warbler. 

In addition to the acquisition of the Tully property, forested blocks are proposed to be increased at 

Moss Island Wildlife Management Area, Chickasaw NWR, and Lower Hatchie NWR. Habitat 

corridors, primarily on or near the bluffs, are also proposed to connect forested tracts. 

Under existing management, Chickasaw NWR provides approximately 20,293 managed acres of 

bottomland hardwood forest for land birds, approximately 503 acres of upland forest, and 515 acres 

of savannah. Under WTWR Conservation Plan goals and objectives, Chickasaw NWR should target 

an additional 28,257 forested acres. 

Threatened and Endangered Bird Species 

Part of the Service mission is to protect, enhance, and manage habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, in keeping with the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. Two federally 

listed bird species known to use the Chickasaw NWR vicinity during at least part of their life cycle 

include the bald eagle and the interior least tern. 

The bald eagle, a threatened species that the Service plans to delist, winters in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley of Tennessee in large numbers. Nearby Reelfoot Lake has one of the largest 

overwintering populations in the lower 48 states. As many as 16 bald eagles have been known to 

occur in the Chickasaw vicinity, and three active nests are known to exist on the refuge. The refuge’s 

continuing habitat restoration and protection activities provide suitable habitat for nesting eagles. 

The interior least tern interior population is an endangered species which has a number of active 

nesting colonies on sandbars within the Mississippi River adjacent to Tennessee. There are active 

nesting colonies of interior least tern known to exist on Mississippi River sand bars immediately 

adjacent to the western boundary of Chickasaw NWR. Interior least terns feed regularly on sand bars 

and in drainage canals within the refuge boundary. The refuge’s protection of lands immediately 

adjacent to the Mississippi River provides protection to sand bars where least tern nesting colonies 

exist during summer months. 

A Section 7 Intra-Service Biological Evaluation addressing those species is provided in Appendix V. 

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCE PROTECTION 

With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the federal government recognized the importance 

of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to protect archaeological sites and historic 

structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by the United States. The body of historic 

preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. Several themes are consistently present in the 

laws and the establishing regulations. They include: (1) each agency to systematically inventory the 

“historic sites” on its holdings and to scientifically assess each site’s eligibility for the National 

Register of Historic Places; (2) consideration of impacts to cultural resources during the agency’s 

management activities and seeking to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; (3) protection of cultural 
146 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

resources from looting and vandalism to be accomplished through a mix of informed management, 

law enforcement efforts, and public education; and (4) the increasing role of consultation with groups, 

such as Native American tribes, to address how a project or management activity may impact specific 

archaeological sites and landscapes deemed important to those groups. 

The objectives and strategies below outline the Service’s attempt to achieve mandated historic 

preservation responsibilities in a manner consistent with its mission and the refuge’s mission. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Archaeologist coordinates a Memorandum of Understanding 

with pertinent federal and state agencies, such as the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, to 

enhance law enforcement of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Native American 

Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, and Section 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as 

to facilitate investigations of Archaeological Resources Protection Act violations and unpermitted 

artifact collection on the refuge. 

A review of the state site files located at the Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation Division of Archaeological Resources will provide preliminary information on known or 

potential archaeological sites and historic structures within or near the refuge. Such information will 

aid the Service in the development of a long-term management plan for cultural resources. A 

comprehensive refuge-wide archaeological survey is recommended so that the Service’s 

management options can be fully realized in a cost-effective manner. The survey will provide a site 

predictive model based upon the region’s cultural history, known site distribution, oral history 

interviews, historic documents, historic land use patterns, topography, geomorphology, soils, 

hydrology, and vegetative patterns. 

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 

Ecosystems are communities of living organisms interacting among themselves and with the physical 

components of their environment. Ecosystems worldwide are experiencing increasing impacts from 

human activities, resulting in greater challenges to effective management and conservation. In recent 

years, conservationists have fostered the idea that resource conservation can best be achieved by taking 

a holistic approach to management. The ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife conservation means 

protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem while providing 

for its sustainable socioeconomic use. It involves recognizing that, in some way, all things within the 

ecosystem are interconnected. As such, the Service is working with divergent interests on ecosystembased approaches to conserve the variety of life and its processes in the Nation's diverse ecosystems. 

The Service’s mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Healthy habitats are necessary to sustain 

fish, wildlife, and plants on lands in the National Wildlife Refuge System. In the past, the 

administrative boundaries of refuges have often bounded the scope of planning and policy decisions. 

The Service’s objective in ecosystem management is to implement consistent policies and 

procedures that will embrace the larger “management environment,” considering the needs of all 

resources in decision making. This holistic approach to fish and wildlife conservation enables the 

Service to more efficiently and effectively maintain healthy ecosystems on a long-term basis and to 

conserve the Nation's rich biological heritage. 

In the early 1990s, the Service adopted an ecosystem approach to resource management, identifying 

53 separate ecosystems within the United States (USFWS 1996). Included in this group is the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem, which includes Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. The Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem Team, composed of Service personnel and partners with professional 
Appendices 147

expertise in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, focuses on landscape-level problems affecting fish 

and wildlife resources and provides specific guidance that will best serve trust species and species of 

concern and reduce impacts associated with forest fragmentation. The ecosystem approach 

emphasizes conservation and management of discrete land units, watersheds, or ecosystems and 

requires the identification of ecosystem goals that represent resource priorities. On a more local 

level, the comprehensive conservation planning team reflects the conservation strategies for national 

wildlife refuges within the ecosystem and identifies strategies on which to focus management efforts. 

The Service must work closely and consistently with external partners, public and private, who share 

responsibility for ecosystem health and biological diversity. This approach enables the Service to 

fulfill its fish and wildlife trust responsibilities with greater efficiency and effectiveness. (See Chapter I 

of the CCP for further discussion of specific ecosystem issues). 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

All federal agencies by law have the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of condemnation 

to acquire lands and interests in lands for the public good. However, it is the policy of the Service to 

acquire lands from willing sellers only, and only when other protective means, such as local zoning 

restrictions and regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. 

The Service acquires lands and interests in lands, such as easements and management rights, 

through leases or cooperative agreements consistent with legislation or other Congressional 

guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlifeoriented public use for educational and recreational purposes. These lands include national wildlife 

refuges, national fish hatcheries, research facilities, and other areas. 

When land is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the 

minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full 

consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the impact 

on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. In all fee title 

acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the property’s appraised market 

value, as set out in an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal requirements. 

Planning for the acquisition of land, water, or other interests is initiated with the identification of a 

need to meet resource objectives that require a real property base. At Chickasaw NWR, a team of 

biologists, planners, and realty specialists evaluated myriad factors, such as fish and wildlife 

resources, land use, threats to resource values, socioeconomic considerations, and cultural 

resources, to determine the original refuge boundary in 1985 (USFWS 1985). 

In 2000, an expanded acquisition boundary was approved which could potentially increase the 

refuge’s total size to 60,240 acres. The recommendations in the Final Environmental Assessment and 

Land Protection Plan: Proposed Expansion of Chickasaw and Lower Hatchie National Wildlife 

Refuges (USFWS 2000) define important and sensitive areas that could be protected and managed 

as part of the Refuge System. The plan was eventually forwarded to the Director of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service for approval. During the review of the draft plan, the public was given opportunities to 

comment on and respond to the proposed plan. 

Once funds become available, the Service proceeds to contact all landowners within the refuge’s 

approved acquisition boundary to determine if there are any willing sellers. If a landowner expresses an 

interest in selling his or her lands to the Service, a professional real estate appraiser conducts an 

appraisal to determine the fair market value of the property. Once the fair market value is determined, a 

meeting is held with the landowner and the Service presents its offer. If the landowner agrees with the 
148 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

offer, the purchase agreement is signed and the process of acquiring the land is set in motion. 

As of July 1, 2004, land acquisitions within the approved acquisition boundary have resulted in Chickasaw 

NWR acreage of 25,006 acres. In acquisition considerations, lands adjacent to Service-owned lands 

within the existing refuge boundary and larger contiguous forested tracts (inside or outside the current 

approved acquisition boundary) and marginal farmland are given the highest priority. 

The land acquisition methods that could be used by the Service are described as follows: 

1. Leases and Cooperative Agreements 

Potentially, the Service can protect and manage habitat through leases and cooperative agreements. 

Management control on privately owned lands can be obtained by entering into long-term renewable 

leases or cooperative agreements with the landowners. Short-term leases can be used to protect or 

manage habitat until more secure land protection can be negotiated. 

2. Conservation Easements 

Conservation easements give the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their fish and wildlife 

habitat values. Such management precludes all other uses that are incompatible with the Service’s 

management objectives. Only land uses that would have minimal or no conflicts with the 

management objectives are retained by the landowner. In effect, the landowner transfers certain 

development rights to the Service for management purposes as specified in the easement. 

Easements would likely be useful when (a) most, but not all, of a private landowner’s uses are 

compatible with the Service’s management objectives, and (b) the current owner desires to retain 

ownership of the land and continue compatible uses under the terms set by the Service in the 

easement. Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement 

include (a) development rights (agricultural, residential, etc.); (b) alteration of the area’s natural 

topography; (c) uses adversely affecting the area’s floral and faunal communities; (d) private hunting 

and fishing lease; (e) excessive public use and access; and (f) alteration of the natural water regime. 

3. Fee Title Acquisition 

A fee title interest is normally acquired when (a) the area’s fish and wildlife resources require 

permanent protection not otherwise assured; (b) land is needed for visitor use development; (c) a 

pending land use could adversely impact the area’s resources; or (d) it is the most practical and 

economical way to assemble small tracts into a manageable unit. Fee title acquisition conveys all 

ownership rights to the federal government and provides the best assurance of permanent resource 

protection. A fee title interest may be acquired by donation, exchange, transfer, or purchase. 

Funds for the acquisition of lands for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge will likely come from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. Sources of revenue for 

these funds include federal Duck Stamp sales, refuge entrance fees, fish and wildlife fines, import 

taxes on arms and ammunition, offshore oil and gas leases, and Congressional appropriations. 

Lands acquired by the Service are removed from local real estate tax rolls. To offset the fiscal impact 

associated with the removal of these lands from the public tax rolls, the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act 

of 1935, as amended in 1978, provides for payments in lieu of taxes. Revenue-sharing payments for 

the county would compare favorably with current tax rates. If fully funded, the revenue-sharing rate is 

1% of the fair market value of a property. For lands purchased by the Service, the following formulas 

are used to determine the annual payment amount to the county. Payment for acquired land is 

computed on whichever of the 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. 
Appendices 149

Lands subject to refuge revenue-sharing payments are reappraised every 5 years. The appraisals 

are set on the fair market value of the land, based on the highest and best use. The appraised 

market value of the fee title lands within the refuge, and thus the revenue-sharing payments, would 

change over time in relation to the changing value of non-refuge lands. 

The Service’s proposed action (Alternative D) could result in the acquisition of an additional 35,234 

acres of wildlife habitat within the current approved acquisition boundary of Chickasaw National 

Wildlife Refuge, through a combination of fee title purchases and/or donations from willing sellers and 

less-than-fee interests (conservation easements, cooperative agreements) from willing landowners. 

The Service believes these are the minimum interests necessary to preserve and protect the fish and 

wildlife resources in the proposed area. 

The private property has been prioritized for acquisition using the following criteria: 

• Biological significance; 

• Existing and potential threats; 

• Significance of the area to refuge management and administration; and 

• Existing commitments to purchase or protect land. 
150 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 151

Appendix VII. Public Involvement 

PUBLIC SCOPING OF ISSUES 

A part of the planning process is to inform the public and solicit their ideas. To accomplish this 

objective, a number of different means were employed and are described below. 

Early in the planning process, a Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register. Local 

publicity was provided by newspaper interviews and radio interviews prior to public scoping meetings. 

Presentations describing the upcoming planning process were given at West Tennessee Rotary 

Clubs, Friends of West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges meetings, Planning Review Group 

meetings, as well as Service Ecoteam meetings. Mailings were sent to about 150 persons, media 

representatives, local officials, and agencies, providing information about the planning process and 

four upcoming open house/scoping meetings to be held in the West Tennessee area. Flyers were 

posted in local communities, and newspaper articles and radio interviews advertised the upcoming 

meetings and the comprehensive conservation planning (CCP) process. A news release went out 

from the Service=s Regional Office which was carried by numerous other media sources. 

A public open house and scoping meeting was held on November 2, 2000, in Ripley, Tennessee, in which 

attendees were provided an opportunity to learn about the refuge’s purpose, mission, and goals, as well 

as issues and opportunities currently facing refuge management. The comprehensive conservation 

planning process was described and attendees had the chance to provide oral or written comments to be 

considered in the development of the plan. Attendees at the scoping meeting were provided a sign-up 

sheet for the CCP mailing list, a written questionnaire, and opportunities to give public comments and ask 

questions, both in the scoping meeting as well as to managers at the open house. 

All mailings, presentations, interviews, and meetings provided instructions as to how public input 

could be provided for the planning process. Throughout the planning process, comments were 

received by telephone, personal visits, e-mail, and mail. 

In addition to public outreach and scoping meetings, a Planning Review Group was developed, 

consisting of resource professionals, local officials, and interested citizens who were willing to provide 

input during the planning process. The Planning Review Group for the refuge included 

representatives from Ducks Unlimited, Dyersburg State Community College, Tennessee Wildlife 

Resources Agency, Anderson-Tully Company, and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, as well as 

local officials, businessmen, farmers, landowners, and sportsmen. This group met and was provided 

an overview of the planning process. Members of this group continued to provide comments during 

the planning process by reviewing sections of the document which were relevant to their areas of 

expertise. A copy of the initial draft CCP was provided to each member of this group for comments. 

The comments received during the public scoping process are summarized as follows: 

• Provide increased hunting opportunities. 

• Provide increased fishing opportunities 

• Maintain and/or provide trails and roads for improved access. 

• Provide wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. 

• Provide increased habitat management activities. 

• Provide increased water management capabilities in the waterfowl sanctuary. 

• Provide and improve access to Right Hand Arm. 
152 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

• Landowner concerns regarding federal acquisitions of private lands and desire for more 

information provided to public about acquisitions. 

• Need for more assessment and inventory of refuge plants and animals. 

• Address “public opposition” to killing of wildlife on national wildlife refuges. 

• Develop “humane and socially acceptable” predator management strategies to protect 

threatened and endangered species. 

• Assess and mitigate impacts of recreational activities on plants and animals. 

• Examine the emphasis on management for particular species/groups. 

• Need for a thorough discussion of proposed refuge habitat management practices. 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

This appendix summarizes all comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Public 

comments on this draft document were accepted from December 30, 2005, to January 30, 2006. 

A total of 39 individuals submitted comments either in writing or at a public meeting, which was held 

on January 19, 2006. More than one individual represented some agencies or organizations. 

PUBLIC FORUMS 

During the public review period, which began on December 30, 2005, and ended on January 30, 

2006, the refuge and planning staffs hosted one public meeting. This meeting was held on January 

19, 2006, at 7 p.m., at the Tennessee Technology Center in Ripley, Tennessee. The meeting began 

as an open house with refuge staff available to discuss the draft plan and refuge operations. A 30-

minute formal presentation on the draft plan was then given, followed by a facilitated discussion to 

solicit comments. A recorder wrote the comments on a flip chart. A total of 18 individuals offered 

comments during this public meeting. 

AFFILIATIONS OF RESPONDENTS 

 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of respondents who commented on the draft plan 

and environmental assessment, either in writing or at the public meeting. 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Chad Ballard Private Citizen, Covington, TN 

Danny Moore Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Jarred Lee Private Citizen, Dyersburg, TN 

Josh Emerson Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Jame A Belk Private Citizen, Atoka, TN 

Vernon McBrine III Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Verble Ballard Private Citizen, Henning, TN 

Rodney Hemby Sr. Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Randy Lankford Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Robert Beard Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 
Appendices 153

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Jerry Nelson Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

William Miks Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

George Arendes Private Citizen, Henning, TN 

Jerry Betti Private Citizen, Oakfield, TN 

Kenny Owen Private Citizen, Dyersburg, TN 

Mike Sentell National Wild Turkey Federation, Dyersburg, TN 

Richard D. Preston Tennessee Ornithological Society and Friends of 

West Tennessee Refuges, Munford, TN 

James C. Alsbrook Private Citizen, Drummons, TN 

Anthony Alsbrook Private Citizen, Drummons, TN 

David Brown Private Citizen, Atoka, TN 

James Hemby Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Tom Greaves Private Citizen 

Robert Nix Private Citizen, Covington, TN 

Whit Nix Private Citizen, Covington, TN 

Chuck Easley Private Citizen, Brighton, TN 

James A. Alsbrook Private Citizen, Brighton, TN 

Glen Arthur Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

David Gitchell Jr. Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Charles L. McKee Private Citizen, Covington, TN 

Bobby Tillman Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Jeremy Lovelady Private Citizen 

Cary Spencer Private Citizen, Ripley, TN 

Chris Pitt Private Citizen, Munford, TN 

Joe Taylor Private Citizen 

Jered Olds Private Citizen, Gates, TN 

Charlie Muise Private Citizen, Maryville, TN 

Bill Harmon Secretary, Open Lake Sporting Club 

B. Sachau Private Citizen, Florham Park, NJ 

Tennessee Ornithological Society Nonprofit Organization, TN 

The number of affiliations represented in the above table can be summarized as follows: 

nongovernmental organizations (3); private citizens (35). 
154 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

COMMENT MEDIA 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: oral and written. 

GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF RESPONDENTS 

The geographic origins of the individual respondents who submitted comments are the States of 

Tennessee and New Jersey. 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED PLAN 

Comment: We’d prefer Alternative C but will support Alternative D. 

Comment: Most of my beliefs can be summed up in “option D” of the proposals. 

Comment: The Tennessee Ornithological Society supports the adoption of Alternative D for the 

refuge. This alternative offers the best chance for meaningful improvements in wildlife conservation 

and habitat management, while affording the public reasonable recreational opportunities. 

Service Response: Comments noted. 

CONCERNS 

Habitats 

Comment: Eradication of non-native species and attempts to prevent invasion by non-natives. 

Service Response: The current invasive species on Chickasaw Refuge are hybrid cocklebur and 

hemp sesbania. Hybrid cocklebur and sesbania are controlled using several techniques, which 

include disking, water level management, mowing, and chemical spraying. 

Comment: Increased management of native flora and fauna. 

Service Response: The refuge currently manages for native flora and fauna. Moist-soil 

management concentrates on using native plant species to provide quality foods for wintering 

waterfowl and other native species. New land acquisitions are reforested to native species. 

Comment: I think the agribusiness and farms in this area should be thrown out on their ear. They 

are in fact profiteers taking 75 percent of what they grow for their own pockets. The birds and wildlife 

can find their own food. 

Service Response: Agriculture is used to produce “hot” foods, which helps the refuge achieve the 

goals set out in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. These goals cannot be achieved 

without agriculture in combination with moist-soil and other natural foods. The cooperative farmers 

plant these hot foods for the refuge and in return they get 75 percent of the crop. The cooperative 

farmers also benefit the refuge by keeping the waterfowl sanctuaries in an early successional stage, 

which benefits many neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, native wildlife, and waterfowl. 
Appendices 155

Comment: All logging, poisoning, and burning should be stopped immediately. 

Service Response: All forestry techniques will follow Tennessee’s Best Forestry Management 

Practices, which lessen the negative impacts due to logging. Logging, chemical treatment, and 

burning are all biologically sound practices that benefit wildlife. The establishing purpose of the 

refuge was for migratory birds. All of the forestry techniques promote hard and soft mast trees. 

These trees produce much of the food for native wildlife and migratory birds. Without sound forestry 

practices, such as logging, chemical treatments, and burning, these food-producing trees would be 

out- competed by less favorable species. These forestry techniques are also used to restore 

wetlands that were negatively altered by previous landowners. 

Comment: Increased management/habitats for shorebirds, especially during fall migration. 

Service Response: The refuge provides 100 acres of shorebird habitat in the spring and 30 acres in 

the fall. As opportunities allow on refuge lands and as new land is acquired, shorebird habitat will 

increase on Chickasaw Refuge. 

VISITOR SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION 

Comment: Increase law enforcement and enforcement of the laws. 

Service Response: The West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge Complex has recently hired an 

additional law enforcement officer to increase enforcement of current laws. 

Comment: Increase support for non-consumptive use. 

Service Response: The preferred management alternative identified in the supporting environmental 

assessment for Chickasaw Refuge, and described in the draft plan, includes goals, objectives, and 

strategies to enhance compatible public use. Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation were found compatible with the purposes of the refuge and 

are priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. With 

the exception of the waterfowl sanctuary area, which is closed between November 15 and March 15, the 

refuge is open year-round to compatible recreational opportunities. 

Comment: Ban all hunting and trapping. 

Service Response: Trapping is not permitted on the refuge. In accordance with the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, hunting, wildlife photography, wildlife observation, 

and environmental education and interpretation are considered priority public uses and are permitted 

when compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. Hunting has been 

considered compatible and has been used as a management tool to prevent certain species from 

becoming overpopulated. 

Comment: Ban all commercial fishing. 

Service Response: The refuge currently does not allow commercial fishing. 

Comment: The 2005-2006 raccoon hunting season on Chickasaw Refuge was reduced during big 

game hunts to 10 days. Open the raccoon season up to state seasons or back to previously allowed 

seasons on Chickasaw Refuge. 
156 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: One of our goals is to increase compatible recreational opportunities. The refuge 

management staff, in coordination with biologists of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, will review 

the current raccoon season and increase the season as appropriate and compatible. 

Comment: Currently, the refuge is not open to raccoon dog field trials. Open the refuge for field trails. 

Service Response: A primary purpose of the refuge is to provide the public with wildlife-oriented 

recreational opportunities. However, field trials can have detrimental effects on other wildlife through 

increased disturbance. This disturbance adversely impacts nesting productivity of other associated wildlife, 

as well as forces changes in behavior and movement patterns within the refuge. This activity also occurs at 

night, increasing opportunities for law enforcement violations associated with other species. Also, other 

lands (state and private) are available for this activity. Due to the disturbance, the potential for associated 

law enforcement problems, and the fact that other private and public lands are available for this activity, field 

trials are not compatible with the establishing purposes of the refuge. 

Comment: Why do we have to use steel shot for small game? 

Service Response: It is policy that only non-toxic shot be used on refuges in order to decrease lead 

poisoning of waterfowl. The majority of Chickasaw Refuge floods annually and is used as feeding 

grounds for migratory waterfowl. The use of toxic shot is not compatible with the establishing 

purposes of the refuge. 

Comment: Increase the hunting opportunities for wild turkeys by increasing the season, number of 

hunters, or opening the season to statewide limits. 

Service Response: The refuge has been flooded 8 out of the last 10 years during the spring 

mating/nesting seasons for wild turkeys. Due to flooding, the turkey population on Chickasaw Refuge 

was dramatically reduced and fluctuates yearly. Seasons and numbers of hunters are currently 

limited. Each year season dates and numbers of hunters are reviewed and, if the turkey population 

allows, increased hunting opportunities may be provided. 

REFUGE ADMINISTATION AND OPERATION 

Comment: What becomes the priority when funding is limited? 

Service Response: When funding is limited, “Wildlife First,” as mandated by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, becomes the priority for the refuge. 

Comment: The continued use of maps showing Open Lake Sporting Club property as refuge 

property causes us a problem with trespassers. 

Service Response: The recorded deed calls for a north-south boundary across Right Hand Arm. 
Appendices 157

NEGATIVE RESPONSES 

Comments: I don’t like the plans. They are in fact killing fields for anything trying to stay alive in this 

area. They also operate as killing factors for anyone and anything living downwind of them. No 

wonder all the species are declining in number every year. This is a negative plan. 

Service Response: The preparation of comprehensive conservation plans is a requirement of the 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The draft plan for Chickasaw Refuge was 

prepared in accordance with Service policy and guidelines. In accordance with the Improvement Act, 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are considered priority public uses and are permitted when compatible with the 

purposes for which the refuge was established. 
158 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 159

Appendix VIII. List of Preparers 

Randy Cook, Project Leader, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, 

Tennessee 

Michael Stroeh, Deputy Project Leader, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, 

Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Chris Graves, Former Refuge Operations Specialist, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Ripley, 

Tennessee 

Leif Karnuth, Forester, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Gary Pogue, Wildlife Biologist, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, 

Tennessee 

Christine Donald, Park Ranger, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, 

Tennessee 

Rob Martin, Former Refuge Planner, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, 

Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Deborah Jerome, Former Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, 

Georgia 

Dave Erickson, Former Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, 

Georgia
160 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 161

Appendix IX. Consultation and Coordination 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge was prepared with 

the participation of Service staff, refuge users, environmental resource professionals, and the local 

community. The comprehensive planning process began in January 2000, when a Core Group was 

formed to begin the biological planning for an interagency effort in west Tennessee, which 

incorporated approximately 10,000 square miles of private, state, and federal lands. 

This effort eventually produced the West Tennessee Wildlife Resources Conservation Plan. The 

WTWR Conservation Plan serves as the biological foundation for the development of comprehensive 

conservation plans for five national wildlife refuges in west Tennessee, including this plan for 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. Later that same year, the Chickasaw CCP Technical Team was 

formed to develop the Chickasaw plan, and in November a public scoping meeting was held in 

Ripley, Tennessee. At the meeting, the public was given the opportunity to comment orally or in 

writing regarding their perceived issues, concerns, and opportunities for management of the refuge. 

Additional comments were received by mail, telephone, and e-mail. Presentations on the refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan were also given to Rotary clubs in west Tennessee, and the plan 

was advertised in local newspapers and on radio. A mailing list was developed to keep interested 

parties informed on the progress of the comprehensive planning effort. 

A Chickasaw Planning Review Group, composed of state and federal agency professionals, 

nongovernmental organizations, private businessmen, sportsmen, local officials, and others with specific 

knowledge or interest in the refuge, was developed to oversee the refuge’s planning process and solicit 

suggestions from professional counterparts, local citizens, and private interests. The Planning Review 

Group also reviewed and provided comments on various drafts of the comprehensive conservation plan 

as it progressed. The recommendations from these working groups provided valuable information for the 

authors of this plan. Please see Chapter II of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for more information 

on the public scoping and involvement process. 

Members of the above-described planning groups are listed below. 

Core Group 

Randy Cook, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Rob Martin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Don Orr, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Memphis, Tennessee 

Greg Wathen, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee 

Jeanette Jones, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee 

Bob Ford, The Nature Conservancy, Nashville, Tennessee 

Chickasaw CCP Technical Team 

Randy Cook, Project Leader; Michael Stroeh, Deputy Project Leader; Gary Pogue, Wildlife Biologist; and 

Rob Martin, Planner, West Tennessee National Wildlife Refuges Complex, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Leif Karnuth, Forester, Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Ripley, Tennessee 

Chickasaw Planning Review Group 

Bob Dew, Ducks Unlimited, Jackson, Tennessee 

Doug Winford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Cookeville, Tennessee 

Ken Jones, Dyersburg State Community College, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Jeff Martin, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Ripley, Tennessee 

Greg Wathen, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, Tennessee 
162 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Eugene Pugh, Lauderdale County Commission, farmer, Halls, Tennessee 

Mike Staten, Anderson-Tully Company, Lake Village, Arkansas 

Jack O’Connell, Anderson-Tully Company, Dyersburg, Tennessee 

Bill Sweat, First Citizens Bank, landowner, Ripley, Tennessee 

Dr. Paul Hamel, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Stoneville, Mississippi 

Sid Pinner, sportsman, Covington, Tennessee 

Billy Brewer, farmer, duck hunter, Halls, Tennessee 

Resource Working Groups 

Waterfowl: Don Orr, FWS, and Jim Johnson, TWRA, Co-chairs 

Aaron Johnson, FWS; Joe Hopper, TWRA; Dan Combs, Tennessee Technological University; Jack 

Colwick, TWRA; Ross Melinchuk, Ducks Unlimited; Harvey Huffstetler, Ducks Unlimited 

Shorebirds: Keith McKnight, Ducks Unlimited, Chair 

Paul Brown, TWRA; Carl Wirwa, TWRA; Chris Sloan, Tennessee Ornithological Society; Aaron 

Johnson, FWS; Doug Helmers, NRCS; David Buehler, University of Tennessee; Jim Johnson, TWRA 

Songbirds: Bob Ford, The Nature Conservancy, Chair 

Janet York, TWRA; Mark Gudlin, TWRA; Partners in Flight Group; Aaron Johnson, FWS 

Farm Game: Mark Gudlin, TWRA, Chair 

Randy Kipley, FWS; Mike Hansbrough, NRCS; Don Miller, TWRA; Harold Hurst, TWRA; Don 

McKenzie, WMI 

Big Game: Alan Peterson, TWRA, Chair 

Greg Wathen, TWRA; Mike Butler, TCL; Randy Kipley, FWS; Jim Byford, UTM 

Species of Concern: Mike Kennedy, University of Mississippi, Chair 

Aaron Johnson, FWS; Bob Hatcher, TWRA; Lee Barclay, FWS 

Reptiles and Amphibians: Paul Brown, TWRA, Chair 

Marvin Nichols, FWS; Susan Marden, TWRA; Jeff Holmes, TNC; David Withers, TDEC; Alan 

Peterson, TWRA 

Aquatic Resources: Bobby Wilson, TWRA, Chair 

Jerry Strom, TWRA; Tim Diehl, USGS; Andy Sliger, UTM; Richard Kirk, TWRA; Alex Wyss, TNC; 

Jack Grubaugh, University of Mississippi; David Salyers, West Tennessee River Basin Authority 

Public Use: Greg Wathen, TWRA, Chair 

Christine Donald, FWS; Marty Marina, TCL; Carl Wirwa, TWRA; Steve Pardue, Tennessee State 

Parks; Aaron Johnson, FWS 

Technical Writing Group: Rob Martin, FWS, Chair 

Greg Wathen, TWRA; Evelyn Nelson, FWS 

Mapping/GIS Technical Group: Jeanette Jones, TWRA, Chair 
Appendices 163

Appendix X. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Lauderdale County, Tennessee 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Lauderdale County, on the Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge (refuge). A Draft Environmental 

Assessment was prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental consequences of 

implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge. A 

description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, the environmental 

effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and a declaration 

concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be found in the 

Draft Environmental Assessment. 

Alternatives 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives A, B, C, and D. 

The Service adopted Alternative D, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the plan for guiding the direction of 

the Refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this plan is that wildlife 

conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependant recreational uses are 

allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will 

be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative 

Existing refuge management and public outreach practices would be favored under this alternative. 

Continued maintenance and enhancement of bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil/agricultural 

habitats would occur. No additional moist soil/agricultural units would be developed. Maintenance of 

existing cropland habitats would continue to provide an important wildlife food source. Ongoing 

monitoring efforts would include habitat quality and wildlife distribution and population levels. Land 

acquisitions would continue within the approved acquisition boundaries as willing sellers and funding 

become available. Hunting and fishing seasons and regulations, and seasonal closures, would be 

used to limit disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife species. Improvements to existing exhibits 

and interpretive materials would be used to inform and educate visitors about fish and wildlife 

management issues. No new visitor education facility would be built. 
164 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative B. Public Use Emphasis 

This alternative would emphasize recreational uses and environmental education while maintaining a 

low maintenance approach to managing habitats. Public use opportunities would increase as staff 

time and resources are shifted to emphasize public use programs. An enhanced environmental 

education program, including a possible new visitor facility, could provide facilities and programs for 

more quality environmental education and interpretation opportunities to accommodate refuge 

visitors. Current management would be examined for possible additional hunting and fishing 

opportunities and access, as well as possible reductions in seasonal closures. Bottomland hardwood 

forests and moist-soil/agricultural habitats would be less intensively managed as staff and resources 

are shifted to public use programs. Additional staff and resources would be dedicated to allow for 

more public use activities in all areas of the refuge. Law enforcement and monitoring of visitor 

activities would be increased. The development of no new moist soil/agricultural units would limit 

potential additional waterfowl habitat. Reduction in cropland acres would result in less wildlife food 

production and could potentially limit the refuge’s ability to attract and hold target waterfowl 

populations during winter months. Lands would be acquired if willing sellers and funding become 

available, providing expansions to existing refuge lands and additional public use opportunities. 

Reactive control only of beaver populations may result in increased populations and potential 

damage to bottomland hardwood forests and waterfowl habitat. More liberal hunting and fishing 

seasons and regulations, and other compatible public uses, would produce added public use 

opportunities, but could also negatively affect waterfowl populations and other trust species. 

Alternative C. Habitat Management Emphasis 

Alternative C emphasizes the active and intensive management of existing fish, wildlife, and plant 

habitats. Habitat enhancement, such as silvicultural treatments, tree plantings, and prescribed 

burning, would enhance habitat quality and benefit wildlife populations. Proactive control of nuisance 

wildlife species and the integration of biological controls and harvest methods would ensure more 

effective and balanced management of wildlife populations and habitat. An increased biological 

research and monitoring program would enhance understanding of refuge resources and benefit 

future management efforts. Continued maintenance of bottomland hardwood forests and moist-soil 

units, and development of additional moist soil units, would provide additional waterfowl habitat. 

Additional cropland farming units and more intensive management by cooperative and force account 

farming would significantly increase the refuge’s capability to attract and hold target waterfowl 

populations during winter months. Land acquisitions, if willing sellers and funding are available, 

would increase the capability of the refuge to protect resources. Public use opportunities would 

decrease as new recreational opportunities for visitors would not be pursued and environmental 

education and outreach programs would remain at the year 2005 level or below. A new visitor 

education facility could be constructed, but only minor improvements would occur in existing 

environmental education exhibits and interpretive materials. Hunting and fishing seasons and access 

would continue, but the possibility of more seasonal closures to protect sensitive wildlife resources 

might reduce consumptive public use opportunities. A slight increase in public awareness of the 

refuge is expected due to land protection efforts. 
Appendices 165

Alternative D. Balanced Public Use and Habitat Management (Proposed Action) 

The preferred alternative would promote more active management of existing fish, wildlife, and plant 

habitats, as well as provide for more quality recreational experiences for visitors. Continued maintenance 

and enhancement of bottomland hardwood forests and moist soil units, along with development of 

additional moist soil units, would provide additional waterfowl habitat. Additional cropland farming units 

and more intensive management by cooperative and force account farming would significantly increase 

the refuge’s capability to attract target waterfowl populations during winter months. Monitoring efforts for 

habitat quality and wildlife distribution and population levels would be enhanced. Land acquisitions, if 

willing sellers and funding are available, would increase the capability of the refuge to protect resources 

and provide additional public use opportunities. Hunting and fishing seasons and access, as well as 

seasonal closures, would be used to limit disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife species. A possible 

new visitor education facility and improvements to existing exhibits and interpretive materials would be 

used to inform and educate visitors. Public outreach strategies would be examined to provide greater 

public understanding and advocacy for refuge resources. Enhanced public use programs and facilities 

would provide more opportunities for quality public use, including environmental education and 

interpretation, wildlife observation, and photography. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative D is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes the restoration of open wetland and forest 

habitats; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service 

objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible 

public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under Alternative D, all lands within the approved 60,240-acre acquisition boundary will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced, and lands outside the boundary will be prioritized for land protection 

achieving national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and objectives. In addition, the action 

positively addresses significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Chickasaw 

National Wildlife Refuge would result in increased migratory bird utilization and production; increased 

protection for threatened and endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; bottomland 

hardwood forest restoration; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Duck and shorebird use of the refuge would improve significantly as intensive water management efforts 

would provide dependable flooded habitats to match the migration chronologies of these species. Forest 

breeding birds would benefit from refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and forest management actions. 

2. Migratory bird production would increase by enhancing forest habitat quality for Neotropical migratory birds, 

habitat and food availability for wintering waterfowl, and through hydrological restoration and reforestation. 

Forest management practices such as reforestation, selective harvests, and preservation of mature stand 

components would benefit nesting and feeding habitat for migratory birds. 

3. Refuge land acquisition, reforestation, and protection would benefit the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species. 
166 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

4. The refuge’s habitat mix of cropland, moist soil, early successional reforestation areas, and 

bottomland hardwood forest, as well as habitat management, would improve food and cover for 

resident wildlife species and enhance wetland communities within the refuge. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, would result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of implementing the management 

action are positive. Wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the local community. 

6. Implementing the comprehensive conservation plan is not expected to have any significant adverse 

effects on wetlands and floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as actions would 

not result in development of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor would they result 

in irrevocable, long-term adverse impacts. In fact, a major thrust of the management action is to 

implement bottomland hardwood forest and open wetland restoration within the wildlife communities 

of the refuge that has been severely impacted by actions of previous landowners. Implementing the 

management action would result in substantial enhancement of forest and wetland communities and 

net increases to the Nation’s bottomland hardwood forest and wetland acreage and quality. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) would be 

conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations 

established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through wildlife 

inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public use 

programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts 

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, 

such as establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are 

effective tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within 

the approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title 

purchases and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, 

cooperative agreements) from willing sellers. 
Appendices 167

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service would result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, trails, and visitor parking areas could lead to minor short-term 

negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site development activities are 

proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act consideration 

during pre-construction planning. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While resources will be allocated to 

minimize these effects, such allocations will be unavailable for other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Findings

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the 

human environment. 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts 

have been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past 

action, and in foreseeable future actions. 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the 

National Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant 

scientific, cultural, or historic resources. 
168 Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge, Lauderdale County, Tennessee. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Chickasaw National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in December 2005. Additional copies 

are available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.