Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

August 2007
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Final Environmental Assessment 

For 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, 

and Morgan Counties, Alabama 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

August 2007 
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 5

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................7

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 7

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 8

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 9

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ................................................... 10

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................ 12

CHAPTER II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................13

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 13

Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13

Wheeler NWR ...................................................................................................................13

Key Cave NWR ................................................................................................................. 16

Sauta Cave NWR .............................................................................................................. 16

Fern Cave NWR ................................................................................................................ 21

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 21

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 21

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 24

Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan (2003) ................................................... 24

Lower Tennessee – Cumberland Ecosystem Strategic Plan (1995) ................................. 25

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005) ..................................... 26

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................26

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 27

Proliferation of Invasive Species (Plants and Animals) ..................................................... 27

Degradation of Aquatic Ecosystems ................................................................................. 28

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 28

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 28

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 29

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 30

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 31

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 32

Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 33

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 35

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 35

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................46

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 54

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 55

Outdoor Recreation Economics ........................................................................................ 55

Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 58

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 58

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 58

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 59

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 70
ii Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

CHAPTER III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 75

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 75

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 76

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 79

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 81

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 84

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................................... 89

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 89

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 91

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 91

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 92

Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 107

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 112

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 119

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 126

CHAPTER V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................ 129

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 129

Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 129

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 129

Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 132

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 136

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 139

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 143

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 145

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................ 146

Partnership/Volunteer Opportunities ........................................................................................ 147

Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 147

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 147

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 148

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CHAPTER I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 149

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 149

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 150

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 150

Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 150

Authority, Legal Compliance, Appropriate Uses, and Compatibility ......................................... 151

Appropriate Uses ............................................................................................................ 151

Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 152

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 152

CHAPTER II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................... 155
Table of Contents iii

CHAPTER III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 157

Formulation Of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 157

Description of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 157

Alternative A - No Action (Current Management) ............................................................ 157

Alternative B - Maximize Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ............................. 159

Alternative C - Maximize Wildlife/Habitat Management .................................................. 160

Alternative D - (Proposed Action) Balance Wildlife/Habitat Management with 

Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use .................................................................... 161

Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 162

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 163

CHAPTER IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................... 177

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 177

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 177

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 177

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 177

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 178

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................178

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 178

Refuge Revenue Sharing Payments ............................................................................... 179

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 179

Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 179

Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 179

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 179

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 179

Alternative A: No Action (Current Management) ............................................................. 180

Alternative B: Maximize Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use .............................. 180

Alternative C: Maximize Wildlife/Habitat Management ................................................... 180

Alternative D: Balance Wildlife/Habitat Management and Compatible Wildlife 

Dependent Public Use (Proposed Action) ....................................................................... 181

Unavoidable Impacts and Minimization Measures ................................................................... 194

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 194

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 194

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 195

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 195

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 195

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 195

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 196

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 197

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 197

CHAPTER V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................. 199

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 199

Core Planning Team Members ................................................................................................. 199

Planning Team Members .........................................................................................................199

Biological and Habitat Review Team Members ........................................................................ 200

Visitor Services Review Team Members .................................................................................. 201
iv Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

SECTION C. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 203

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... 213

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 215

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 221

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 233

Summary Of Public Scoping .................................................................................................... 233

Major Issues Identified .................................................................................................... 234

State Requests ............................................................................................................... 234

Tribal Issues ................................................................................................................... 234

Partnerships' Requests ................................................................................................... 234

Summary of Public Scoping Commments ...................................................................... 235

Priority Issues Addressed by Alternatives: ...................................................................... 236

Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 236

Public Forums ................................................................................................................. 237

Affiliations of Respondents ............................................................................................. 237

Comment Media ............................................................................................................. 238

Geographic Origin of Respondents................................................................................. 238

Summary of Concerns and the Service’s Responses ..................................................... 238

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 251

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 269

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 289

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 295

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 297

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Bird List ............................................................... 297

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Mammal List ........................................................ 309

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Amphibian and Reptile List .................................. 311

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Fish Species List ................................................................ 314

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Adjacent Waters Freshwater Mussel List .................... 316

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Adjacent Waters Freshwater Snail List ........................ 318

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Woody Plant Species List .................................... 319

APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 325

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 325

Service Assest Maintenance and Management System (SAMMS) Needs .............................. 328

Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 333

APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 335
Table of Contents v

APPENDIX L. PRIORITY BIRD SPECIES AND SPECIES SUITES ................................................. 337

APPENDIX M. RELATIONSHIP OF THE WHEELER COMPLEX COOPERATIVE 

CONSERVATION PLAN TO THE ALABAMA COMPREHENSIVE 

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY .............................................................. 351

APPENDIX N. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 369

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 369

Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 369

Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ............................................................................... 369

Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 369

Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 370

Alternative D (Proposed Action) ...................................................................................... 370

Selection Rationale ................................................................................................................... 371

Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................... 371

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures ................................................................. 372

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 372

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 373

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 373

Land Ownership and Site Development ................................................................................... 373

Coordination ............................................................................................................................. 373

Findings .................................................................................................................................... 374

Supporting References ............................................................................................................. 374

Document Availability ............................................................................................................... 375
vi Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Locations of properties within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex ..................... 6

Figure 2. Land status map for the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex .................................. 14

Figure 3. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 4. Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 19

Figure 5. Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................. 20

Figure 6. Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................................................... 22

Figure 7. Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem ......................................................................... 23

Figure 8. Land use/land cover for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 37

Figure 9. Waterfowl impoundments managed at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge .......................... 41

Figure 10. Habitat coverage for Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge .................................................. 44

Figure 11. Locations of public use facilities on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 61

Figure 12. Locations of hunting areas on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 63

Figure 13. Locations of public use facilities on Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ........................... 69

Figure 14. Locations of public use facilities on Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge ........................ 71

Figure 15. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex current staffing chart ..................................... 72

Figure 16. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge ............ 85

Figure 17. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge ......... 86

Figure 18. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex proposed future staffing chart ..................... 146

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Establishment date, establishment authority or legislation, and purpose(s) for each 

refuge in the Wheeler Complex ........................................................................................................... 15

Table 2. Select data from Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list ...................................................................... 34

Table 3. Ground waterfowl survey results for the 2005 – 2006 season at Wheeler NWR ................... 47

Table 4. Wood ducks banded in 2005 at Wheeler NWR ..................................................................... 47

Table 5. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for Lauderdale, 

Limestone, Jackson, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, and the USA .................................. 56

Table 6. Wildlife-dependent recreation by participants, 16 years old and older, across Alabama ..... 57

Table 7. North Alabama Birding Trail sites on Wheeler Complex ....................................................... 57

Table 8. Deer harvest summary (2005-2006) at Wheeler NWR ......................................................... 65

Table 9. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge funding for fiscal year 2005 ............................................. 73

Table 10. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex revenue payments in dollars for Jackson, 

Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, for the last 5 years .................... 74

Table 11. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex step-down management plans and 

associated completion dates ............................................................................................................. 148

Table 12. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex ................................................................................................................................ 164

Table 13. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex ................................................................................................................................ 182
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

Executive Summary 

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

and Final Environmental Assessment (EA) to guide the management of Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) Complex with refuges located in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and 

Morgan Counties, Alabama. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the 

next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological and public use review of the wildlife, 

habitat, and visitor services management programs at each refuge. Three public scoping meetings 

were then held to solicit public opinion of the issues the plan should address. 

The Service then developed and analyzed four alternatives (A, B, C, and D). Alternative A was a 

proposal to maintain the status quo, which would continue current management practices with limited 

baseline biological information. No significant changes would be initiated by the Service. All 

management actions would be directed towards achieving the Complex’s primary purposes, including 

(1) conserving wintering waterfowl habitat; (2) meeting the habitat conservation goals of national and 

international plans; and (3) and conserving wetlands, all while contributing to other national, regional, 

and state goals to protect and restore migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and 

resident species. Hunting and fishing would continue to be a major focus of the public use program, 

with no expansion of current opportunities. Current restrictions or prohibitions would remain intact. 

Environmental education and interpretation, and wildlife observation and photography would remain 

at present levels. 

Alternative B would provide for more public use recreational opportunities, while maintaining current 

habitat and wildlife management programs. Most habitat management programs would continue. 

However, habitat improvement projects that would benefit compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities would be given a higher priority. At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for 

small game would be increased within the state hunting season framework and two additional youth 

fishing rodeos would be held annually. The 2,000-acre area around Garth Slough, presently closed 

to all public entry from November 15 - January 15, would be evaluated for the possibility of opening 

select portions of the upland areas to public access. In addition, the hunting of feral hogs would be 

allowed during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, feral hogs would 

be added to the hunting permit and other hunting opportunities would be explored annually. 

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of 

nine new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (three photo blinds, three wildlife observation towers, a 

wildlife viewing platform, a nature trail, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and 

interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by 

constructing a new environmental education center at Wheeler NWR. New informational brochures 

would be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and visitor access would be 

improved at Sauta Cave NWR. Personnel priorities would include hiring additional education 

specialists, wildlife biologists, and at least one additional law enforcement (LE) officer. 

Alternative C would maximize wildlife and habitat management while maintaining current public use 

opportunities. At each NWR, extensive wildlife, plant, and habitat inventories would be initiated. 

Studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, and plants would be initiated 

and a complex-wide litter control program would be developed. Conservation efforts would increase 

for threatened and endangered species and nuisance animal species control would be increased. 
2 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Any areas within the Complex with pumping and water control capabilities would be managed for 

moist-soil vegetation, or farmed (with 100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory 

waterfowl. Cooperative farming would be eliminated and all farming activities would be conducted via 

contracts or force account (using Complex staff and equipment). Protection of trust resources would 

be intensified with increased LE activities and a study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way 

on refuge resources would be initiated. Results would determine if current Complex policy 

concerning easements should be altered and coordination with local planning departments would be 

increased. Land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on acquiring land surrounding 

the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land protection within the lower reaches of Piney and 

Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave high-risk water recharge zone would be explored. 

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities would continue as currently scheduled, but only 

where and when they did not detract from, or conflict with, wildlife management activities and 

objectives. All Complex lands would be closed at night to the public and select areas of high 

waterfowl use on Wheeler NWR would be closed from November-March, reducing acreages for 

public use and eliminating all night bank fishing. Personnel priorities would include employing 

additional wildlife biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, a LE officer, a 

contamination specialist, and a forester. 

The Service selected Alternative D as its preferred alternative, which strives for a balanced approach 

to addressing key issues and refuge mandates, while improving wildlife and habitat management on 

each refuge. It is designed to optimize habitat management, while providing a balance of appropriate 

and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs for visitors. 

Under Alternative D, cooperative farming will continue and areas with water control capabilities 

will be managed for moist-soil vegetation or will be farmed (with 100 percent of crops left 

standing) to benefit migratory waterfowl. Nuisance animal species control will be increased and 

studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, and plants will be 

developed. A complex-wide litter control program will be initiated and conservation efforts 

increased for threatened and endangered species. 

A large majority of Complex lands will be closed at night and select areas of high waterfowl use on 

Wheeler NWR will be closed from November through March, slightly reducing acreages for public 

use. However, all six improved boat launching facilities and several other designated night bank 

fishing areas will remain open at night. A night fishing permit will be required. 

Protection of trust resources and visitor safety will be intensified with increased LE activities and a 

study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way on refuge resources would be initiated. Results 

will determine if current Complex policy concerning easements should be altered. Coordination with 

local planning departments will be increased and the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR 

will remain focused on acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land 

protection within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave 

high-risk water recharge zone will be explored. 

At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for small game will be increased within the State 

hunting season framework and an additional youth fishing rodeo will be held annually. Feral hogs 

will be hunted during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, the 

hunting program will be evaluated annually and results will dictate if hunting should be expanded, 

reduced or remain the same. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities will result from the construction of four 

new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (a photo blind, a wildlife observation tower, a wildlife viewing 

platform, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and interpretation will be expanded by 

increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by constructing an environmental education center 

at Wheeler. New informational brochures will be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern 

Cave NWRs and visitor access will be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. Personnel priorities will include 

employing additional wildlife biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, assistant 

managers, an education coordinator, a law enforcement officer, and a contamination specialist. 
4 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

Chapter I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

to provide a foundation for the management and use of the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

Complex (Wheeler Complex or Complex), with refuges in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, 

and Morgan Counties. In addition, the Complex administers five Farm Service Agency (FSA) tracts in 

conservation easements in Calhoun, Lamar, Limestone, and Marion Counties (Figure 1). This CCP 

for Wheeler Complex was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the Complex over 

the next 15 years and will strive to achieve the vision and purpose(s) of each refuge in the Complex. 

This CCP was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Manual. The actions described in this CCP also meet the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. Compliance with NEPA is being achieved through the involvement of the 

public and the inclusion of a Final Environmental Assessment (EA) in Section B of this document. 

The CCP's overriding consideration is to carry out the purpose(s) for which each refuge in the 

Complex was established. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge 

management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is 

compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuges or the purposes for which 

they were established. 

This CCP has been prepared by a planning team comprised of natural resource management 

professionals, including the Project Leader, Deputy Project Leader, Assistant Refuge Manager, 

Wildlife Biologist, Supervisory Park Ranger, and Natural Resource Planner from the Wheeler 

Complex; biologists representing the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

(ADWFF); a recreation specialist from the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); and the Chief of Natural 

Resources from Redstone Arsenal, a military base in which 4,085 acres of Wheeler NWR reside. In 

addition to the natural resource management professionals listed above, the planning team and 

Complex staff have incorporated the input and contributions of other agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, Native American tribes, conservation groups, local citizens, the general public, and 

other stakeholders. This public involvement and the planning process itself are described and 

documented in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

The CCP represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering 

three other alternatives, as described in Section B. After reviewing public comments and 

conservation management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an attempt 

to determine how to best meet the goals and objectives of the Wheeler Complex. The preferred 

alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the management of the Complex, 

and is embodied in this CCP. The Draft CCP and EA was made available to State and Federal 

government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment in 

April 2007. Comments received through this process were considered in the development of this 

final document. 
6 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 1. Locations of properties within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role the refuge will play in support of the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission and to provide guidance in refuge management and public 

use activities. The plan describes the Service’s management direction (goals, objectives, and 

strategies) for the next 15 years. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of Refuge Complex management direction; 

y Provide Refuge Complex neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding 

of Service management actions on and around each refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

y Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Service traces its roots to two historic events. In 1871, the Commission of Fisheries, involved 

with research and fish culture, was established. The once independent commission was renamed 

the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. In 1886, the 

Division of Economic Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture was established. 

Research on the relationship of birds and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of 

plants and animals, so the name was changed to the Bureau of the Biological Survey in 1896. 

The Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940, and 

transferred to the Department of the Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was 

changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service in 1974. 

The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds, 

endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife 

research activities (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 545 national wildlife refuges covering over 95 

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

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, 69 

national fish hatcheries, and 81 ecological services field stations. The Service enforces federal 

wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores 

nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments 

with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of 

millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to State fish and wildlife agencies. 
8 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) of 1997 is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the United 

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

The Improvement Act established, for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of 

this new legislation, including an effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. 

These plans, which are completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of 

refuges. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as guidelines for refuge 

management for the 15-year life of those plans. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall 

be managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purpose(s) of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the Refuge System; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

y Recognize that compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible wildlife-dependent public uses. 

The following is just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting 

birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for 

American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after 

over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought 

conditions of the 1930s "Dust Bowl@ severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. 

Refuges established during the Depression focused on Awaterfowl production areas" (i.e., protection of 

prairie wetlands in America=s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today, but also includes 

protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the 

Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Approximately 37 million people visited national wildlife refuges in fiscal year 2004, most to observe 

wildlife in their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, important economic benefits are 

realized by local communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or 

observed wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002, on 15 refuges, visitation had 

grown 36 percent in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding 

communities grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into 

local economies. The 15 refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); 

Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira 

(Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay 

(California); Laguna Atascosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

(California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) B the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other 

findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on 

food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 

1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with 

$4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Laughland and Caudill 2003). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In fiscal year 

2005, about 38,000 volunteers contributed nearly 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service 

valued at nearly $26 million. 

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

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

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation 

with adjoining Federal, State, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a 

process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 

15 years) of the plans. 

All units of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide 

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purpose(s). The plan will be 

consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including 

Service compatibility standards, and with other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents 

(Service Manual 602 FW 1.1 Refuge Planning Overview). 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations 

In addition to serving the purposes of each refuge, administration of national wildlife refuges is guided 

by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, congressional legislation, 

Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for management options of refuges 

are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by 

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

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist a refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research; and recreation on refuge lands, and provide a framework for cooperation between 

Wheeler Complex and other partners, such as the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources (ADCNR) and its Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF), The Nature 

Conservancy (TNC), Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP), Land Trust of Huntsville and North 

Alabama, Huntsville Grotto of the National Speleological Society, Ducks Unlimited (DU), Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of the Army at 

Redstone Arsenal, Wildlife Habitat Council, Native American tribes and private landowners. 

Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System and management of the Wheeler Complex are provided in Appendix C. 
10 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and 

legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be appropriate and 

compatible. A compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge 

manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge 

System or the purpose(s) of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on 

mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purpose(s). 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As 

priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in 

planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the “biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while 

achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and 

protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and 

associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge 

managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution(s) to 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound 

professional judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of refuge resources and the refuge's 

role within an ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science, including consultation with 

others both inside and outside the Service (Service Manual 601 FW 3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, 

and Environmental Health). 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate into this CCP. 

This CCP supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the Partners in Flight Conservation Plan, 

the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the 

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, the U.S. Woodcock Plan, Fisheries Vision for the Future, 

and the Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation Plan (PARC). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic 

institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure 

the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to 

bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives 

include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), Partners in Flight, Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). The North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the 

continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving 

wetland and upland habitats. Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986, in reaction to 

critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The 

plan is a partnership of Federal, State/provincial, and municipal governments; non-governmental 

organizations; private companies; and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland 

habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. Plan projects 

are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the 

protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the 

Interior Low Plateau physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird conservation 

planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, 

primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be 

most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations. 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the Service's Southeast Region include pelagic 

areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of 

waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill 

cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key 

objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective 

conservation measures. 

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. This initiative’s goal is “to restore northern bobwhite 

populations range wide to an average density equivalent to that which existed on improvable acres in 

1980 [58,857,000].” Habitat management is the primary vehicle for accomplishing this goal with three 

specific objectives in which the Wheeler Complex considered during the development of this CCP. 
12 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

U.S. Woodcock Plan. This plan was written by the Service in 1990 to “guide the conservation of 

woodcock in the United States.” Although no step-down plans have been written, the plan gives 

general guidance for habitat population management at the national level. Though habitat for 

woodcock is limited throughout the Wheeler Complex, habitat practices that benefit woodcock were 

considered during the development of this CCP. 

Fisheries Vision for the Future. In 2001, the Service worked with partners to refocus its Fisheries 

Program and develop a new fisheries vision for the future. Results indicate that the Service will “work 

with partners to restore and maintain fish and other aquatic resources at self-sustaining levels and to 

support Federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public.” To achieve its vision, the 

Fisheries Program in conjunction with its partners will strive to: 

y Protect the health of aquatic habitats. 

y Restore fish and other aquatic resources. 

y Provide opportunities to enjoy the benefits of healthy aquatic resources. 

Wheeler Complex can contribute to the program’s recreational fishing goal by providing quality 

opportunities for fishing and other related recreational enjoyment of aquatic resources. 

Partners for Amphibians and Reptile Conservation (PARC) Plan. This plan was founded in 1998 

to address the need for conservation of herpetofauna – amphibians and reptiles – and their habitats 

(PARC 2004). Its mission is to conserve amphibians, reptiles, and their habitats as integral parts of 

the ecosystem and culture through proactive and coordinated public/private partnerships. Although 

population and habitat data for amphibians and reptiles are limited throughout the Wheeler Complex, 

habitat practices that benefit amphibians and reptiles were considered during the development of this 

CCP. 

 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

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

policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with State 

fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the 

protection of species, contributing to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in 

the State of Alabama. 

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) provides protection and 

management for the State's fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in 

each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The Department’s major goal is 

to promote stewardship and enjoyment of Alabama’s natural resources, both for present and future 

generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources, waterway safety, state 

lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The Department manages 24 State parks, 23 fishing 

lakes, three fish hatcheries, two waterfowl refuges, two wildlife sanctuaries, 34 wildlife management 

areas, and a mariculture center. It has responsibility for more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set 

aside for wildlife purposes. Other departmental functions include maintenance of a State Land 

Resource Information Center and administration of the Forever Wild land acquisition program. 

The State’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process provided an opportunity 

for developing an open dialogue to help improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the 

State of Alabama. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Chapter II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex is currently comprised of seven refuges 

spread across 12,500 square miles of northern Alabama. In addition, the Wheeler Complex 

administers five Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easement tracts. This CCP covers four of 

the seven refuges: Wheeler (1938), Key Cave (1997), Sauta Cave (1978) (formerly known as Blowing 

Wind Cave), and Fern Cave (1981). The other three refuges, Cahaba River (2002), Mountain 

Longleaf (2003), and Watercress Darter (1980), will be addressed at a later date in a separate CCP. 

For the purpose of this document, the term Wheeler Complex will refer only to Wheeler (37,200 

acres), Key Cave (1,060 acres), Sauta Cave (264 acres), and Fern Cave (199 acres) NWRs; plus the 

five FSA conservation easements (Coley Tract - 161 acres, Pepper Tract - 49 acres, Rollins Tract - 

20 acres, Speed Tract #1 - 83 acres, and Speed Tract #2 - 63.43 acres). All together, properties in 

the Wheeler Complex total approximately 38,900 acres (Figure 2). 

The headquarters for the Wheeler Complex is located at Wheeler NWR in Decatur, Alabama. The 

Complex currently has a staff of 15 full-time employees and one term employee. One of the full-time 

positions is jointly funded by the Divisions of Refuges and Ecological Services. In 2006, more than 

50 volunteers donated over 5,000 hours to the Wheeler Complex. The Complex headquarters has an 

administrative office, maintenance facilities, a large Visitor Center, and a Waterfowl Observation 

Building. Public use is heavy and an estimated 650,000 people visit the Complex each year. The 

address for the Wheeler Complex is 2700 Refuge Headquarters Road, Decatur, Alabama 35603. 

The telephone number for the headquarters administrative office is (256) 353-7243 and for the Visitor 

Center (256) 350-6639. The headquarters administrative office is open Monday through Friday from 

7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. The Visitor Center and Waterfowl Observation Building are open from 9:00 

a.m. until 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday (March through September), and seven days each 

week (October through February) from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

Although Wheeler Complex has an overriding focus of providing important habitat and protection for 

migratory birds, with an emphasis on waterfowl, each refuge within the Complex has a unique 

purpose and establishing legislation or authority (Table 1). This planning document identifies specific 

goals, objectives, and overall strategies that are intended to support the purposes for each individual 

refuge. Management activities for Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs have 

been combined due to their close proximity to each other, the similarity of issues and habitats, and 

shared personnel in order to manage the Wheeler Complex as a single unit within the Lower 

Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (LTCE). 

WHEELER NWR 

Located among the cities of Athens, Decatur, and Huntsville, Wheeler NWR was established in 1938, by 

Executive Order 7926, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife. Additional 

purposes were added later under the authorities of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 and the 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962. This 37,000-acre refuge is overlaid on the middle third of the Tennessee 

Valley Authority's (TVA) Wheeler Reservoir with property located in Limestone, Madison, and Morgan 

counties (Figure 3). Lands were acquired in 1934 and 1935 by TVA to serve as a buffer strip for the 

Reservoir, which was impounded a year later in 1936. 
14 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 2. Land status map for the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Table 1. Establishment date, establishment authority or legislation, and purpose(s) for each 

refuge in the Wheeler Complex 

Refuge Year 

Established 

Establishing Authority or 

Establishing Legislation Refuge Purpose(s) 

Wheeler 1938 Executive Order 7926 (July 7, 1938) “...as a refuge and breeding 

ground for migratory birds and 

other wildlife...” 

“...for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other 

management purposes, for 

migratory birds...” a

“...suitable for (1) incidental fish 

and wildlife-oriented recreation 

development, (2) the protection of 

natural resources, (3) the 

conservation of endangered 

species or threatened species...” b

Sauta 

Cave 

1978 Endangered Species Act (1973) “...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife 

which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species...” 

Fern 

Cave 

1981 Endangered Species Act (1973) “...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife 

which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species...” 

Key 

Cave 

1997 National Wildlife Refuge 

Administration Act (1966) 

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

Endangered Species Act (1973) 

“... for the development, 

advancement, management, 

conservation, and protection of 

fish and wildlife resources ...” 

 “... for the benefit of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, in 

performing its activities and 

services. Such acceptance may 

be subject to the terms of any 

restrictive or affirmative covenant, 

or condition of servitude ...” 

“...to conserve (A) fish or wildlife 

which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species...” 

a

 Additional purpose(s) identified under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 b

 Additional purpose(s) identified under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 
16 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Considered the eastern most national wildlife refuge in the Mississippi Flyway, Wheeler NWR 

provides winter habitat for the State's largest duck population and formerly supported the 

southernmost and Alabama's only major concentration of wintering Canada geese. In recent years, 

the number of Canada geese from the Southern James Bay Population, wintering on the refuge, has 

declined due to a number of reasons. Snow geese are now the most prominent component of the 

winter goose population. 

Refuge habitats consist of bottomland hardwoods, mixed hardwoods, pine uplands, moist soil units, 

and agricultural fields that support interesting flora, a bird list of 295 species, and a wide variety of 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. 

KEY CAVE NWR 

Key Cave NWR was established in 1997 under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1966, to 

ensure that the biological integrity of Key Cave, Collier Cave, Collier Bone Cave, and their common 

aquifer remains intact (Figure 4). Key Cave is the only known location for the federally endangered 

Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni) and lies on the northern shore of Pickwick Lake in a 

limestone karst area that contains numerous sinkholes and several underground cave systems. The 

area’s sinkholes are an integral component of groundwater recharge to the caves. 

Prior to 1992, the Monsanto Company owned a large 1,060-acre tract of land just north of Key Cave 

and about five miles southwest of Florence, Lauderdale County, Alabama, in the high-hazard risk 

area of the Key Cave aquifer. In 1992, the company sold this tract to The Conservation Fund, which 

held the land until the Service acquired the land five years later to establish Key Cave NWR. 

 

In addition to the Alabama cavefish, Key Cave also serves as a priority one maternity cave for the 

federally endangered gray bat (Myotis grisescens), as well as habitat for two species of blind crayfish 

(Procambarus pecki) and (Cambarus jonesi). Collier Cave, located approximately 1.5 miles upstream 

from Key Cave, and Collier Bone Cave are also considered potential habitat for these cave species. 

Cave entrances are located on TVA lands on the northern shore of Pickwick Lake. Furthermore, the 

refuge provides habitat for a variety of migratory and resident wildlife species. Several priority bird 

species commonly occurring on the refuge include: dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, field sparrow, 

northern bobwhite, northern harrier, and short-eared owl. 

SAUTA CAVE NWR 

Sauta Cave NWR, known as Blowing Wind Cave NWR until 1999, lies just above the Sauty Creek 

embayment of TVA’s Guntersville Reservoir, seven miles west of Scottsboro, Jackson County, 

Alabama (Figure 5). The refuge established in 1978, under the authority of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 to provide protection for the federally endangered gray and Indiana (Myotis sodalis) bats 

and their crucial habitat consisting of 264 acres of hardwood forest. The cave provides a summer 

roosting site for about 300,000 - 400,000 gray bats and a winter hibernaculum for both bats. 

Besides the endangered bats, many other species occur in the cave, including the Tennessee cave 

salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus) and the cave salamander (Eurycea lucifuga). Additionally a 

relatively large (>250 individuals) population of Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana), a federally 

threatened plant species, is found on the refuge. The cave has upper and lower gated entrances and 

14,628 feet of mapped passage. Formations in the lower cave have been described as spectacular 

and petroglyphs have been found on the cave ceilings. In the past, the cave was used as a saltpeter 

mine during the Civil War, a nightclub during the 1920s, and a fallout shelter during the 1960s. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 3. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
18 

.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Figure 4. Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
20 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 5. Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

FERN CAVE NWR 

Fern Cave NWR was established in 1981, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, to provide protection for the endangered gray and Indiana bats. The refuge is located 20 miles 

west of Scottsboro and two miles northeast of Paint Rock in Jackson County, Alabama, and consists 

of 199 acres of forested hillside underlain by a massive cave with many stalactite and stalagmite-filled 

rooms. An additional 483 acres of land are included in the approved acquisition boundary of the 

refuge (Figure 6). 

The cave itself has five hidden entrances, with four of these currently occurring on the refuge. The 

fifth entrance (Surprise Pit) is located within the approved acquisition boundary for the refuge. 

Recent estimates indicate that one million gray bats hibernate in the cave, making it the largest 

wintering colony of gray bats in the United States. In the past, the threatened American Hart’stongue fern (Phyllitis scolopendrum var. americana) has been found on Fern Cave NWR. Two 

decades ago, 20 individual plants were documented on the refuge; however, the most recent survey 

was not able to find the American Hart's-tongue fern. The plant may still be present in the form of 

spores in the soil and may produce plants in future years. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

In 1941, for reasons of national security, about 4,085 acres of Wheeler NWR were included inside the 

boundary of Redstone Arsenal, a U.S. Army military installation. Currently, about 1,500 acres of the 

original 4,085 acres are partially administered by the Marshall Space Flight Center, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Generally, the Complex does not actively manage 

the refuge lands within the Arsenal’s boundary. For example, hunting and fishing programs in those 

areas are administered by law enforcement personnel stationed at Redstone Arsenal. 

Additionally, a 30-acre tupelo gum swamp, located on the north side of the Tennessee River along 

Beaverdam Creek on Wheeler NWR, was officially designated as a National Natural Landmark in 

1974. This habitat is unique because this tupelo gum swamp occurs in the Interior Low Plateau 

physiographic region, rather than its usual occurrence in the Gulf Coastal Plain region. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

Conservation of the Service's trust resources (i.e., endangered species, migratory birds, 

interjurisdictional fisheries, and marine mammals) will require the long-term maintenance of healthy 

ecosystems. An ecosystem approach will require a holistic view of resource conservation, 

recognizing that all things are connected. To be effective, an ecosystem approach will not only mean 

protecting or restoring the function, structure, and species composition of an ecosystem, but also 

factoring in the impacts of and providing for sustainable socioeconomic activity (USFWS 1995). 

Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located within a physiographic region known as the Lower 

Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem (LTCE) (Figure 7). The LTCE is composed of two large 

watersheds, the lower half of the Tennessee River and the entire drainage of the Cumberland River. 

The lower Tennessee River encompasses that portion of the river valley located in northern Alabama, 

middle Tennessee, and west Tennessee. It is within the Tennessee River Valley of northern 

Alabama that the refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located. 
22 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 6. Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Figure 7. Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem 
24 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Several regional conservation plans and initiatives relate to Wheeler Complex, including the Central 

Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan (CHJVCP), the Lower Tennessee - Cumberland Ecosystem 

Strategic Plan, and the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). 

CENTRAL HARDWOODS JOINT VENTURE CONCEPT PLAN (2003) 

The Central Hardwoods is one of 67 bird conservation regions (BCRs) across North America 

identified by the four major bird initiatives and their conservation partners under the auspices of the 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The boundary for the Central Hardwoods Bird 

Conservation Regions (CHBCR) overlaps nine states (i.e., Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, 

Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio); Regions 2, 3, and 4 of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service; Regions 8 and 9 of the USDA Forest Service; and two other formally recognized Joint 

Ventures, the Upper Mississippi/Great Lakes Joint Venture (UM/GLJV) and the Lower Mississippi 

Valley Joint Venture (LMVJV). 

Representatives of each overlapping Federal and State land-managing agency, Joint Venture, and 

other conservation organizations attended a scoping meeting in Memphis, Tennessee, in May 2000, 

to determine the level of interest in and support for a conservation partnership for the Central 

Hardwoods BCR. The group endorsed the development of a Joint Venture partnership throughout 

the CHBCR. This partnership was established to embrace the primary goal of the NABCI Initiative “to 

deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally based, biologically driven, landscape 

oriented partnerships" (NABCI 2003). 

In addition, the Joint Venture seeks to base conservation delivery upon sound science and the 

principles of adaptive management, and to target conservation actions toward landscapes with the 

greatest ecological and socioeconomic potential to support viable populations of priority birds in four 

general habitat types: grasslands; grass-shrublands; forest-woodlands; and wetlands. This 

partnership also seeks to strengthen the biological foundation upon which planning and evaluation 

are based and to initiate projects and fund-raising for habitat and other work that will further the 

conservation objectives of the various bird initiatives encompassed by NABCI. 

The CHBCR boundary straddles the Mississippi River between Illinois and Missouri; the region to the 

west is also known as the Ozarks or Interior Highlands, and the region to the east, the Interior Low 

Plateaus. It lies within a transition zone between what were historically tallgrass prairie, oak savanna, 

and woodlands to its north and west; pine forests and woodlands to the south; and oak and mixed 

mesophytic forests to the east. 

According to the CHJVCP the greatest future threat to existing bird habitat in the CHBCR is likely to 

be the continuing expansion of urban sprawl into rural areas. Of the 318 counties associated with the 

CHBCR, only 25 counties experienced a loss in population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000). The counties in the CHBCR with population increases greater than 25 percent were 

adjacent to urban areas (Fitzgerald et al., 2003). 

Priority species and their conservation needs for the CHBCR have been identified by Partners in 

Flight (Rich et al., 2005); the United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (Brown et al., 2001); the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al., 2002); the 2004 North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan Strengthening the Biological Foundations (NAWMP 2004), and the 

Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (Dimmick et al., 2002). A list of priority species and their 

general habitat affiliations for the Central Hardwoods BCR are presented in Appendix L. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

LOWER TENNESSEE – CUMBERLAND ECOSYSTEM STRATEGIC PLAN (1995) 

The LTCE Team developed a strategic plan in 1995 for the conservation of the Tennessee River and 

Cumberland River watersheds' natural animal and plant diversity through perpetuation of a dynamic, 

healthy ecosystem. The purpose of this ecosystem management plan is to outline goals, objectives, and 

strategies to protect and restore Service trust resources and ecological integrity within the LTCE. This 

plan recognizes that ecosystem function, natural community structure, and species composition are 

integral to the conservation of the Service's trust resources. It also recognizes that the Service is just one 

of many partners, all of whom share responsibility for ecosystem health. These partners include Federal, 

State, and local agencies; communities; organizations; and corporate and private landowners. 

The LTCE strategic plan identified four goals which this CCP considered during the planning 

process to ensure the Complex continues its overall contribution to Alabama wildlife 

conservation and habitat integrity. 

Goals: 

y Protect, restore, and enhance habitats and essential processes necessary to maintain healthy 

biological diversity; 

y Promote and support compatible and sustainable uses of the resource found within the LTCE; 

y Increase public knowledge and support for ecosystem resources and their management; and 

y Increase coordination and cooperation among organizations to enhance effective and efficient 

management of natural resources. 

In addition to the strategic plan, the Migratory Bird Committee of the LCTE team developed a Bird 

Conservation Plan (BCP) that covers many of the migratory bird groups. Categories include 

waterfowl, forest-dependent migratory birds, grassland birds, and shorebirds. Specific objectives or 

strategies related to Wheeler Complex are listed below: 

y Provide adequate foraging habitat for 8.2 million duck-use-days and 2.8 million goose-usedays in the three Alabama counties that include Wheeler NWR (i.e., Limestone, Madison, and 

Morgan Counties). 

y Establish and secure a 20,000-acre block of forested wetland within the Tennessee River 

floodplains with its core around the refuge. Priority species include the wood thrush, cerulean 

warbler, prothonotary warbler, and Swainson’s warbler. 

y As a strategy to establish and/or maintain at least 55 areas of sustainable source populations 

of mature hardwood forest birds, a management and monitoring plan needs to be developed 

for areas such as Wheeler NWR. Each of the 55 areas is defined as “... a block of 

approximately 7,500 to 10,000 acres that is at least 70 to 80 percent forested (preferably 85-

95 percent forested), within which a core of about 3,000 acres of mature hardwood forest is 

managed for cerulean warblers. 

y Establish a minimum of two “flagship” sites where joint management strategies and modeling 

exercises will be developed for shorebirds. One possible site is Swan Creek Wildlife 

Management Area/Wheeler NWR. 

The BCP also includes objectives and strategies that generally may apply to Wheeler NWR. 

Examples include those listed below: 

y Along with partners, provide nesting and brooding habitat for cavity nesting ducks with wood 

ducks being a priority. 
26 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Inventory waterfowl populations at least monthly from October through March. 

y Manage forested habitats on Service lands using sound silvicultural practices to improve 

vertical structure and habitat diversity across all forest strata. 

y Develop key educational messages about shorebirds that can be used to reach target 

audiences. 

ALABAMA COMPREHENSIVE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STRATEGY (2005) 

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF) Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) was 

completed in 2005. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for and coordination of 

wildlife conservation efforts in Alabama for the next decade. The overall goal is to identify and 

conserve those species in greatest need for conservation action, while also addressing the full array 

of wildlife and habitats. 

This publication identifies those wildlife species of greatest conservation need and actions needed to 

conserve Alabama’s wildlife and their key habitats. Information relative to these species and those 

habitats found on Refuge System lands will be evaluated for opportunities to foster conservation efforts. 

Upon review of the Alabama CWCS, the Service has identified four objectives that this CCP considered 

during the planning process to ensure that the Complex continues its contribution and support for 

Alabama wildlife conservation and habitat integrity. These four objectives are listed below: 

y Provide habitat and ecosystem functions that support healthy and viable populations of all 

species, avoiding the need to list additional species under the Endangered Species Act. 

y Identify, conserve, manage, and restore terrestrial and aquatic habitats which are a priority for 

the continued survival of species of conservation concern. 

y Support educational efforts to improve the understanding by the general public and 

conservation stakeholders regarding species of conservation concern and their related 

habitats. 

y Improve existing partnerships and develop new partnerships between ADWFF and State and 

Federal natural resource agencies, non-governmental organizations and environmental 

groups, private industry, and academia. 

Overarching statewide conservation actions were also developed, as many actions recurred for many 

species and habitats, and in existing conservation plans. Alabama's conservation actions therefore 

addressed needs at several levels and multiple scales (ADWFF 2005). Please see Appendix M for a 

comparison of Statewide Conservation Actions in relation to each of the proposed alternatives for the 

Wheeler Complex CCP. Differences are noted in a comprehensive table as either supporting or not 

supporting statewide actions. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

The Wheeler Complex faces a variety of ecological threats and problems. The most important of 

these threats and problems are habitat loss and fragmentation, the proliferation of invasive species 

(plant and animal), and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

One the primary threats to the Wheeler Complex is the historic and ongoing loss and degradation 

of wildlife habitat, largely due to development pressures related to Alabama's increasing human 

population. Alabama has a population in excess of 4.4 million, a 10 percent increase from 1990 

to 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that by the year 2025 

Alabamians will number 5.22 million, a 17 percent increase from 2000 (Campbell 1997). To make 

matters worse, the Huntsville/Madison/Decatur area, which surrounds Wheeler NWR, is one of 

the fastest growing areas in the State with a combined population in excess of 250,000 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000). 

Land clearing for agriculture, flood control projects, transportation corridors, and rights-of-way, and 

more recently for residential development has had a tremendous effect on the biological diversity, 

biological integrity, and environmental health of the LTCE. Large tracts of bottomland hardwood 

forests have been reduced to forest fragments ranging from very small tracts of just a few acres in 

size with limited functional value to a few large areas of more than 10,000 acres that have maintained 

many of the original functions and values of bottomland hardwood forest. 

Bottomland hardwoods and associated wetlands support substantial wintering populations of 

waterfowl species. They are also a high-priority nesting habitat for other migratory birds. Currently, 

more than 70 species of breeding migratory songbirds are found in the area. Some of these species, 

including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, wood thrush, and cerulean warbler, have 

declined and need large forested blocks to recover, survive, and thrive. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE SPECIES (PLANTS AND ANIMALS) 

Each year in the United States, invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage. Estimated 

damage and control cost of invasive species in the United States alone amount to more than $138 

billion annually (Pimentel et al., 2005). In addition to these costs, economic losses can occur due to 

loss from recreational and tourism revenues (Simberloff 2001). Wheeler Complex has several 

documented invasive pest plant and animal species. These species impact the Complex’s ability to 

carry out desired management objectives. 

Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and 

American lotus (Nelumbo luteas) are major invasive aquatic species. These species threaten natural 

aquatic vegetation that is important to wetland systems and choke open waterways to a degree that 

often prevents recreational use. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), kudzu (Pueraria montana), 

Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), and to a lesser extent 

wisteria (Wisteria venusta) and ornamental bamboo (Bambusa multiplex), are terrestrial invasive 

plant species of concern throughout the Complex. Currently, the Complex implements control 

measures when budgets and work force allows. 

Invasive and nuisance animal species, such as feral hogs (Sus scrofa) and beavers (Castor 

canadensis) destroy habitat. Beavers kill and damage stands of trees when dam and lodge 

construction holds water in areas longer than normal that results in prolonged flooding. These events 

cause massive die-offs of large tracts of mature bottomland hardwoods, which take decades to 

recover. In addition, flooding events can back water up and flood adjacent landowners' properties. 

Feral hogs compete with native wildlife for food and they prey on small vertebrates and invertebrates. 

They destroy habitat at a rapid pace by rooting, which kills wetland vegetation and damages refuge 

roads and dikes. These actions then provide favorable conditions for the spread of invasive plants. 
28 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Another invasive species, the Zebra mussel, has been documented in the Tennessee River; however 

it is not understood why this species has not expanded into large colonies. The absence of current 

management problems does not mean future problems will not occur. Control will require efforts of 

essentially all Federal, State, and local partners, including adjacent landowners. 

DEGRADATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

The Tennessee River Valley is comprised of several aquatic ecosystems that have been greatly 

deteriorated by human activities. Impacts to aquatic species and their habitat include: 

impoundment of free flowing streams and rivers; habitat degradation from erosion and 

sedimentation; misuse of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; toxic chemical discharges from 

both point and non-point sources; and competition from exotic and/or invasive aquatic species. 

All of these events have led to degradation of aquatic ecosystems within the Tennessee River 

Valley and each refuge within the Wheeler Complex. 

One on the most damaging events to aquatic ecosystems in the Tennessee River Valley has 

been the historical use of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT, PCB’s, toxaphene, dieldrine, and 

lindane), which contain heavy metals, such as mercury. These chemicals were commonly used 

in farming operations (especially cotton) prior to being banned in the 1970s. These persistent 

chemicals were used throughout northern Alabama and can remain in the soil substrate for long 

periods of time. These chemicals have been linked to an assortment of contamination issues and 

continue to detrimentally impact fish and other aquatic-dependent resources, such as fish-eating 

birds, wood ducks, and raccoons. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

The climate of the Tennessee River Valley in northern Alabama is humid and temperate, with 

temperatures ranging from -5 degrees to 110 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Summers are long and hot, 

and generally the winters are mild and pleasant. The average summer temperature is 79 degrees F, 

with an average maximum temperature of 89 degrees F. In winter, the average temperature is 42 

degrees F and the average daily minimum temperature is 32 degrees F. Temperatures at higher 

elevations are generally 5 to 6 degrees lower. Occasionally, temperatures in the winter will drop 

below freezing and will sometimes remain below freezing for one to four days. 

Frost can be expected from the middle of October until the latter part of March. Prevailing winds 

are normally from the northwest; however during the fall and winter months winds from the west 

and northeast are common. The average wind velocity is highest during the winter and lowest 

during the summer. The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 60 percent and 

greater at night. The average humidity at dawn is about 80 percent. Humidity is normally 90 

percent or greater in the summer months. 

Rainfall is approximately 57 inches per year, and there is seldom extended accumulations of snow or 

ice. Precipitation is highest during the winter and lowest during the fall. Rainfall events that produce 

flooding are most common from mid-December to mid-April. However, heavy rainfall can be recorded 

anytime throughout the year and records show that the heaviest floods have occurred during summer 

months. Although prolonged droughts are rare, excessive dry periods in the late summer have 

occurred (Sherard 1971; Swenson et al., 1958; and Swenson et al., 1954). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located within two physiographic provinces of the United 

States: the Interior Low Plateau and the Appalachian Plateau. Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs reside 

within the Highland Rim section of the Interior Low Plateau called the Tennessee Valley. The 

Tennessee Valley is characterized by broad, gently sloping areas with semi-karst topography and is 

underlain by 360 million-year-old Mississippian-aged limestone and shale. It is comprised of two 

physiographic subdivisions: The Limestone Valley (Red Lands) and the Alluvial Plains. Red Lands 

have undulating to rolling relief and Alluvial Plains have nearly level to undulating first bottoms and 

stream terraces (second bottoms) along the Tennessee River (Swenson et al., 1958). 

Sauta Cave and Fern Cave NWRs reside within the Cumberland Plateau section of the Appalachian 

Plateau province. The surface is underlain by 330 million-year-old Pennsylvanian-aged sandstones, 

conglomerates, coal, and shale. Side slopes found in the higher mountain elevations are composed of 

older limestone and shale from the Mississippian System. Terrain features can be steep and difficult to 

access by vehicle. Slopes greater than 25 percent are common (Swenson et al., 1954). 

Wheeler NWR 

Wheeler NWR exists along the Wheeler Reservoir of the Tennessee River and is located within the 

Alluvial Plains physiographic subdivision. It is underlain by Tuscumbia Limestone, which is gray to 

blue in color and contains some interstratified chert. Exposed surface rock is unusual, except in a 

few isolated places. The weathering of the Tuscumbia limestone has given rise to many of the red 

upland soils and has developed many caves and sinkholes in the area. The general topology of the 

refuge is flat (0-2 percent slopes) to gently rolling (3-6 percent slopes), with a few abrupt hills 

(Swenson et al., 1958). Land elevations range from 560 to about 575 feet above mean sea level 

(MSL), except in the dewatering units where elevations may be as low as 552 feet MSL. 

Key Cave NWR 

Key Cave NWR exists along the northern shore of the Pickwick Reservoir of the Tennessee River and 

resides within the Limestone Valley physiographic subdivision. It is also underlain by Tuscumbia 

Limestone, whose weathering has produced many karst features, including numerous springs, sinkholes, 

and several underground cave systems. There are very few exposures of bedrock except for locations 

along the bluff line at the margin of the Tennessee River (Aley 1990). Topology is comprised of flat to 

gently rolling upland terraces with slopes ranging from one to fifteen percent. Elevation of the land 

surface generally ranges from about 500 to 580 feet above MSL (Kidd et al., 2001). 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Sauta Cave NWR exists along the northern shore of the Guntersville Reservoir of the Tennessee River. It 

is underlain by the Bangor and Monteagle Limestone formations and parts of the Pennington formation. 

Bangor Limestone is comprised of blue coarsely crystalline or oolitic finely granular limestone with 

occasional lenses of shale. It is several hundred feet thick, occurs in beds or massive layers that outcrop 

on mountain slopes, and provides the parent material for the hilly and rough types of limestone rockland 

on the refuge. Monteagle Limestone is also comprised of oolitic limestone, but contains more shale. Both 

the Bangor and Monteagle Limestones are well known for forming caves. The Pennington formation is a 

caprock for the area and consists of shale with sandstone, thin dolomite and limestone beds (Swenson et 

al., 1954). Elevations range from 1,140 feet MSL at the highest point on the refuge and falls to 600 feet 

MSL at the lowest portion near the bottom entrance to Sauta Cave. 
30 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Fern Cave NWR 

Fern Cave NWR exists along the eastern edge of the Paint Rock River valley just north of the 

Guntersville Reservoir of the Tennessee River. It is underlain by the Bangor and Monteagle 

Limestone formations and parts of the Pottsville formation. The Pottsville formation is of 

Pennsylvanian age and is made up of a sandstone cap and an underlying bed of shale. The terrain is 

difficult and slopes are steep. Slopes greater than 35 percent are common (Swenson et al., 1954). 

The eastern-most section of the refuge starts at about 1,500 feet MSL in elevation and the 

northwestern edge that borders the Paint Rock River falls to about 590 feet MSL. 

SOILS 

The majority of the soils located on lands within the Wheeler Complex have developed from the 

weathering of high-grade limestone, the deposition of alluvial material from the Tennessee River, or 

the deposition of colluvium from weathering sandstones in the higher elevations. Soils are generally 

acidic, low in organic matter, and are usually fertile. 

Wheeler NWR 

Upland, terrace, colluvial, and bottomland soils are found on Wheeler NWR. Upland soils that occupy 

positions above the adjacent stream bottoms and river terraces consist of material derived directly 

through the decay of limestone rock in place. The properties of these soils are closely related to 

those of the parent rock and are underlain with clay or limestone. These soils are well to moderately 

drained and make up approximately 14 percent of the land acreage on the refuge. The Decatur and 

Dewey soil series, derived from high-grade limestone, are the reddest of the upland soils and most 

fertile (Swenson et al., 1958). 

Terrace soils (old general alluvium) are frequently called second bottoms or benches. These soils 

are more mature than soils on first bottoms and have more distinct surface-soil and subsoil layers. 

The Capshaw, Captina, Wolftever, and Holston soil series are moderately well-drained in the upper 

levels but drain much slower at lower elevations (Swenson et al., 1958). These soils make up about 

36 percent of the land acreage on the refuge. 

Colluvial soils (young and old local alluvium/colluvium) are the sloping fans and benches at the base of 

slopes. They consist of a mixture of local alluvium and colluvium that has been washed or has been 

sloughed from higher elevations. The Abernathy, Allen, Greendale, Hermitage, and Jefferson soil series 

are well-drained. The Ooltewah and Guthrie soil series are somewhat poorly to poorly drained (Swenson 

et al., 1958). These soils only make up about eight percent of the land acreage on the refuge. 

 

The bottomlands (floodplains) or first bottoms are nearly level areas along stream channels that are 

subject to frequent flooding. These soils are young and undeveloped and make up approximately 41 

percent of the land acreage on the refuge. Parent material from which these soils are developing has not 

been deposited long enough to permit the development of surface and subsoil layers (Swenson et al., 

1958). Bottomland soils found within Wheeler’s dewatering/impoundment units have silt loam textures 

that drain very slowly. These soils may be too wet in spring to plant corn, but are usually dry enough for 

planting late season crops, including soybeans. The majority of these soils belong to the Melvin series, 

which consists of very deep, poorly drained soils formed in silty alluvium on flood plains and in upland 

depressions. Slopes range from zero to two percent (USFWS 1944). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Key Cave NWR 

Upland soils derived from the decay of high-grade limestone rock are found on Key Cave NWR. The 

properties of these soils are closely related to those of the parent rock and are underlain with clay or 

limestone. The Decatur, Dewey, and Fullerton soil series make up approximately 80 percent of the 

land acreage on the refuge and have silt loam to silty clay loam textures (Sherard 1971). These soils 

are moderately to well drained, and depth to bedrock average between 25 and 50 feet deep (Moser 

and Hyde 1974). Small pockets of the Grasmere series can be found along small drainage ways and 

in shallow depressions. Soils in the Grasmere series drain moderately to poor and have silty-clay 

loam textures (Sherard 1971). 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Soils on Sauta Cave NWR are dominated by rough stony land, limestone rockland (rough), and 

limestone rockland (hilly). These soils make up over 85 percent of the land acreage on the refuge. 

Rough stony land (Muskingum soil material) occurs on the upper one-third of the area between 

sandstone plateaus and limestone valleys. Slopes (>20) are steep and soil material consists largely 

of colluvial accumulations of sandstone material on top of limestone. 

Areas classified as limestone rockland (rough) occur in wide nearly continuous belts that include 

rocky slopes (>25 percent) that occur on the bottom two-thirds of the area between sandstone 

plateaus and limestone valleys. Soil material among the rocks consists of residue from limestone 

weathered in place and wash from higher elevations. External drainage is rapid except in areas 

where level benches are located. Small to large limestone sinks and caves are common. 

The limestone rockland (hilly) series includes area of hilly land (11-25 percent slopes) with numerous 

limestone outcrops and large limestone boulders. This series occurs on limestone ridges below areas of 

limestone rockland (rough). External drainage is very rapid and internal drainage is slow. The soil 

material among the rocks consists of weathered limestone and shale. The depth of the soil material 

varies form a few inches to several feet (Swenson et al., 1954). The remaining 15 percent of the land 

base is composed of young soils consisting of alluvial material deposited from weathering limestone. 

Fern Cave NWR 

Soils on Fern Cave NWR are dominated by limestone rockland (rough) and rough stony land. These 

two soil series make up over 90 percent of the land on the refuge (Swenson et al., 1954). The 

remaining 10 percent of the land base is composed of young soils consisting of alluvial material 

deposited from weathering limestone. (Please see the section above for individual descriptions of 

each of these soil series.) 

HYDROLOGY 

The Tennessee River and its tributaries comprise the drainage system for the four refuges in the Wheeler 

Complex. The Alabama portion of the Tennessee River basin is located along what is called the “Great 

Bend.” The name Great Bend was an Native American term adopted by early settlers to describe the arc 

of the Tennessee River as it reached its southern most bend in what is today Alabama (McDonald 1989). 

The Tennessee River basin in Alabama drains roughly 13 percent of the state’s 51,705 square miles and 

is by far the largest river system to pass through the State of Alabama (McDonald 1989). 
32 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Wheeler NWR 

The Tennessee River flows through the center of the refuge from east to west. Several tributaries 

flow across refuge lands into the river. The main tributaries include Flint and Cotaco Creeks on the 

south side and Piney, Limestone, Beaver Dam, and Indian Creeks on the north side of the 

Tennessee River. There are numerous other small branches. The normal pool elevation of the 

Wheeler Reservoir in the summer is 556 feet MSL (169.5 m). At this level, approximately 15,500 

acres of open water flow within the boundary of Wheeler NWR. 

Key Cave NWR 

Key Cave NWR does not have any perennial streams that currently flow across the refuge. Before 

the Service took ownership of the land, several large erosion ditches were present. Complex 

management installed three shallow water areas and rehabilitated drainage channels to reduce 

erosion, thus enhancing the water quality for endangered species inhabiting Key Cave. A 38-acre 

sinkhole lake once held water on the refuge; however it has been dry since September 2000. 

Numerous sinkholes are found in close proximity to the refuge and are an integral component of 

groundwater recharge to Key Cave, Collier Cave, and Collier Bone Cave. 

In 1990, the Ozark Underground Laboratory conducted a study to determine the underground 

recharge area for the cave system. The recharge area was divided into four potential risk areas: high 

hazard, moderately high hazard, moderate hazard, and low hazard (Aley 1990). The refuge resides 

in the high hazard risk area of the Key Cave aquifer Recharge Zone. 

The recharge zone is approximately 16 square miles and is located in karst topology underlain by 

Tuscumbia limestone. Surface drainage is poor and essentially all runoff water enters the 

groundwater system by sub-surface drainage. Only a portion of the water in the Key Cave aquifer 

passes through Key Cave. The estimated mean annual discharge from the entire Key Cave aquifer 

is approximately 15 to 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). This flow rate is subject to precipitation events 

and can fluctuate greatly (Aley 1990). Waters from Pickwick Lake seldom, if ever, flow into Key 

Cave. Instead, waters from Key Cave discharge into the Lake through Coffee Slough. 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Surface runoff and groundwater discharge from lands within the refuge's boundaries drain into North 

Sauty Creek, a tributary of the Tennessee River on the Lake Guntersville Reservoir. 

Fern Cave NWR 

Surface runoff and groundwater discharge from lands within the refuge's boundaries drain into the 

Paint Rock River, a tributary of the Tennessee River on the Lake Wheeler Reservoir. 

AIR QUALITY 

Under the Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established primary 

and secondary air quality standards to protect public health and public welfare. Primary standards 

are designed to prevent the public from dangerous particulates in the air that can cause health 

related problems. Secondary standards relate to protecting ecosystems, including plants and 

animals, from harm, as well as protecting against decreased visibility and damage to crops, 

vegetation, and buildings. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

EPA has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal air pollutants (referred to 

as “criteria pollutants”): Particulate Matter (PM), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Ground-Level Ozone (O3), Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Lead (Pb). Areas of the country that are as of yet unable to 

meet these federal clean air standards are referred to as “non-attainment” areas (TVA 2003). 

The Air Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) monitors all of 

these pollutants for counties in the State of Alabama. The closest monitoring stations located near 

refuges within the Wheeler Complex are located in Colbert, Madison, and Morgan Counties. In 

general, data from 2004 indicate that the Alabama counties within the Tennessee River Valley are 

meeting all of the NAAQS and have recently been designated in attainment with the new 8-hour 

ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards (TVA 2003). In fact, Huntsville is 

presently an attainment area for all federal air quality standards (City of Huntsville 2004). 

However, the Huntsville area remains close to the 8-hour ozone and fine particle standards, which 

were promulgated by EPA in 1997. The revised ozone standard is more stringent than the former 1-

hour standard, and attainment of the new fine particulate matter standard (the PM2.5 NAAQS) is 

similarly far more difficult than attainment of the PM10 standard. In the Huntsville area, ongoing 

pollution control efforts and favorable meteorological conditions over the past three years have 

resulted in ambient pollutant concentrations below the levels specified in the new federal standards 

(City of Huntsville 2004). 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

The Water Division of ADEM is responsible for monitoring and maintaining water quality and 

controlling water pollution in the State. Its 2006 Integrated Water Quality Assessment and Monitoring 

Report indicated that overall Alabama’s surface water is of high quality (ADEM 2006). This report 

also stated that water management programs are conducted on a basin-wide scale and that water 

quality monitoring of lakes of the Tennessee River system are conducted by the Tennessee Valley 

Authority Reservoir Vital Signs Monitoring Program. This program provides monitoring results to 

ADEM on an annual basis (ADEM 2006). Open water is controlled entirely by TVA in its flood control 

and power production operations; however water confined to dewatering/impoundment units on 

Wheeler NWR are controlled by the Service. 

 

Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located within the Wheeler, Pickwick, and Guntersville 

Reservoirs of the Tennessee River. Wheeler Reservoir was monitored annually by TVA from 1991 

through 1995 to establish baseline data on the Reservoir’s ecological health under a range of 

weather and flow conditions. Wheeler Reservoir is now monitored every other year. The ecological 

health condition of Wheeler Reservoir was rated “good” in 2005 and “fair” in 2003. The rating in 2003 

was only one point below a rating of good (TVA 2006). Although the overall ecological condition of 

Wheeler Reservoir also was fair in 1999 and 2001, the 2003 score was notably higher. Generally, 

lower ecological health scores occur during years with lower flows as a result of higher chlorophyll 

concentrations and lower dissolved oxygen levels (TVA 2006). 

Pickwick and Guntersville reservoirs were monitored annually by TVA from 1991 through 1994 to also 

establish baseline data. Pickwick and Guntersville Reservoirs are now evaluated every other year. 

The overall ecological condition of both Pickwick and Guntersville Reservoirs was rated as good in 

2004 (TVA 2006). As in past years, the ecological health indicator scores for Guntersville Reservoir 

were among the highest observed for all TVA reservoirs (Dycus and Baker 2000). 
34 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

The Clean Water Act of 2001 requires that each state identify those waters that do not currently 

support designated uses and establish a priority ranking of these waters by taking into account 

the severity of the pollution and the designated uses of such waters. The result of this 

requirement is the development of Alabama’s §303(d) list, which includes segments of rivers, 

streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries that do not fully support their currently designated use 

or uses. The 2002 ADEM §303(d) list identified 63 stream segments, comprising 650 miles in the 

Tennessee River Basin with impaired water quality. This amount far exceeds any other river 

basin in Alabama. Most impairment has been attributed to organic enrichment, siltation and 

pathogens, all from an agricultural origin (ADWFF 2005). 

Wheeler NWR 

Activities impacting both water quality and quantity are increasing on Wheeler NWR. Water quality is 

a major human and wildlife concern because of the number of people in the area who depend on 

drinking water from the Tennessee River or its tributaries and because of the number of fish and 

wildlife species that are directly dependent on high water quality. 

Since the late 1980s, the Tennessee River has been considered one of the ten most polluted rivers in 

the country. Its status was related to point source pollution from industries and non-point source 

pollution from residential development and agricultural practices. Four water bodies that flow through 

Wheeler NWR are currently found on Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list: Huntsville Spring Branch, Indian 

Creek, Cotaco Creek, and Beaverdam Creek (ADEM 2006). See Table 2 for a complete description 

of causes and sources of impairment. 

Table 2. Select data from Alabama’s 2006 §303(d) list 

Assessment 

Unit ID 

Waterbody 

Name County Uses Causes Sources Date* 

AL06030002-

0306-100 

Beaverdam 

Creek Madison Fish and Wildlife Siltation 

Non-irrigated crop 

production and land 

development 

1994 - 

1995 

AL06030002-

0502-101 

Huntsville 

Spring 

Branch 

Madison Fish and 

Wildlife 

Priority 

Organics 

Contaminated 

sediments 1993 

AL06030002-

0505-101 

Indian 

Creek Madison Fish and Wildlife 

Pesticides 

(DDT) 

Contaminated 

sediments 

1991-

1993 

AL06030002-

0603-102 

Cotaco 

Creek Morgan 

Swimming 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Pathogens Agriculture 1997 

*Date corresponds to the year in which the waterbody was placed on the §303(d) list (Source: Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management 2006) 

To monitor water quality at Wheeler NWR, water samples are taken semi-annually (in April and 

September/October) at nine sites, which are then subjected to biochemical analysis. Samples 

are analyzed in the spring for specific conductivity, hardness, sulfate, alkalinity, pH, turbidity, 

phosphorus, and nitrate. In addition, cadmium, copper, zinc, nickel, and manganese analyses 

are conducted on fall samples. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Water quantity/water rights issues continue to be discussed by local farmers and local municipalities. 

The introduction of irrigation into a once dryland farming system in the Tennessee River Valley has 

increased. Ten years ago, large scale irrigation was virtually nonexistent. Over the past five years, 

there have been four requests from area farmers for permission to place irrigation systems within 

refuge waters to irrigate their adjacent crops. In addition, population levels have exploded in local 

cities surrounding the refuge. Several requests have been made to cross the refuge and extract 

water out of the Tennessee River for public consumption. 

Key Cave NWR

In 2001, the Service installed semi-permeable membrane devices (SPMD) for water sampling inside Key 

Cave. These devices consist of low-density polyethylene tubes filled with triolein (fish lipid). The device 

sequesters lipid-soluble contaminants (i.e., organochlorines, PAH, pyrethroids, and several herbicides) 

from the water column. They may be left in place for extended periods of time; therefore the devices are 

effective in detecting contaminants at very low concentrations and at capturing episodic events (e.g., 

temporary increases in contaminant concentrations due to stormwater runoff). The SPMDs were 

retrieved and replaced in the Cave every two months (six times per year) in order to develop baseline 

water quality data. At the time of this publication, the samples have not yet been analyzed. 

Water quantity measurements for the Key Cave aquifer have been conducted in the past by other 

agencies; however accurate data are unavailable at this time. 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Water quality assessments and monitoring are not conducted on Sauta Cave NWR at this time. 

Water quantity measurements for local aquifers have been conducted in the past by other agencies; 

however, accurate data are unavailable at this time. 

Fern Cave NWR 

Water quality assessments and monitoring are not conducted on Fern Cave NWR at this time. Water 

quantity measurements for local aquifers have been conducted in the past by other agencies; 

however, accurate data are unavailable at this time. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Refuges in the Wheeler Complex are located in the Tennessee River basin of Alabama. According to 

The Nature Conservancy, the Tennessee River basin is the most biologically diverse river basin for 

aquatic species in North America (ADWFF 2005). In fact, 163 fish species have been documented in 

the Alabama portion of the Tennessee River basin, 73 of which do not occur in other Alabama 

drainages. Furthermore, 90 species of freshwater mussels and 66 species of aquatic snails are 

found in the Alabama reaches of the Tennessee River basin. Of those, 73 mussels and 51 snails 

occur in no other Alabama drainage system (Boschung and Maden 2004). 

HABITAT 

The Wheeler Complex is home to a variety of valuable habitats that support migratory birds, resident 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, threatened and endangered species, and imperiled species. Some 

of the habitats include: the Tennessee River and its tributaries, where listed mussels and snails 

occur; karst/cave systems that support many rare and imperiled species both inside and at their 

entrances; wetlands that support a variety of migratory waterfowl; and, forests that provide nesting 
36 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

and breeding habitat for a variety of migratory birds. Most of the land base surrounding each refuge 

is devoted to farming, forestry, and/or industry. When compared to other areas of Alabama, relatively 

little natural habitat remains in the Tennessee River basin. For example, impoundments on the 

Tennessee River, such as the Wilson, Wheeler, and Guntersville Reservoirs, have virtually eliminated 

all free-flowing riverine habitats (ADWFF 2005). The following section describes each of the habitats 

found at the individual refuges. 

Wheeler NWR 

Many different types of habitats are found on Wheeler NWR. Because the Tennessee River runs 

directly through the middle of the refuge, almost all habitats are influenced by water or have been 

influenced by the river in the past. Currently, Wheeler NWR consists of approximately 37,200 acres, 

including 25,950 acres of land and 11,250 acres of open water, streams, and creeks. 

The land acreage consists of approximately 14,000 acres of forested wetlands and 3,000 acres of 

upland or mesic hardwoods, with the main tree species consisting of red and white oaks, hickories, 

poplar, ash, and tupelo gum; 2,000 acres of swamp; 1,000 acres of pine plantations, much of this was 

subjected to sanitation cuts in the mid-1990s; 3,800 acres of managed cropland; 2,000 acres of 

wetlands (impoundments), in which water levels are manually controlled; and 150 acres of old fields, 

with the remainder including native warm-season grass fields, karst formations (caves), open shelves, 

mudflats, backwater embayments, ephemeral ponds, rocket test ranges, and other areas (Figure 8). 

All of these habitats help provide for a large diversity of wildlife on the refuge. 

Cropland 

Cooperative farming is a mutually beneficial arrangement where the farmer is allowed to farm refuge 

land under certain guidelines and restrictions, including location of crops, techniques, crops planted, 

and chemicals used. Title 50, Part 29, of the Code of Federal Regulations and Service policies 

require that the value of a refuge’s share of cooperatively grown crops be set at rates that reflect the 

fees and charges received by private landowners in the vicinity for similar privileges. The value can 

be established through the use of competition in selecting cooperators or through an analysis of local 

market conditions to establish the prevailing rates in the nearest comparable area. 

Wheeler NWR has an active cooperative farming program in which about 3,000-3,900 acres are 

planted annually. The goal of the program is to provide food and cover for migratory birds and other 

resident wildlife. The program supplements natural foods with grain foods, such as corn, milo, small 

seeded millets, and green browse. It is designed for farmers to buy the seed, plant, grow, and 

harvest the crop and leave a certain portion or share for the wildlife. Corn is usually chosen for 

refuge shares, although millet is planted in areas that remain wet too long for corn production. 

Recently, refuge shares have been about 20 percent of the crop, however in 2007 the refuge 

share was changed to 18 percent. Yearly averages of 4,150 acres have been planted in the last 

five years by seven cooperative farmers, including some acreage by force account (using staff 

labor and equipment). Force account farming has included planting wheat in harvested corn 

fields for green browse. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 8. Land use/land cover for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
38 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Waterfowl Impoundments 

Wheeler NWR manages 16 impoundments to provide approximately 2,000 acres of waterfowl habitat 

in open water, moist soil, and in areas where agricultural crops can be flooded (Figure 9). 

Management consists of manipulating water flows through 20 water control structures (WCS) 

consisting of concrete and/or corrugated metal pipes with flash board riser or screwgate structures. 

By adjusting the height of the control mechanism (screwgates and riser stoplogs), water levels are set 

and gravity-induced water flows can be created. In addition, many of the impoundments are located 

within two large dewatering units (White Springs and Rockhouse Buckeye) that utilize mechanical 

pumps to remove water. 

Generally, impoundments are filled in the fall by rainfall or through spring seepage. Rarely can the 

refuge open WCSs and allow water to flow from the Wheeler Reservoir into the impoundments 

because the reservoir's water level has dropped (early to mid-September) prior to the time when 

filling is needed (late September or early October). Impoundments are not filled with water until 

farmers harvest crops and just prior to the time birds begin to arrive at the refuge. 

Most impoundments, with the exception of the Display Pool at the Visitor Center, can usually be 

drained or partially drained by gravity into the reservoir or its tributaries before the water level is 

raised in the spring (early to mid-April) by opening various WCS. A portable pump is used to empty 

the Display Pool. Impoundment drawdown is initiated after waterfowl leave, generally in late 

February or March, depending on the impoundment and yearly conditions. In typical years, water has 

to be pumped out of the impoundments after the reservoir is raised in mid-April. 

In the spring, pumps are used to draw down the White Springs Dewatering Unit (Whiteside Pump 

Station) and the Rockhouse Buckeye Dewatering Unit (Rockhouse Pump Station). These pumps 

are operated by TVA in cooperation with the refuge and the State of Alabama (the pumps also 

affect management units on the Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area just west of the White 

Springs unit) via a cooperative agreement. The costs are paid by the Service or cost-shared as 

follows: Whiteside Pump Station - May 1 to September 1 - State 20 percent, TVA 50 percent, and 

Service 30 percent; Rockhouse Pump Station - May 1 to September 1 - TVA 50 percent and 

Service 50 percent. The refuge pays 100 percent of pumping costs during the rest of the year 

when pumps are operated to dewater the units. 

Impoundments and related structures are maintained annually as resources and conditions permit. 

When soil conditions are dry enough, unwanted vegetation (especially woody vegetation) is mowed, 

disced, or removed. Roadsides and the upper, dryer portion of the dikes are mowed annually. Areas 

that are farmed do not require as much maintenance. 

Swamps 

Swamps are regularly flooded forested areas dominated by cypress, tupelo, and wetland oaks, often 

with substantial shrub or herbaceous vegetation. Approximately 2,000 acres of swamp habitat is 

located on Wheeler NWR. The largest swamp on the refuge, Blackwell Swamp is located on the 

north side of the river just west of the Redstone Military Installation boundary. As stated earlier, a 30-

acre tupelo gum swamp, located on the north side of the Tennessee River along Beaverdam Creek 

on Wheeler NWR, was officially designated as a National Natural Landmark in 1974. This habitat is 

unique because this tupelo gum swamp occurs in the Interior Low Plateau physiographic region, 

rather than its usual occurrence in the Gulf Coastal Plain region. 
40 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Forested Wetlands/Floodplain Forest 

Forested wetlands or floodplain forests differ from true swamps in that they lack continuously 

standing water, although repeated flooding is common. Differences in the length of inundation give 

rise to a variety of community types within this classification. For example, large timbered areas 

bordering rivers with frequent flooding often have a poorly developed, very open understory. Red 

maple, sycamore, and cottonwood are common, and the forest floor is littered with rotting logs and 

woody debris deposited by flood water. 

In contrast, areas higher in elevation, where flooding events are not as prolonged, have a greater 

diversity of plant species, with oaks, and hickory common in the canopy. The forest floor in these 

areas is often covered by a variety of annual and/or perennial plants. Wheeler NWR has 

approximately 14,000 acres of forested wetlands, including both of these community types. 

Dry (Upland) Hardwood Forest 

Upland forests occur in higher elevations where drainage is sufficient so that soils do not become 

saturated for extended periods of time. Water can either run off or percolate through the soil. 

In natural upland forests, the upper canopy is normally 80 to 100 percent closed, and sub-canopies of 

younger trees and shrubs typically exist. The herbaceous ground layer includes forbs, grasses, 

lichens, and mosses. Wheeler NWR has approximately 2,000 acres of upland forest with species 

composition consisting primarily of oak and hickory with a few scattered southern pines. 

Mesic Hardwood Forest 

Mixed deciduous hardwood or hardwood-planted pine forests, with canopy closures exceeding 40 

percent, occur on slopes and ravines between dry upland terraces and stream bottoms. Most of the 

mesic hardwood forest habitat on Wheeler NWR, approximately 1,000 acres, is highly fragmented 

and consists of young successional forest. In addition, approximately 1,000 acres that traditionally 

would have contained mesic hardwood forests have been converted to loblolly pine stands. 

Karst Formations (Caves and Sinkholes) 

Caves are unique environments that house rare wildlife species, mineral formations, and valuable 

ground water resources. Caves in the Tennessee River basin are generally formed by water 

dissolving away limestone over long periods of time. The dissolution process produces a distinctive 

landform known as karst, characterized by sinkholes, sinking streams, and underground drainage. 

Limestone caves are often adorned with calcium carbonate formations produced through slow 

precipitation, including the most common and well-known stalactites and stalagmites. Caves located 

on Wheeler NWR include: Cave Springs, Copperhead, and Rockhouse; a number of small caves 

around the Rockhouse Cave; and at least one other known cave just east of Bluff City along the river. 

Old Fields 

Wheeler NWR manages certain tracts of land as old fields. Old field habitat is the stage of plant 

growth between bare ground and forest. On Wheeler NWR, old fields are commonly found on 

abandoned or retired cropfields. Typical plants include foxtail, goldenrod, broom sedge, and 

ragweed. Old fields also often contain scattered woody vegetation, such as dogwood or plum shrubs 

and blackberry briars. Currently, the refuge contains about 150 acres of old field habitat that is 

maintained in an early successional stage of grasses, brush, and small trees. These fields are 

mowed and disked to maintain them in an early successional stage. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 9. Waterfowl impoundments managed at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
42 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Grasslands

Fields of grassy cover with scattered trees or shrubs (less than 10 percent canopy cover by these 

woody species) are considered grasslands. Grasslands can usually be classified into categories 

based on growing characteristics and the composition of their herbaceous vegetation. Recently, 

Wheeler NWR established one small (4-acre) tract of native warm season grasses (NWSG). These 

grasses are native to areas where vegetative growth occurs during the warm months (June, July, and 

August) and are dormant during autumn and winter. They provide excellent habitat for several 

grassland-dependent bird species and other wildlife. Grasslands planted in NWSGs at Wheeler NWR 

are mowed and disked to maintain them in an early successional stage. Grass species planted 

include big bluestem, little bluestem, Indiangrass, sideoats gramma, switchgrass. 

Open Water 

Approximately 11,250 acres of Wheeler NWR contain open water habitat consisting of the Tennessee 

River channel, Tennessee River backwater, Limestone Bay, Garth Slough, Flint Creek, Limestone 

Creek, Piney Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Leemon Slough, Lilly Pond, Crowder Slough, Cotaco Creek, 

Huntsville Spring Branch, and Indian Creek. 

Key Cave NWR 

Key Cave NWR contains 1,060 acres of land consisting of rolling hills, upland forests, and cropland. 

Currently, approximately 295 acres are in row crop production (corn, soybeans, or wheat) under a 

Cooperative Farming Agreement, 327 acres are in early successional fields or NWSG (big bluestem, 

little bluestem, indiangrass, sideoats gramma, switchgrass, and eastern gamagrass), 122 acres of 

former cropland have been planted in hardwoods, 30 acres of erosion drainages are being restored 

to grassland or hedgerow habitat, 16 acres are managed as shallow water areas, 75 acres are being 

converted to an oak savanna, and the remaining 195 acres consist of upland forested land dominated 

by oaks and hickories (Figure 10). 

Karst Formations (Caves and Sinkholes) 

Key Cave NWR is located in an area of karst topology that has numerous sinkholes and caves that 

surround the refuge. When the refuge was first established in 1997, it had a 38-acre sinkhole pond 

on the property. However, the sinkhole has been dry since September 2000, only holding a small 

amount of water for very short durations. Just south of the property boundary for Key Cave NWR lies 

the entrance to Key Cave. To the southeast of the refuge lie the entrances to Collier Cave and 

Collier Bone Cave. All three cave entrances are located on lands owned by TVA and are sometimes 

underwater when the Pickwick Reservoir is flooded. 

Shallow Water Areas 

In 1999, two small (1-2 acre) shallow water areas (SWAs) were constructed to capture runoff surface 

water within grassed waterways. Then during late 2001 and early 2002, a larger (approximately 10- 

acre) SWA was constructed, which included a 700-foot dike and a 24-inch screwgate WCS. All of 

these SWAs were designed to provide habitat for waterfowl and other wetland associated wildlife, as 

well as to capture silt from erosion before it enters the Key Cave aquifer. However, none of the 

SWAs on Key Cave NWR have held much water since they were constructed. 
44 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 10. Habitat coverage for Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Dry (Upland) Hardwood Forest 

As of this date, a Forest Management Plan has not been developed for Key Cave NWR, but as per 

the June 18, 1997 Regional Reforestation of Federal Lands Memorandum, the refuge has reforested 

approximately 122 acres along the refuge’s southern boundary. Native hardwoods, such as white 

oak, northern red oak, water oak, Shumard oak, cherrybark oak, common persimmon, and flowering 

dogwood, were planted with the help of volunteers. Including this additional acreage, Key Cave NWR 

has approximately 317 acres of upland hardwood forests. 

Oak Savanna Forest 

An oak savanna forest is a community of 10 percent or more scattered oak trees and shrubs above a 

layer of grasses and forbs. The trees are spread out so that there is no closed canopy and the 

grasses and forbs receive plenty of sunlight. It is a transition ecosystem between grassland and 

woodland environments, so it is an important habitat for both woodland and prairie species. On Key 

Cave NWR, a 75-acre oak woodlot tract is currently being converted to oak savanna habitat to help 

promote a diversity of wildlife species. 

Cropland 

Currently at Key Cave NWR, one farmer plants approximately 295 acres annually through a cooperative 

farming agreement in which a portion of the crop remains in the fields as rent. Rent portions and crops 

grown are similar to the farming program at Wheeler NWR to support a variety of wildlife. 

Grasslands 

Native warm season grassland (NWSG) restoration has been on-going since the establishment of 

Key Cave NWR in 1997. Currently, approximately 327 acres of NWSG consisting of big bluestem, 

little bluestem, indiangrass, sideoats gramma, switchgrass, and eastern gamagrass are maintained 

for management of grassland-dependent and early successional species. Prescribed fire is used to 

maintain the NWSG. 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Sauta Cave NWR consists of 264 acres of forested lands, primarily dominated by oak, elm, 

dogwood, maple, sweetgum, poplars, and hickory tree species with small amounts of scattered 

pines at the higher elevations. Habitats include dry upland hardwoods, mesic hardwoods, 

bottomland hardwoods, and rockhouses. Upland hardwoods are found on the higher elevations 

at the refuge and mesic hardwoods occur in somewhat protected landscape positions, such as 

coves and lower slopes or north-facing slopes. Bottomland hardwoods are located along the 

lower elevations and wetter areas of the refuge. 

Sandstone and limestone escarpments and cave-like rockhouses are found on steep slopes and 

contain sparse vegetation, including lichens, ferns, and small woody shrubs. There are two cave 

entrances to Sauta Cave: an upper entrance and a lower entrance. A small stream exits the 

lower cave entrance and flows northeast into the North Sauty Creek embayment of the 

Guntersville Reservoir.
46 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Fern Cave NWR 

Fern Cave NWR consists of 199 acres of forested hillside, which are primarily dominated by oak, elm, 

dogwood, maple, sweetgum, poplars, and hickory tree species with small amounts of scattered pines 

at the higher elevations. The hillside is underlain by a massive cave with many stalactite and 

stalagmite-filled rooms. The cave has five entrances with four occurring on the refuge. Upland 

hardwoods are found on the higher elevations at the refuge and mesic hardwoods occur in somewhat 

protected landscape positions, such as coves and lower slopes or north-facing slopes. Bottomland 

hardwoods are located along the lower elevations and wetter areas. 

Sandstone and limestone escarpments and cave-like rockhouses are found on steep slopes and 

contain sparse vegetation. A small portion, approximately 1,100 feet, of the Fern Cave NWR 

boundary is bordered on the west by the Paint Rock River. The Paint Rock River is one of the most 

biologically important water resources for both aquatic and plant and animal associations in the state. 

The Paint Rock River supports an extremely diverse array of aquatic life, including some 100 species 

of fish and about 45 different mussel species.

WILDLIFE 

Refuges within the Wheeler Complex provide crucial habitat for an extremely large variety of wildlife. In 

fact, the Complex is home to an array of interesting flora, a bird list of 285 species, 115 species of fish, 71 

species of amphibians and reptiles, 46 species of mammals, 38 species of freshwater mussels, and 26 

species of freshwater snails. In addition, refuges within the Complex are home to 12 federally listed 

threatened or endangered species. A complete biographical listing of species found on all of the refuges 

within the Wheeler Complex is documented in Appendix I. The following section describes some of the 

typical wildlife species found at each individual refuge in the Wheeler Complex. 

 

Wheeler NWR 

Waterfowl 

Considered the eastern most national wildlife refuge of the Mississippi Flyway, Wheeler NWR annually 

supports Alabama's largest concentration of wintering waterfowl. In the past, the refuge has supported up to 

60,000 geese and nearly 125,000 ducks, although modern peaks until 1990 are nearer 30,000 geese and 

75,000 ducks. Since 1990, winter goose populations have dropped dramatically: below 15,000 from 1990-

1995, near 5,000 from 1995-1999; and near 2,000 since 1999. Snow geese are now the most prominent 

component of the winter goose population, peaking near 2,500 in December 2005 (Table 3). 

Ducks 

Wintering duck species common to the Wheeler NWR include northern pintail, blue-winged teal, 

green-winged teal, American black duck, mallard, gadwall, American wigeon, canvasback, redhead, 

ring-necked duck, lesser scaup, hooded merganser, northern shoveler, and wood duck (migratory 

and resident). Mallards are the most abundant wintering species, followed variously by gadwall, 

green-winged teal, American wigeon, northern pintail, northern shoveler, ring-necked duck, and 

hooded merganser. Wood ducks are common nesters in the spring and summer months. 

During the October 2005 – March 2006 waterfowl survey season, the highest number of ducks (56,655) 

occurred in early January 2006. This number was higher than the highest number of ducks (39,810) 

observed in early January 2005. The high numbers were still observed during the time frame that was 

typical in the past – late December through early January. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Table 3. Ground waterfowl survey results for the 2005 – 2006 season at Wheeler NWR 

Date Ducks Canada Geese Snow Geese 

October 18 745 78 0 

November 1 3,498 243 200 

November 22 23,136 469 800 

December 13 46,556 932 1,805 

December 27 54,707 784 1,800 

January 10 56,655 1,360 1,900 

January 24 20,022 614 200 

February 7 28,042 979 1,000 

February 21 21,275 57 0 

March 7 3,817 0 0 

Resident wood ducks are common with breeding/production probably being limited by natural and 

artificial cavities and quality brood habitat. Currently, there are approximately 226 wood duck boxes 

in good condition on Wheeler NWR. General maintenance and production checks of these boxes are 

conducted annually. The refuge also conducts pre-season wood duck banding (Table 4). 

Table 4. Wood ducks banded in 2005 at Wheeler NWR 

AGE/SEX Class Number Banded Banding Quota 

HY* - Female 66 66 

HY - Male 78 48 

AHY** - Female 89 40 

AHY -Male 49 22 

Total 282 176 

*HY - Hatch Year 

**AHY - After Hatch Year 

Geese 

Currently, the most numerous goose species present are snow geese, Canada geese, and whitefronted geese, respectively. Snow goose numbers are increasing, but have begun to stabilize in the 

past few years. The highest number of snow geese observed in the 2005 – 2006 waterfowl season 

was 1,900, which is a slight drop from the highest number observed in the 2004 – 2005 season 

(2,400). The highest one-day number of Canada geese recorded in the 2005 – 2006 season was 1,360, 

which is lower than the 1,975 number recorded in 2004 - 2005. Both recordings are a decline from the 

high number of Canada geese observed from the previous five years (1998-2002), which has been 

between 2,000 and 4,000 birds. This is also a decline from the numbers counted from 1993-1997, which 

were between 2,900 and 23,000. The decreasing trend of Canada geese using Wheeler NWR continues. 
48 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Sandhill cranes 

In contrast to Canada geese, sandhill crane numbers are increasing at Wheeler NWR. Prior to 1997, 

sandhill cranes occurred in small numbers on the refuge. In 1997, 26 sandhill cranes were observed 

and by 2002 the number wintering on the refuge had increased to almost 400. In 2005-2006, a peak 

count of 1,800 sandhill cranes was documented by refuge staff. 

Sandhill cranes generally use agricultural fields on Mooresville and Beaverdam Peninsulas, 

Penny Bottoms, and Flint Creek Island to forage and roost in the shallow waters of Limestone 

Bay and Flint Creek. 

Waterbirds 

Waterbirds (colonial waterbirds, marsh birds, and shorebirds) can be found in waterfowl 

impoundments, canals, creeks, mudflats, and swamps, as well as along the shores of the Tennessee 

River throughout the year on Wheeler NWR. 

 

Colonial Waterbirds 

Colonial waterbirds are a conspicuous component of the wildlife assemblage at Wheeler NWR. 

Species commonly encountered using refuge wetlands include great blue heron, great egret, little 

blue heron, cattle egret, green heron, black-crowned night heron, and yellow-crowned night heron. 

Less commonly seen species include least bittern, snowy egret, tricolored heron, white ibis, and 

glossy ibis. Historically, anhingas were seen in small numbers throughout the summer and nested in 

Beaverdam Swamp in 1950. Wood storks were frequently seen during their post-breeding dispersal 

in late summer, but recent records are few. 

A large heronry containing 250-300 great blue heron and great egret nests each was active in 

Beaverdam Swamp through 1951, though the heronry was abandoned shortly thereafter. 

Speculation at that time was that colony abandonment was related to DDT contamination. In 2003, a 

small nesting colony of 10-15 great blue heron nests was discovered near Blackwell Swamp. By the 

summer of 2006, the number of great blue heron nests had increased to near 40 and, for the first time 

since 1951, 8 to 10 great egret nests were discovered. Species known to now nest on the refuge 

include great blue heron, great egret, green heron, and yellow-crowned night heron. 

Another large mixed heronry near the refuge at Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area was discovered in 

1962. Species nesting included great blue heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, tricolored 

heron, cattle egret, and black-crowned night heron. At peak nesting during 1962-1963, several thousand 

nests were noted. The nesting site was abandoned in 1965 for reasons unknown. 

Marsh Birds 

Marsh birds, due to their secretive habits, are infrequently encountered, but do occur in good 

numbers during migration on Wheeler NWR. Smaller numbers occur during winter and summer, with 

a few probably nesting in refuge moist-soil areas and impoundments. The most commonly seen 

species include: American bittern, least bittern, Virginia rail, sora, and American coot. Least bitterns 

and American coots nest sporadically; king rails have nested on at least two occasions; and, nesting 

by common moorhens has been suspected in the past. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Shorebirds (Including American Woodcock) 

Shorebirds migrate through the Tennessee River Valley from the southernmost parts of South 

America to the northernmost part of North America. They typically probe in soft mud and shallow 

water for invertebrates. These birds generally move through the area during spring and fall, foraging 

as they migrate. Few shorebirds nest on Wheeler NWR, while fair numbers overwinter. Shorebirds 

commonly seen on or adjacent to the refuge during migration include black-bellied plover, 

semipalmated plover, killdeer, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, solitary sandpiper, spotted 

sandpiper, semipalmated sandpiper, western sandpiper, least sandpiper, pectoral sandpiper, dunlin, 

short-billed dowitcher, and Wilson’s snipe. 

In winter, killdeer, greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, least sandpiper, dunlin, and Wilson’s snipe 

are common. The only species commonly nesting on the refuge is killdeer. American woodcock 

nests in small numbers almost annually, while the spotted sandpiper nests sporadically. The 

mudflats and shallow water areas of Limestone Bay; Garth Slough; the Tennessee River and its 

backwaters; and the impoundments within the White Springs units, Buckeye units, Penny Bottom 

units, and other similar areas are the most important refuge shorebird habitats. 

American Woodcock are migratory game birds that occur throughout the forested portions of the 

eastern United States. The abundance of woodcock on the refuge has not been quantified to date, 

but it should be present in suitable habitat. Wintering habitat includes moist bottomland hardwood 

forests with brush and understory, especially those in close association with agricultural fields and old 

field succession. The scrub-shrub and dense habitats found in certain portions of the refuge provide 

good daytime cover for woodcock. 

Landbirds 

The tremendous variety of habitat types found on Wheeler NWR supports an amazing diversity of 

landbirds. Many landbird species of concern are found in refuge habitats in all or a large portion of 

their migration, nesting, and/or wintering seasons. Landbird abundance is dependent on habitat 

condition, weather, distribution, and amount of food and water. 

 

Forest Birds 

Despite being highly fragmented, hardwood forests of the Tennessee River basin play an important 

role in providing migration, food sources, and breeding habitat for forest birds. Forest bird species of 

concern found on Wheeler NWR include cerulean warbler, worm-eating warbler, wood thrush, 

Kentucky warbler, Louisiana waterthrush, whip-poor-will, yellow-throated vireo, Acadian flycatcher, 

American woodcock, chimney swift, eastern wood-pewee, yellow-billed cuckoo, blue-gray 

gnatcatcher, great crested flycatcher, and sharp-shinned hawk. Riparian zone species of concern 

include Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, belted kingfisher, and green heron. Early successional 

forest species of concern include blue-winged warbler, prairie warbler, field sparrow, white-eyed vireo, 

yellow-breasted chat, brown thrasher, and eastern towhee. 

Grassland Birds 

Habitat loss is widely recognized as the primary reason that several grassland-dependent bird 

species have experienced dramatic declines in population throughout the southeastern United States. 

Grassland bird species of concern found on Wheeler NWR include Henslow’s sparrow, grasshopper 

sparrow, and eastern meadowlark. 
50 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Scrub-Shrub Birds 

Scrub-shrub (or early successional) associated birds are another group of bird species that are 

considered vulnerable. Scrub-shrub habitat is limited on Wheeler NWR; however, good opportunities 

may exist to increase acreage by establishing edges around agricultural fields. Scrub-shrub bird 

species of concern found on Wheeler NWR include prairie warbler, field sparrow, yellow-breasted 

chat, brown thrasher, northern bobwhite, and eastern towhee. 

Mammals 

Mammals occurring on the Wheeler NWR represent most species that are found in the Tennessee 

River Valley and that are usually associated with bottomland hardwood forests and wetlands. Large 

mammals include white-tailed deer and feral hog (an invasive species). Medium-sized mammals 

include opossum, armadillo, eastern cottontail, swamp rabbit, beaver, muskrat, mink, coyote, red fox, 

gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, and bobcat. 

White-tailed deer appear to be abundant based on general observations. Limited deer population surveys 

have been conducted to date; however, general observations and available habitat all point to a healthy and 

abundant deer herd. Although no formal surveys have been conducted, it appears from general 

observations that feral hog populations are increasing on the refuge. Most of the damage to habitat has 

been documented in the White Springs Dewatering Unit, located in Limestone County. 

Several mammals associated with the more permanently inundated wetlands and swamps, such as beaver, 

muskrat, swamp rabbits, and mink, appear to have healthy populations. Cottontail rabbit, raccoon, 

opossum, coyote, bobcat, fox, and gray squirrels also appear to be abundant on Wheeler NWR. 

Beavers have a tremendous potential negative impact on bottomland hardwoods and forested 

wetlands. They interfere with wildlife management activities by plugging culverts, ditches, and WCSs. 

This action also backs water up onto private adjoining lands. Problems associated with the 

impounding of water by beaver are proving to be the single greatest threat to timber resources within 

the refuge. Little or no formal data are available to provide population estimates for these species. 

However, general observations and data collected from control efforts indicate that the number of 

beavers have increased in recent years. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Various species of water snakes are common or abundant on Wheeler NWR, especially the yellowbellied and midland water snakes. Venomous snakes include the copperhead, cottonmouth, and 

timber and canebrake rattlesnakes. Rat snakes of mixed or uncertain subspecies are likely the most 

abundant snake. Black racers, black kingsnakes, corn snakes, eastern ribbon snakes, and eastern 

garter snakes are also common. 

 

The more commonly seen turtle species are the yellow-bellied pond slider or mix of yellow-bellied and 

red-eared pond slider, common snapping turtle, eastern box turtle, southern painted turtle, eastern 

spiny softshell, and the river cooter. The ground skink and the five-lined skink are two of the most 

common lizard species. 

Many different species of frogs and toads are found on Wheeler NWR. Recent call counts and field 

observations indicate that the more common species include northern leopard frogs, northern spring 

peepers, gray treefrogs, green treefrogs, upland chorus frogs, Fowlers toad, and eastern narrowmouthed toads. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Spotted and marbled salamanders are also common. Cave salamanders occur in the cave entrances 

with slimy salamanders using these and rocky ledges. Little or no formal data are available to provide 

population estimates for these species. However, general observations indicate that the number of 

amphibians and reptiles have declined in recent years on Wheeler NWR. 

Fisheries

Wheeler Reservoir is home to many species of fish. Since all water fluctuates with the reservoir (six 

feet annually and ten feet during flooding events), opportunities for fish management are limited. 

Impoundments and streams on Wheeler NWR do contain fish and are naturally restocked during 

flooding events. Seasonal flooding of wooded areas provides a vast quantity of spawning and 

feeding habitat. Some of these species include largemouth bass, spotted bass, black crappie, white 

crappie, bluegill, redear sunfish, white bass, yellow bass, channel catfish, blue catfish, flathead 

catfish, alligator gar, largemouth and smallmouth buffalo, freshwater drum, and shad. 

Threatened, Endangered and Special Concern Species 

The following federally listed endangered species have been documented on or in close proximity to 

Wheeler NWR: gray bat, Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi), armored snail (Pyrgulopsis 

pachyta), fine-rayed pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) (Historical - 1925), slabside pearlymussel 

(Lexingtonia dolabelloides) (Historical - 1925), pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), ring pink (Obovaria 

retusa) (Historical - 1904), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), slender campeloma (Campeloma 

decampi), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), which is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of 

Appearance to the American Crocodile, is also found on the refuge. Other special concern species 

known or suspected to exist on Wheeler NWR include: American white pelican, eastern hellbender 

(Cryptobranchus alleganiensis), green salamander (Aneides aeneus), Cave Springs cave spider 

(Nesticus barri), Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus), and alligator snapping turtle 

(Macroclemys temmincki). 

Gray Bat 

The gray bat is a small bat which uses caves that are normally located within one mile of a river or 

reservoir. They use warm caves in the summer where they establish maternal breeding and bachelor 

colonies. In the winter they relocate and hibernate in a few small cold caves (Johnson et al., 1995). 

Gray bat emergence counts are conducted annually at Cave Springs Cave on Wheeler NWR and 

have averaged 12,500 bats since 1997. 

Gray bats are very sensitive to disturbance so entering Cave Springs Cave is not permitted. Since 

Cave Springs Cave is a gray bat maternity colony, biologists enter the cave after the adult bat 

emergence has ended to locate the newly born bats. Biologists then estimate the number of young 

bats clinging to the cave walls and ceiling. 

Freshwater Mussels 

Thirty-eight species of freshwater mussels may be found in waters within or in close proximity to the 

boundaries of Wheeler NWR. Two of these species are endangered: the rough pigtoe and the pink 

mucket (pearly mussel). 
52 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Freshwater Snails 

Twenty-six species of freshwater snails may be found in waters within or in close proximity to the 

boundaries of Wheeler NWR. Two of these species are endangered: Anthony’s riversnail and the 

armored snail. Historical records indicate that these species have been documented in the Piney and 

Limestone Creeks that flow into Limestone Bay. 

American Alligators 

Evidence of reproduction by American alligators has been seen in five of the last seven years. This 

population may have resulted from the intentional release of this species in the late 1970s in order to 

help control beavers; though there are historical data in refuge files dating back to 1964 and at least 

one published newspaper account of a small alligator along the Tennessee River near Florence in 

1895. Mount (1975) indicates that the historical range was far south of the refuge. 

Bald Eagles 

Bald eagles have been observed for short periods wintering on or migrating through the area. In the 

summer of 2006, two bald eagle nests in close proximity to one another and likely built by the same 

pair, were found on Wheeler NWR. These nests are the first documented bald eagle nests found on 

Wheeler NWR since 1947. 

American White Pelicans 

White pelicans are seen on Wheeler NWR from fall through spring. In the 2005 -2006 waterfowl 

survey, the highest number documented was 134 (November 1). This number is much lower that the 

high numbers observed in 2004 (531). 

Key Cave NWR 

Key Cave NWR is the only known location of the Alabama cavefish, a small, blind colorless fish which 

inhabits the underground pools in Key Cave. Only nine specimens are known to exist in scientific 

collections, and few individuals have been observed in the wild. Considering the limited distribution 

and the few species seen or collected, this species appears to be one of the rarest of all North 

American freshwater fish (Boschung and Mayden 2004). The cave is also a priority one maternity 

cave for the endangered gray bat. Gray bat emergence counts are conducted annually at Key Cave 

and have averaged 33,400 gray bats since 1997. Approximately 12,000-13,000 young gray bats are 

produced annually by this maternity colony. In addition to the gray bat, two species of blind crayfish 

also inhabit Key Cave. 

Key Cave NWR provides habitat for a variety of migratory and resident wildlife species. One hundred 

and sixty-six bird species have been sighted on the refuge. Several grassland-dependent bird 

species are commonly seen during the breeding season, including dickcissel, grasshopper sparrow, 

field sparrow, and northern bobwhite. 

In addition, northern harriers can be seen flying low over refuge grasslands searching for prey during 

the winter months and short-eared owls can also be seen occasionally during the winter. Other 

commonly seen wildlife species include cottontail rabbits, coyotes, white-tailed deer, gray squirrels, 

eastern meadowlarks, mourning doves, horned larks, and eastern bluebirds. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Recently, feral hogs have been documented on Key Cave NWR. These invasive animals have been 

destroying habitat and damaging crops. Observations indicate that the population of feral hogs is 

increasing at Key Cave NWR. Current efforts to control the feral hogs by complex staff and 

volunteers have been unsuccessful. Many other wildlife species can be found on Key Cave NWR, 

including a wide variety of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals. 

Sauta Cave NWR 

As is the case with many large caves, rare and unique species occur in Sauta Cave. As a result, the 

Alabama Natural Heritage Program ranks the cave's biodiversity as a site of very high significance. 

Sauta Cave provides crucial habitat for the federally listed endangered gray and Indiana bats. The 

cave provides a summer roosting site for about 300,000 – 400,000 gray bats and a winter 

hibernaculum for both bats. 

Indiana bats hibernate in caves and mines during the winter. They disperse from their hibernation 

caves in the spring and form separate male, female, and juvenile colonies. Females from maternal 

colonies roost under the loose bark of trees, usually near water. Little is known about where males 

spend the summer (Johnson et al., 1995). In addition, the rare Tennessee cave salamander has 

been found inside Sauta Cave. 

Outside the cave, Sauta Cave NWR is home to a wide variety of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals. A federally threatened plant, Price's potato-bean, occurs in isolated places on 

the Sauta Cave NWR. Price’s potato-bean is a climbing yellow-green vine that grows from a stout, 

potato-like tuber. The vines may be up to 15 feet long with pale pink or greenish yellow peas or bean 

type flowers, which bloom from July until August. The fruit consists of a pod about four to six inches 

long. The plant grows in forest openings in mixed hardwood stands where ravine slopes grade into 

creek or stream bottoms (Johnson et al., 1995). 

Fern Cave NWR 

Fern Cave contains the largest wintering colony of gray bats in the United States with over one million 

bats hibernating there in the winter. Bat experts also think that Indiana bats may be using the cave. 

However, in the most recent survey of 2003, no Indiana bats were observed. In addition, a unique 

array of cave fauna has been documented. 

One survey expedition noted the following species: cave fish (Typhlichthys subterraneous), cave 

crayfish (Procambarus horsti)(one female with eggs), surface crayfish (Cambarus zophonastes), 

banded sculpins (Cottus carolinae), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow bullhead catfish (Ictalurus 

natalis), cave salamanders (Eurycea lucifuga), northern slimy salamanders (Plethodon glutinosus), 

honey-colored crickets (Orthoptera: Euhadonecus), mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae), crane flies 

(Diptera: Tipulidae), heliomyzid flies (Diptera: Heliomyzidae), frogs (Anura:), Eastern pipistrelles 

(Pipistrellus subflavus), and white millipedes (Diplopoda: Oxilus). 

Outside the cave, Fern Cave NWR is home to a wide variety of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals. The federally threatened American’s Harts-tongue fern, a leafy fern which 

grows in high humidity, deeply shaded conditions near limestone sinks and caves, has been 

documented on the refuge (Johnson et al., 1995). 
54 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act; 

cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; 

archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act; sacred sites as 

defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access To "Indian Sacred 

Sites," to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act; and 

collections. As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act, a historic property or historic 

resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible 

for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. These include any artifacts, records, and 

remains that are related to and located in such properties. 

The term also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural 

properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places as a result of 

their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an American Indian tribe. Archaeological 

resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of 

archaeological interest. 

Wheeler Complex follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the 

cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the Complex. Whenever construction work is 

undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, 

graders, and bulldozers used in the development of moist-soil units, a Service Archaeologist 

conducts an archaeological survey of the site. The results of this survey are submitted to the 

Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, as well as to the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), which, in Alabama, is a member of the Alabama Historical Commission. 

The State Historic Preservation Officer reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural 

resources will be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in, or eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places will be affected. If cultural resources are actually 

encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately. To date, 

no properties on the Wheeler Complex have been determined to be eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. 

This northern region of Alabama has long been settled and used by humans, in good part because of 

its mild winters and abundant fish and wildlife resources. Prior to European settlement in the early 

1800s, the Tennessee Valley was controlled by Native Americans of the Shawnee, Chickasaw, or 

Cherokee Tribes (Joiner 1987). Some European families moved into the area prior to the time when 

the Chickasaws and Cherokees gave up their claims to the area in 1806, but there were not enough 

settlers in the valley to form a county until 1808. Early settlers found an almost unbroken forest 

blanket over the valley and it provided the needed building materials to support the development of 

Madison County, the most populated area in the territory that would later become Alabama. 

Cultural resource inventories within the Wheeler Complex have been conducted on approximately 

15,000 acres at Wheeler NWR (Futato 1979 and Shaw 2000), approximately 10 acres at Sauta 

Cave NWR, and approximately five acres at Fern Cave NWR. As of this date, no known cultural 

resource inventories have been conducted at Key Cave NWR. The cultural resource inventories 

to date revealed four archaeological sites that were deemed of important cultural value on 

Wheeler NWR (Shaw 2000). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Refuges managed by the Wheeler Complex are located in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, 

Madison, and Morgan Counties. This geographic area is locally known as the Tennessee Valley and 

is one of the South’s fastest-growing regions. Regional unemployment is low and income levels are 

relatively high when compared with other locations in the State of Alabama (U.S. Census Bureau 

2005). Recent studies have noted that the area’s cost of living is one of the lowest in the United 

States and the economy is stable (City of Huntsville 2006). All of these factors make the Tennessee 

Valley a desirable place to live. Of the five counties in which refuges are located, only Lauderdale 

and Jackson Counties have experienced a decline in population (-0.5 percent, and -0.2 percent, 

respectively). In contrast, Limestone and Madison Counties have almost doubled the national rate of 

population growth (Table 5) (U.S. Census Bureau 2005) 

The Tennessee Valley region’s economy is financially strong due primarily to the success of the 

federal defense and aerospace sector, local businesses, and industries along the river. More 

recently, the economy has become heavily dependent upon the continued presence of the U.S. 

Army’s Redstone Arsenal. 

Redstone Arsenal is one of the U.S. Army's most important strategic posts. It is responsible for 

research; development; production; and worldwide support of missiles, aviation, rockets, and related 

programs. The influx of engineers, scientists, and other technical specialists has transformed the 

Tennessee Valley into a region where companies specializing in technology advancements can 

thrive. More than half of the jobs in Madison County and a large number of jobs for residents of 

Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, and Morgan Counties are dependent upon federal defense and 

aerospace activities at the installation (City of Huntsville 2006). 

OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS 

The fish and wildlife of Alabama are economically important (Table 6). In 2001, over 4.2 million 

people enjoyed fishing, hunting, or wildlife observation activities in Alabama. Residents and nonresidents combined spent more than three billion dollars total on fishing, hunting, and wildlife 

observation in the State of Alabama (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 2003). Sport fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, 

and wildlife photography are economically important to local businesses. 

Unfortunately, a general lack of regard for the conservation of fish and wildlife resources combined with 

wetland clearing and draining has led to the loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the loss of 

habitat for many wildlife species. In the attempt to restore and protect some of these resources, Wheeler 

Complex serves an important role, not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, 

but also by serving as a place where people can go to enjoy these resources. 

Refuges within the Wheeler Complex play an important role in the economy of the communities in 

which they reside, not only with the activities they provide, but through employment opportunities and 

visitors spending money on goods and services. Hunting and fishing and more recently, ecotourism 

(wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are 

increasingly seen as desirable industries. As land development continues and the number of places 

left to enjoy wildlife decreases, refuge lands may become even more important to the local 

community. They can benefit the local economy directly by providing recreational and employment 

opportunities for the local population and indirectly by attracting tourists from outside the area to 

generate additional dollars.
56 Wheeler National Wild

Table 5. Comparison of geographic and demographic statistics for Lauderdale, Limestone, Jackson, Ma

Counties, Alabama, and the USA 

Area Land Area (sq. miles) Population (2004 estimate) 

Pop. 

Density 

(residents 

per sq. 

mile) 

% pop. 

change 

(2000-

2003) 

Per 

capita 

income 

% below 

poverty 

% 

White 

% 

Black 

% 

Hisp

Lauderdale 

County 669 87,515 131 -0.5 $18,626 14.4 88.4 9.8 1.

Limestone 

County 568 69,387 116 5.7 $17,782 12.3 83.8 13.3 2.

Jackson 

County 1,079 53,821 50 -0.2 $16,000 13.7 91.9 3.7 1.

Madison 

County 805 293,072 344 5.8 $23,091 10.5 72.1 22.8 1.

Morgan 

County 582 113,211 191 1.9 $19,223 12.3 85.1 11.2 3.

Alabama 50,744 4,530,182 88 1.9 $18,189 16.1 71.1 26.0 1.

USA 3,537,438 290,809,777 80 3.3 $21,587 12.4 75.1 12.3 12

Sources: (U.S. Census Bureau 2005) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 6. Wildlife-dependent recreation by participants, 16 years old and older, across Alabama 

Activity # of Participants Activity Days Average Days / participant Total Expenditures ($1,000) Trip-related Expenditures ($1,000) Equipment and Other (1, 000) Ave

Expen

parti

(

Fishing 1,485,000a 22,116,000 17 resident 13 nonres. 1,323,831 629,328 629,503 946 r

870 n

Hunting 739,000b 14,878,000 23 resident 18 nonres. 1,316,421 382,348 934,073 2,06

1,55

Wildlife 

Observation 1,981,000c N/A N/A 1,288,974 189,457 1,099,517 687 r

616 n

Source: 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-associated Recreation: Alabama  a634,000 residents, 851,000 nonresidents  b316,000 residents, 423,000 nonresidents 

c965,000 residents, 1,016,000 nonresidents 

Table 7. North Alabama Birding Trail sites on Wheeler Complex 

Site Number Site Name 

9 Key Cave NWR 

16 Wheeler NWR – Visitor Center 20 Wheeler NWR – White Springs Dike 23 Wheeler NWR – Arrowhead Landing 24 Wheeler NWR – Beaverdam Peninsula Tower 25 Wheeler NWR – Beaverdam Swamp Boardwalk 26 Wheeler NWR – Blackwell Swamp 31 Wheeler NWR – Cave Springs 33 Wheeler NWR – Dancy Bottoms Nature Trail 39 North Sauty Creek WMA/ Sauta Cave NWR 
58 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

TOURISM 

Tourism is a big business in Alabama, contributing $7.3 billion in revenues in 2004 and 8.3 percent of all 

non-agricultural jobs (Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel 2005). It is estimated that over 20.6 million 

people visited Alabama during 2004. The Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel and many other public 

and private agencies promote the state’s attractions. Among these are a number of tours and trails that 

either pass close or reside on the refuges in the Wheeler Complex. Some of these events include: Native 

American Trail of Tears, Tennessee Valley Civil War Trail, Fall Color Trail, Tennessee Valley Talon Trail, 

North Alabama Birding Trail, and Saturday Walking Tours (Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel 2004). 

Bird watching is a big hobby for many Alabama residents. An estimated 700,000 people participate 

in bird watching and other wildlife observation in Alabama each year. Alabama wildlife officials have 

attempted to attract more birdwatchers by creating the North Alabama Birding Trail. The trail, 

completed in 2005, contains 50 bird-watching sites in twelve northern Alabama counties (ADCNR 

2004). The Wheeler Complex plays an important role in the success of the trail. Three of the refuges 

(Wheeler, Key Cave, and Sauta Cave NWRs) in the Wheeler Complex are home to ten North 

Alabama Birding Trail sites (Table 7). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

Wheeler NWR 

There are no immediate plans to expand the current boundary of Wheeler NWR. Since the refuge 

was established in 1938 as an overlay on TVA lands, an approved acquisition boundary does not 

exist. Law enforcement (LE) patrols are conducted to provide visitor safety and protection for cultural 

and biological resources. Three Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects have been completed in 

counties near the refuge and one is currently in progress. Opportunities for other private land 

projects in the vicinity of Wheeler NWR are monitored annually. 

Key Cave NWR 

All lands within the 1,060-acre established acquisition boundary for Key Cave NWR have been 

acquired. No in-holdings exist and there are no immediate plans to expand the acquisition boundary. 

Law enforcement (LE) patrols are conducted to ensure that people are abiding by refuge regulations, 

particularly rules prohibiting entrance into the Cave itself. Currently, three Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife projects are in progress in Lauderdale County (the county in which Key Cave NWR resides) 

and opportunities for others are monitored annually. 

Sauta Cave Refuge 

All lands within the 264-acre established acquisition boundary for Sauta Cave NWR have been 

acquired. No in-holdings exist and there are no immediate plans to expand the acquisition 

boundary. Steel gates are erected and maintained at the two cave entrances and LE patrols are 

conducted periodically to ensure that people are abiding by refuge regulations, particularly rules 

prohibiting entrance into the Cave itself. Three Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects have been 

completed in Jackson County (the county in which Sauta Cave NWR resides) and opportunities 

for others are monitored annually.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Fern Cave NWR 

Land acquisition continues to be a priority as there are still 483 acres within the 682-acre established 

acquisition boundary for Fern Cave NWR. One tract of adjoining private land just off the southern 

refuge boundary contains the Surprise Pit entrance to the Fern Cave system. The Service cannot 

fully control access into Fern Cave and protect the endangered bats from disturbance as long as 

there is still access to the Cave from off-refuge lands. Lands will continue to be purchased when and 

if there are any willing sellers and funds are available. Law enforcement patrols are conducted to 

ensure that people are abiding by refuge regulations, particularly rules prohibiting entrance into the 

cave itself. Three Partners for Fish and Wildlife projects have been completed in Jackson County 

(the county in which Fern Cave NWR resides) and opportunities for others are monitored annually. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 outlines six priority public uses as 

appropriate for national wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the purpose(s) for which 

the refuge was established. The six priority uses are fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The following section describes the 

public use opportunities available at each refuge in the Wheeler Complex. 

Wheeler NWR 

Wheeler NWR recognizes and provides the six priority wildlife-dependent uses of fishing, hunting, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Most 

activities are usually conducted at the 10,000-square foot Visitor Center (the Givens Interpretation 

Center) and/or the Wildlife Observation Building. In 2006, an estimated 650,651 persons visited the 

refuge. Of those, 34,000 toured the Givens Interpretation Center and an estimated 44,000 used the 

Wildlife Observation Building. A large portion of the visits were for fishing (274,265), wildlife 

observation and photography (124,477), boating (88,000), and hunting (62,240). The remaining visits 

were for environmental education (13,974) and interpretation (9,695). The locations of current public 

use facilities at Wheeler NWR are illustrated on Figure 11. 

Hunting is permitted on approximately 18,000 acres (Figure 12) and hunting regulations are 

published each year in the Wheeler NWR’s hunting permit. White-tailed deer, feral hog, squirrel, 

rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and northern bobwhite are hunted within the state hunting season 

framework. Waterfowl hunting is not allowed on the refuge. During established refuge hunting 

seasons, areas are open daily, excluding Sundays when all hunting is prohibited. Hunting is also 

allowed to qualified personnel on 4,085 acres of refuge land within the boundary of Redstone Arsenal 

Military Installation and is administered by personnel from the Redstone Recreation Center. Law 

enforcement personnel on Redstone provide oversight and enforcement of hunting regulations. 

Some areas have restrictions on species legal for harvest, methods of entry, and dates of entry. 

Areas that are not open to hunting are marked with appropriate signs. The hunting regulations' 

brochure features a relatively detailed map with special regulation areas marked with cross hatching. 

There are few directional signs that assist hunters in navigating to appropriate hunting areas. Refuge 

boundaries are clearly marked and are re-established on a four-year rotation. 

State of Alabama and refuge regulations' brochures are readily available to hunters and are clear, 

concise, and accurate. Refuge maps are available and easily understandable. Accessible 

alternatives to written brochures are not available, but staff and volunteers are available to answer 

questions and provide information during Visitor Center hours (see page 13 for hours of operation). 
60 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Many of the roads on Wheeler NWR are closed seasonally to vehicular traffic to help avoid and 

minimize waterfowl disturbance. This action limits some hunting opportunities, however, the 

roads remain open to foot and bicycle traffic, allowing access to the refuge for all public uses, 

including hunting. 

The Garth Slough area of the refuge is currently closed to all entry from November 15 – January 15 

and the area immediately associated with the Visitor Center and Wildlife Observation Building is 

closed to all entry year-round with the exception of the Wildlife Observation Building Trail and the 

Atkeson Nature Trail. A ±500-acre area between HGH Road and the Tennessee River (Limestone 

and Madison Counties) is designated as a special access area. This is the only area of the refuge 

where all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) are allowed and only for permitted disabled hunters. Provisions for 

issuing special access permits are on file at the Visitor Center and headquarters administrative office. 

Small and large game hunting provides high quality recreation for many people and is provided on 

Wheeler NWR. Dogs are allowed for small game hunting on the refuge. The use of dogs for raccoon 

hunting is a necessary and appropriate method for taking raccoons and is the only effective method 

of reducing raccoon populations. The use of dogs for rabbit and squirrel hunting is not only a 

traditional method of take, but also very effective. Field trials are allowed under special use permit. 

White-tailed deer hunting is essential for maintaining a healthy deer herd and limiting impacts on 

habitat. Currently, Wheeler NWR allows archery hunting and two weeks of primitive flintlock hunting 

for deer. Because the refuge property boundary is located extremely close to urban and residential 

areas, open water, and active farms, the use of modern firearms is prohibited. 

The primary focus of deer management is to maintain a healthy population and not to produce trophy 

animals. According to the hunting permit, deer hunters are required to report harvests by calling 

either the headquarters administrative office or the Visitor Center to report sex, weight, and method of 

take. Refuge staff estimates a 50 percent compliance rate for this requirement. Data collected from 

this method suggest that the herd currently exhibits a fairly balanced sex ratio, while necropsy 

analysis indicates that the herd is healthy and approaching carrying capacity on Wheeler NWR. 

In 2005-2006, an estimated total of 80 deer (45 bucks and 35 does) were harvested during the bow 

and flintlock seasons (Table 8). The heaviest deer (estimated weights) was 180 pounds (live weight), 

down from 200 pounds (live weight) in 2004. Wheeler NWR also held its second crossbow season in 

2005-2006. Only two does were harvested. This number was down from the six bucks and six does 

harvested in 2004. The largest was a 118-pound (field dressed) doe harvested in Limestone County. 

The largest in 2004-2005 was a 168-pound (live weight) buck from Morgan County. 

Feral hogs are destroying habitat on Wheeler NWR. Although populations are low, they appear to be 

increasing at an alarming rate. Recent habitat damage in the White Springs area indicated that even 

a small population of feral hogs can be extremely destructive. The refuge allowed a feral hog hunting 

season for the first time during the 2005-2006 hunting season. 

Currently, feral hogs are allowed to be taken during the white-tailed deer season by using the same 

weapon that is legal at that time for deer. For example, a feral hog can be taken with a primitive 

flintlock as long as it is within the legal two-week flintlock season. Otherwise, a feral hog can only be 

taken during the archery season for white-tailed deer with either a bow or crossbow. In 2005-2006, 

four hogs were harvested on Wheeler NWR: three with a bow and one with a flintlock. This included 

two boars and two sows. All hogs were harvested in Limestone County. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 11. Locations of public use facilities on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
62 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 12. Locations of hunting areas on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
64 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Table 8. Deer harvest summary (2005-2006) at Wheeler NWR 

County # of 

Bucks 

Largest Buck - 

Estimated Weight 

(lbs) 

# of 

Does 

Largest Doe -

Estimated Weight 

(lbs) 

Total Number of 

Deer Harvested 

Morgan 15 180 LWa

12 110 FD 27 

Limestone 17 180 LW 12 150 LW 29 

Madison 13 170 LW 11 140 LW 24 

Total 45 - 35 - 80 

a

LW= live weight and FD= field dressed. 

Fishing 

Fishing is a very popular activity at Wheeler NWR, with an estimated 274,000 anglers trying their luck 

in refuge waters annually. Sport fishing on the refuge including method of take, daily creel limits, 

possession limits, and size limits is conducted in accordance with State of Alabama regulations. 

Refuge regulations governing the fishing program are described in the Fishing Information brochure 

and are readily available at the Visitor Center during business hours (see page 13 for hours of 

operation). The map provided in the fishing brochure, as well as the tear-off map available at the 

Visitor Center, is clear and easy to read. Boat launching facilities and bank fishing areas are clearly 

marked as are county and refuge roads. 

Approximately 14,000 acres of surface waters are available for fishing. However, special refuge 

regulations apply to posted areas. For example, Crabtree Slough (Morgan County) is closed to 

watercraft from November 15 – Febuary15, thereby slightly reducing waters available to persons 

fishing from boats. In addition, fishing is prohibited in the Waterfowl Display Pool, waters 

adjacent to the Visitor Center, and around the shoreline of the refuge headquarters and housing 

units. Personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) is prohibited in all waters with the exception of the main 

river channel and in Flint Creek up to the 3-mile marker. Commercial fishing nets are prohibited 

from October 15 – February 15. 

The refuge fishing program meets Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements by providing a 

universally accessible fishing pier on Flint Creek across Highway 67 from the Visitor Center. In 

addition, the refuge has six improved boat ramps (Bluff City, Hickory Hills, Arrowhead Landing, 

Cotaco Creek, Talucah Landing, and Triana Recreational Area) and several unimproved ramps 

suitable for small boats and canoes. Many creeks and sloughs adjoin the main channel of the 

Tennessee River throughout the refuge. This provides excellent fishing opportunities for bass, 

sunfish, crappie, sauger, and catfish. 

Organized fishing events, held in the three-acre special events fishing pond, continue to be very 

popular with the local community. Each year over 40 groups, ranging from special needs children 

and adults to summer day campers and Cub Scouts, enjoy fishing for catfish. For well over a decade, 

Wheeler NWR has hosted a Youth Fishing Rodeo on the first Saturday in May. For many anglers in 

the North Alabama area, Wheeler’s Youth Fishing Rodeo introduced them to the love of fishing. The 

event is free of charge for youngsters from 5 to14 years of age.
66 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Wildlife Observation 

There are many opportunities for wildlife observation and photography on Wheeler NWR, which 

currently has four designated nature trails (Atkeson Trail, Beaverdam Swamp Boardwalk Trail, Dancy 

Bottom Trail, and Flint Creek Trail), one wildlife observation tower, and one wildlife observation 

building. Furthermore, a wildlife drive (auto tour) is currently being developed. 

The most popular facility on the refuge for wildlife observation is the Wildlife Observation Building, 

which is located just a short walk from the Visitor Center. This facility receives an estimated 44,000 

visitors annually. Built on a knoll overlooking a waterfowl impoundment, it offers visitors the 

opportunity to see waterfowl and other wildlife up close. Spotting scope stations are provided, but 

they are often occupied so visitors are encouraged to bring binoculars. In an effort to create more 

attractive conditions for waterfowl, the Display Pool at the Wildlife Observation Building is drained 

each summer. Following drawdown, wading birds and shorebirds use the area in large numbers for 

foraging on small fish and other organisms. Aquatic vegetation growing in the Display Pool by late 

summer is used by thousands of ducks for foraging throughout fall and winter months. 

A Backyard Wildlife Habitat Area on the south side of the Wildlife Observation Building attracts 

chickadees, goldfinches, house and purple finches, tufted titmice, sparrows, and hummingbirds to 

feeders. A man-made pond/waterfall provides habitat for native frogs, fish, and plants. A Wildlife 

Observation Tower is located on the north side of the refuge (Limestone County) and offers 

visitors an elevated view of the Beaverdam Peninsula, an area of the refuge managed primarily 

for geese and sandhill cranes. 

Birding is one of the most popular forms of observation on Wheeler NWR. Viewing wintering ducks, 

Canada geese, and snow geese; catching spring and fall warbler migrations; looking for shorebirds 

and wading birds; watching hawks; and seeking unusual visitors, such as American white pelicans 

and sandhill cranes, is common practice for local and traveling birders. Bird identification programs 

are usually offered during winter months. In addition, Wheeler NWR is home to eight sites on the 

North Alabama Birding Trail (Table 7). 

Watching bats emerge at dusk from Cave Springs Cave (Morgan County) is another popular wildlife 

observation activity. It is not uncommon to see 50,000 gray bats from Cave Springs Cave. Other 

wildlife often seen on the refuge includes rabbits, chipmunks, snakes, turtles, skinks, beavers, redtailed hawks, muskrats, and a variety of birds. 

Wildlife Photography 

Like all national wildlife refuges, Wheeler NWR has an almost endless variety of natural wonders that can 

be photographed. Sunrises and sunsets can be spectacular, especially when reflected on water bodies 

such as Limestone Bay or the Tennessee River. Currently, the refuge has one permanent photography 

blind located in a closed area overlooking the Display Pool. Temporary blinds are permitted (see 

regulations below) and many subjects are available without the use of a blind. 

Non-commercial photography is permitted in areas of the refuge that are open to the public. Refuge signs 

will notify individuals of closed areas. No permanent blinds are allowed. Temporary blinds must be 

removed each day. Photographers must follow other general refuge regulations, such as not removing 

any plants and animals. A special use permit is required for any commercial photography conducted on 

Wheeler NWR. Application for this type of permit can be made at the refuge’s headquarters. Detailed 

information regarding the proposed activity must be submitted so refuge personnel can determine if the 

activity can be approved and what type of restrictions, if any, are required. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

A top priority of the Wheeler NWR public use program is to provide environmental education and 

wildlife interpretation opportunities to local school-aged children. In 2005, an estimated 8,500 

students received on-site programs and another 1,700 students were contacted off-site. In addition, 

more than 3,000 other people of all ages were contacted through off-site visits and special events. 

The following sections provide a summary of a few of the environmental education and wildlife 

interpretation opportunities that are conducted each year at Wheeler NWR. 

On of the most popular environmental program titled, EARTHSCOPE is conducted annually by the 

Huntsville City School System. This program brings more than 2,000 third grade students to the Visitor 

Center for a half day of environmental education and wildlife observation during fall and winter months. 

In addition, every year Wheeler NWR hosts the Morgan County and Decatur City Forestry Awareness 

Week Now (FAWN) festivals in May and October. The annual events involve over 600 sixth grade 

students from Morgan County in May and over 700 sixth grade students from Decatur City schools in 

October. Other activities that promote environmental education and wildlife interpretation include: the 

Junior Refuge Manager Program, the annual Wet-n-Wild Festival, and the Wheeler NWR Summer 

Day Camp. During the Wheeler NWR Summer Day Camps, over 200 local children ages 8 to 10 and 11 

to 13 enjoy a full day on the refuge that includes many indoor and outdoor hands-on activities involving 

wildlife and land conservation. Wheeler NWR also serves as the state’s receiving site for the Federal 

Junior Duck Stamp Contest, through an established partnership with the Alabama Wildlife Federation 

(AWF) and the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF). 

As part of community outreach efforts, a special partnership with the Decatur City Police 

Department’s Alternative Choices through Educational Systems (A.C.E.S.) Program has been 

established. This arrangement provides more than 300 inner city youths with opportunities to 

experience a half day of fishing and environmental education on the refuge. Other partnerships are 

enjoyed with the Boy and Girl Scouts of America and the Morgan County 4-H Wildlife Club. 

The primary interpretive theme of Wheeler NWR focuses on the awareness and importance of 

waterfowl, migratory birds, and their conservation. Approximately 30,000 people come to the Visitor 

Center annually to view exhibits, hike on two nature trails, participate in educational programs, or 

watch videos on a variety of wildlife-related topics. Interpretive messages are conveyed to the public 

through an exhibit area in the Visitor Center. A large auditorium with a seating capacity of 120 is 

used for showing videos, films, or presentations. In addition, the Visitor Center contains a large 

classroom that is used for environmental education and interpretation. 

Informative environmental presentations and tours are given both on-site and off-site by a public use 

staff of three and several volunteers. An information kiosk is located at the entrance drive to the 

Visitor Center that provides refuge information at all times. Refuge brochures and maps are all up to 

date. A tear sheet (11x14) available to visitors at the refuge administrative office and Visitor Center 

provides a detailed map and information about the refuge. 

Visitor Center staff frequently answers questions regarding refuge lands and wildlife. Numerous field 

guides are available at the desk and general information is offered on most species of wildlife that 

may be encountered on the refuge. Wheeler NWR uses two portable exhibits for off-site 

interpretation. The first exhibit is specific to interpretive information about the Wheeler NWR and the 

second exhibit provides information and locations for the other refuges located in Alabama. 
68 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Other Uses 

Firewood cutting is a popular activity, but occurs only in designated areas after obtaining a special 

downed wood permit from refuge administration. All-terrain vehicles are not allowed on the refuge, 

except for handicapped hunting in the designated area. A special use permit must first be obtained 

from the refuge headquarters. Horseback riding is restricted to open gravel and/or paved roads and 

horses are not permitted to enter closed areas. Camping is not allowed on the refuge. 

Key Cave NWR 

Currently, public use of Key Cave NWR is light, but increasing. Key Cave itself is managed for 

protection; therefore it is not open to the public due to the potential for disturbance of federally 

endangered species. Other portions of the 1,060-acre refuge are open daily, dawn to dusk, and there 

are no entrance fees. Vehicular access is not allowed, except for vehicles with valid handicapped 

permits. Vehicles may be parked at the interpretive kiosk parking lot or at other designated parking 

areas. Handicapped parking is available at both the interpretive kiosk and at the Wildlife Observation 

Tower. Locations of the public use facilities at Key Cave NWR are illustrated on Figure 13. 

Hunting 

Small game hunting is allowed on 1,060 acres of the refuge through a permitting program in 

conjunction with the state’s Seven Mile Island Wildlife Management Area. Squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, 

opossum, mourning dove, and northern bobwhite are hunted within the state hunting season 

framework. The refuge hunting season runs concurrently with the state hunting season and hunting 

is allowed on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday. Hunting opportunities are evaluated annually 

at Key Cave NWR to ensure that each hunting activity is compatible with the purposes, goals, and 

objectives of the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Key Cave NWR has over 2.5 miles of roads and nature trails that are available for walking, hiking, 

and/or bicycling. These roads and nature trails pass through native warm season grasslands 

(NWSG), upland hardwoods, and agricultural cropland. The gravel-based nature trail system offers 

opportunities to view or photograph an assortment of wildlife, including many grassland bird species. 

A 14-foot, dual level Wildlife Observation Tower is located in the interior of the refuge (approximately 

0.75 miles from the kiosk) and provides a great view. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

An interpretive kiosk is located along Dabney Lane (the northern boundary of the refuge) and is also 

stop # 9 along the North Alabama Birding Trail (Table 7). The kiosk provides visitors with information 

about native warm season grassland management at the refuge, as well as information on some of 

the priority bird species that are found in grassland habitats. The kiosk also contains interpretive 

panels that discuss the karst geology that underlies the refuge and briefly discusses the history of the 

federally endangered Alabama cavefish. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Figure 13. Locations of public use facilities on Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
70 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Sauta Cave NWR 

Public use of Sauta Cave NWR is light, but increasing. Due to the potential for disturbance of 

federally endangered bats, Sauta Cave itself is gated and not open to the public. However, a special 

use permit to enter the cave may be issued by refuge administration for research purposes only. 

Other portions of the 264-acre refuge are open to the public. Vehicular access is not allowed. 

Persons wishing to visit the refuge may park their vehicles at the gated entrance just off of U.S. 

Highway 72. Outdoor facilities are open daily, dawn to dusk (year-round) and there are no entrance 

fees. Locations of public use facilities at Sauta Cave NWR are illustrated on Figure 14. 

Hunting 

Hunting is currently allowed on 264 acres at Sauta Cave NWR through a permitting program in 

conjunction with the state’s North Sauty Wildlife Management Area. White-tailed deer (archery only), 

squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum are hunted within the state’s season framework. Hunting 

opportunities are evaluated annually to ensure that the activity is compatible with the purpose, goals, 

and objectives of the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

During the months of June, July, and August, one of nature's most spectacular events occurs every 

evening at Sauta Cave NWR. At dusk, up to 400,000 bats leave the cave to begin their nightly 

foraging activities. This event can last for up to an hour. Large numbers of visitors may go to the 

cave on summer weekends to observe the streaming emergence of gray bats. A Wildlife Viewing 

Platform was constructed in 2005 to aid in the viewing experience. 

Fern Cave NWR 

Because of the isolated nature of the refuge, difficulty of access, and lack of directional signs, general 

public use on Fern Cave NWR is extremely low. Furthermore, due to the potential for disturbance of 

federally endangered bats and the highly technical nature of a 400-foot vertical descent into the cave 

system, Fern Cave itself is not open to the general public. Access into the cave is essentially limited 

to professional cavers with the expertise to make the vertical descent. In addition, access is only 

granted for research and monitoring purposes. 

In 2006, for the 18th year, the Huntsville Grotto of the National Speleological Society coordinated 

access to the cave by special use permit. The Huntsville Grotto handled all special use permits to 

enter the cave and monitored the cave’s condition. Hunting is not currently allowed on the refuge. 

Other portions of the 199-acre refuge are open to the public. The refuge is open daily, dawn to dusk 

(year-round) and there are no entrance fees. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Staffing 

The 39,900 -acre Wheeler Complex is currently staffed with 15 full-time employees (FTE) and one term 

staff member. Wheeler NWR alone has seventeen approved FTEs, and currently two positions are 

vacant (i.e., SCEP and Maintenance). One FTE is jointly funded between Refuges and Ecological 

Services. Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs are currently unstaffed. Biological, public use 

and CCP planning teams identified the need for additional staff, especially for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and 

Fern Cave NWRs. Figure 15 illustrates the current staffing situation at the Complex.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Figure 14. Locations of public use facilities on Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
72 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 15. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex current staffing chart 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Approximately 5,000 hours of volunteer time were donated to Wheeler Complex in 2006, including 

4,000 hours donated by 53 official refuge volunteers. Visitor Center operations, trail maintenance, 

litter removal, environmental education, amphibian and reptile monitoring, staffing off-site exhibits, 

conducting interpretive programs, and providing assistance with the Wheeler Day Camps accounted 

for the majority of the hours. 

Many national wildlife refuges have partnering nonprofit organizations, often called Friends Groups, 

which serve as advocates and assistants for a refuge. These civic associations have the ability to 

reach out to the surrounding community for assistance on refuge projects and for local support on 

conservation issues. Wheeler NWR is fortunate to have an outstanding Friends Group called the 

Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Association (WWRA). The WWRA was formed in July 1998 and its purpose 

is “to promote conservation, awareness, and appreciation of Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and to 

provide assistance to refuge environmental education programs and other conservation efforts on the 

refuge.” By the end of December 2005, membership totaled 120, including 11 life members. 

Funding 

Each year Wheeler NWR receives its own specific budget (Table 9). Management actions on the 

other three refuges (Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave), except special project-specific monies, 

are normally funded from within the Wheeler NWR budget. No additional monies are directed for use 

on the satellite refuges. 

Table 9. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge funding for fiscal year 2005 

Description Amount 

Private Lands $40,000 

Specialized Contaminants $5,000 

Refuge Operations $1,032,100 

RONS-04 $126,500 

CCP Planning $80,000 

Volunteer Support $2,500 

FLEX - Roads $165,300 

Facility Enhancement $6,900 

Maintenance Management $122,300 

Deferred Maintenance $584,400 

Heavy Equipment Maintenance $92,600 

Small Equipment Maintenance $50,000 

Total Refuge Complex 

Operating Budget $2,307,600 
74 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Facilities 

The present Complex headquarters administrative office was constructed in 1980 and is not large enough 

to house the present staff. An expansion project is currently underway. The Complex has one 

maintenance shop compound that houses and maintains Complex vehicles and equipment. 

A 10,000-square-foot Visitor Information Center called the Givens Interpretive Center and a Wildlife 

Observation Building serve as the hub for public use activities. Rehabilitation projects for these facilities 

are currently underway. Furthermore, Wheeler NWR has two permanent residences that were 

constructed in 1941 and 1942. Both residences are scheduled for replacement in the near future. 

Interior Roads, Trails, and Water Control Structures 

The Wheeler Complex contains over 100 miles of roads and dikes maintained for public access and 

water management capabilities. Many interior roads were originally constructed to facilitate farming 

and timber-harvest programs. Some roads provide all weather access with a minimum clearance for 

two-wheel drive vehicles. However, many roads on Complex lands are impassible to two-wheel drive 

vehicles during wet weather and some roads are impassible to four-wheel drive vehicles during wet 

weather. Road maintenance is expensive and time-consuming and in some areas on a few refuges 

is only possible in late summer during the driest conditions. 

Complex staff devotes a large portion of its time to road maintenance (e.g., grading, mowing, and 

spraying), particularly on Wheeler NWR where soil texture, flooding, and heavy traffic use can damage 

roads in a short amount of time. To control water levels in the 16 waterfowl impoundments (~2,000 acres) 

on Wheeler NWR, 20 WCS in the form of screwgates and stoplog structures are maintained. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

By law the refuges in the Wheeler Complex are exempt from paying property taxes, and instead 

make in lieu of payments to Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties 

through the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act established by Congress (Table 10). This program 

provides a method of collecting monetary receipts from revenue generating activities on refuges 

within the nation, pooling them together, and paying them out to counties containing refuge lands. 

Payment for acquired land is computed on whichever of the following formulas is greatest: (1) threefourths of one percent of the fair market value of the lands acquired in fee title; or (2) 25 percent of 

the net refuge receipt collected; or (3) 75 cents per acre of the lands acquired in fee title within the 

county. If the receipts generated on refuges do not meet the entitlement amount, Congress may 

approve additional funds to make up the shortfall. 

Table 10. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex revenue payments in dollars for Jackson, 

Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, for the last 5 years 

FY Jackson Lauderdale Limestone Madison Morgan TOTALS 

2005 960 4626 13580 13316 51929 84,411 

2004 850 4096 12025 11791 45981 74,748 

2003 699 1922 12594 12483 25365 53,063 

2002 727 2000 13103 12941 26391 55,162 

2001 779 2141 14026 13853 28251 59,050 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Chapter III. Plan Development 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

Working with governmental partners and the public, the planning team identified a number of issues, 

concerns, and opportunities related to fish and wildlife management and protection, habitat 

restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered species. Key issues include 

invasive plants and nuisance animals, wintering waterfowl management and use of refuge lands, 

placement of crops for wildlife, protection of threatened and endangered species, urbanization and 

encroachment, visitor access, wildlife photography, and hunting programs. Additionally, the planning 

team considered Federal and State mandates, as well as applicable local ordinances, regulations, 

and plans. The planning team also directed the process of obtaining public input through public 

scoping meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. The following is a summary of priority 

comments from the public scoping meeting and letters received. A complete description of the public 

involvement process is provided in Section C, Appendix D: Public Involvement - Summary of Public 

Scoping Comments. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Population Management 

y Provide better control of beavers. 

y Control the feral hog problem with an extended archery or 

small-caliber rifle season. 

y Increase management for wild turkeys and northern 

bobwhite on Wheeler NWR. 

y Increase efforts to monitor white-tailed deer population. 

y Improve wintering waterfowl management. 

y Protect alligators and other threatened and endangered 

species. 

Habitat Management 

y Improve waterfowl impoundment maintenance. 

y Eliminate invasive and exotic plant species. 

y Prohibit prescribed fire. 

y Increase prescribed fire efforts. 

y Eliminate the use of pesticides. 

Resource Protection 

y Provide protection for wildlife and cultural resources from 

trespassing and from littering/dumping. 

y Monitor contamination issues. 

y Increase law enforcement activities (i.e., hunting and fishing 

compliance checks). 

Visitor Services 

y Expand areas for horseback riding. 

y Prohibit all motorized vehicles. 

y Prohibit hunting. 

y Provide a youth waterfowl hunt. 

y Extend the small game hunting season. 

y Provide better access by opening gates earlier in the year. 

y Provide more opportunities for wildlife photography. 

Refuge Administration y Increase refuge staff. 

y Increase road maintenance. 
76 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

All comments received during the public scoping period were considered, however, some issues 

important to the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning 

process. The Service developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions 

regarding important issues, while meeting the refuges' purposes and other requirements and 

mandates. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are 

most important to the Wheeler Complex. A summary of the priority issues for the Complex to 

address over the 15-year life of the CCP follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Waterfowl 

Management actions for waterfowl at Wheeler NWR are guided by the refuge’s overall purpose. A 

major portion of the refuge is dedicated in providing seasonally flooded croplands, moist soil, and 

forested wetlands to meet the foraging, resting, loafing, and breeding needs of waterfowl. Lack of 

water level control, human disturbance, and the proliferation of invasive plant and animal species are 

several management issues that compound waterfowl management at Wheeler Refuge. 

Waterbirds 

Management of habitat on Wheeler NWR for waterbirds (colonial waterbirds, marsh birds, and 

shorebirds) is also important for meeting the refuge’s purposes. Wildlife management step-down plan 

objectives for waterbirds should guide future operation and management actions. Lack of water level 

control, human disturbance, and the proliferation of invasive plant and animal species are several 

management issues that compound waterbird management at Wheeler NWR. In addition, the loss of 

off-refuge habitat and the possibility of contamination from DDT may have led to a decline in 

waterbird populations. 

Quality shorebird habitat is limited on Wheeler NWR especially during fall migration. In the late 

summer and early fall, the best shallow-water sites for shorebirds are in some form of agriculture and 

there is a lack of mudflat habitat on the refuge; resulting in a shorebird habitat shortage. In the past 

TVA would begin drawdown of the Wheeler Reservoir in mid-July. Currently, TVA does not begin to 

lower the water levels until after Labor Day weekend in September. This action greatly reduces the 

amount of available habitat for shorebirds during peak migration. 

American Woodcock are showing long-term declines in the eastern United States. Population 

declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with land conversion and the 

maturing of forest habitats. Although mature bottomland hardwoods are scarce on Wheeler NWR, 

birds may use old fields and agricultural fields as nighttime foraging habitat. 

Landbirds 

Landbirds (including forest birds, grassland birds, and scrub-shrub birds) as a group are of special 

management concern. Many species of landbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of 

widespread habitat loss, particularly the loss of bottomland hardwood forests and riparian woodlands, 

as well as early successional habitats, such as grasslands and scrub habitats. Results from the 2003 

Biological Review reported that current conditions of the forests on Wheeler NWR are midsuccessional and considered to be of poor quality for most priority landbirds. In addition, the loss of 

off-refuge habitat and the lack of information concerning the life history requirements of landbirds 

compound landbird management at Wheeler NWR. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

One of the grassland-dependent bird species of concern on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs is the 

northern bobwhite. The northern bobwhite has traditionally been one of the most popular game birds 

in the south. Around the turn of the twentieth century, northern bobwhite numbers reached all-time 

highs, but since then they have been in constant decline. For the last several decades, bobwhite and 

many other small game species associated with grassland habitats have declined in population. In 

fact, North American Breeding Bird Survey data indicates that a rangewide decline of 3.0 percent 

annually has occurred between the years of 1966 and 2003 for the northern bobwhite (Sauer et al., 

2004). While many factors have contributed to this decline, including predators, pathogens, and 

pesticides, deteriorating habitat quality is the primary cause of decline. Furthermore, the potential 

exists for overharvesting this species on these refuges. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Amphibian and reptile management and conservation are of great interest due to apparent global 

declines in populations. Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation appear to be the primary 

factors in declines. This group of animals requires quality wetland habitat for their survival and they 

also serve as important indicators of environmental health. Comprehensive inventories, monitoring, 

and surveys are currently not available for amphibians and reptiles on Wheeler Complex lands. 

 

Threatened, Endangered, and Imperiled Species 

Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered species are important responsibilities 

delegated to the Service. The Alabama cavefish, which inhabits the underground pools in Key Cave, 

is the rarest American cavefish and one of the rarest of all freshwater fish. The only known location 

of this cavefish is Key Cave. Surveying and monitoring efforts have been extremely difficult and 

population levels are unknown at this time. Furthermore, the water recharge zone for the Key Cave 

aquifer is designated as high hazard, meaning that degradation of water quality is a major concern. 

Two priority endangered bat species are found in caves located on Complex lands. The gray bat can 

be found on all refuges in the Complex and the Indiana bat has been documented at Sauta Cave 

NWR. Since its placement on the endangered species list in 1976, the gray bat has become of 

particular concern. Its population decline is believed to be due primarily to human disturbances such 

as: vandalism, excessive pesticide use, overall insect prey decline due to pollution, and cave 

commercialization. The Indiana bat was added to the Federal endangered species list in 1967. Its 

dwindling population continues to cause concern and support its protection at Sauta Cave NWR. Its 

decline has many different contributing factors, including the commercialization of roosting caves, 

destruction of habitat by vandals, disturbance from spelunkers, and suspected insecticide poisonings. 

American alligators are found on and are reproducing on Wheeler NWR. The presence of this 

species has been controversial with some members of the public opposing its presence and others 

favoring it. The natural range of this species may not include Wheeler NWR and its presence may be 

the result of introductions. Recently, two bald eagle nests were found on Wheeler NWR. 

Disturbance of these nests by human activities is a concern. 

Two threatened plants have been documented on the Complex. A healthy population of Price’s 

potato-bean is currently located on Sauta Cave NWR and possibly a few remaining American Hart’s 

tongue-fern plants are located at Fern Cave NWR. Two decades ago, 20 American Hart’s tonguefern plants were documented; however, the most recent survey was unable to find any plants. The 

disappearances are most likely the result of unscrupulous plant collectors. However, the plant may 

still be present in the form of spores in the soil and may produce plants in future years. Past attempts 

to propagate this plant have failed. 
78 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Water in and around Wheeler NWR contains, may contain, or once contained many species of 

freshwater mollusks and snails. Three of these species are endangered (ring pink, rough pigtoe, and 

pink mucket pearly mussel). The ring pink no longer occurs in Alabama, but at least one historical 

record (1904) in the Daphne Ecological Services' database places this species in the Tennessee 

River in the vicinity of the refuge. Historical records (1925) for the slabside pearylmussel and finerayed pigtoe indicate these species were found in refuge waters. The fine-rayed pigtoe occurred in 

Limestone Creek off the western tip of the Beaverdam Peninsula. Construction and operation of the 

Wheeler Dam has negatively impacted these species. 

Invasive, Exotic, and Nuisance Animals 

At the present time, the Wheeler Complex does not have a concise inventory or a quantitative 

analysis of the invasive, exotic, and nuisance animal species that occur on each refuge. Some of the 

more problematic animal species known to occur on Wheeler Complex include: beavers, feral hogs, 

feral cats, and resident Canada geese. 

Beaver populations are causing negative impacts to refuge resources. Without adequate control, 

beaver populations on Wheeler NWR will increase to a point that results in unacceptable levels of 

habitat damage. Trapping efforts by staff, by volunteers, and through a contract with USDA's Wildlife 

Services have not effectively reduced the population levels. Feral hog numbers have been 

increasing over the past several years at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. Extensive habitat 

destruction has been documented on both refuges. Trapping efforts by staff and volunteers have not 

effectively reduced losses to habitat. In addition, Wheeler NWR has a problem with free-roaming and 

feral cats in some areas, particularly those adjacent to developed residential areas. Free-roaming 

and feral cats can have a devastating impact on small bird, amphibian, reptile, and mammal 

populations. This problem is expected to get worse as urban and residential development continue 

adjacent to the refuge's boundary. 

A more recent nuisance animal problem has been the establishment of resident Canada geese in the 

Tennessee Valley and on Wheeler NWR. Resident geese do not migrate to northern nesting 

grounds, but remain locally year-round. The refuge's resident population is increasing dramatically 

and is seriously affecting moist-soil plant production in refuge impoundments. Resident geese are 

also responsible for damaging agricultural crops planted to provide critical forage for migrating and 

wintering waterfowl. In addition, their fecal droppings can degrade overall water quality and increase 

the potential for human and avian diseases transmitted by fecal material. Some of the diseases may 

include cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, and chlamydiosis (Conover and Chasko 1985; Cooper and 

Keefe 1997, and Hailu Kassa et al., 2007). 

Surveys and Monitoring 

The staff at Wheeler Complex currently conducts some limited surveys and incidental monitoring to 

document the populations of certain species and species groups. For example, Wheeler NWR has 

been monitoring waterfowl populations since the fall and winter of 1947-48. Until recently, waterfowl 

surveys were generally conducted aerially. However, due to the difficulty of finding pilots and/or 

planes in the area that meet all Department of the Interior (DOI) safety requirements, most waterfowl 

surveys are now performed on the ground. 

Since many, but not all, areas utilized by waterfowl can be observed from the ground, these types of 

surveys likely give a good index of numbers of birds on the refuge. In addition to waterfowl surveys, 

limited surveys and incidental monitoring are also conducted for shorebirds and landbirds. The 

Complex lacks baseline information upon which to base many management decisions. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Cropland Management 

Farming is an integral part of Wheeler NWR’s management program and has been used for over 50 

years to meet refuge goals. It provides food, browse, cover, and resting areas for waterfowl and 

other wildlife species. As the number of migratory Canada geese has declined from an average 

population of 35,000 in the late 1950s through the late 1980s to current averages below 5,000, the 

need for a large upland farming program has somewhat diminished. 

Reservoir Management 

A recent TVA reservoir operations study led to the raising of water levels in Wheeler Reservoir earlier 

in the spring and a later drawdown in the fall than in the past. Currently, TVA begins to raise the 

water in the reservoir in about early April so that full pool (556 feet MSL) is reached around April 15. 

The water is then lowered in early September so that low pool (552 feet MSL) is reached in midSeptember. This action created a number of challenges to properly managing wildlife on the refuge. 

For example, one of the critical “hot foods” provided for waterfowl is corn, which will support more 

waterfowl per acre during the wintering period than any other food. In fact, corn will support nearly 

eight times as many ducks per acre as millet. It is difficult for Wheeler NWR to fulfill its waterfowl 

goals, particularly goals for ducks, without providing corn as food. Large portions of the main 

impoundments on the refuge must be dry during early to mid-spring in order to plant corn in low-lying 

areas. However, refuge staff must wait until most ducks have left the refuge, usually late-January to 

mid-February, before water removal can begin. 

Wheeler NWR has three options to remove water from impoundments: use portable pumps; use 

large, permanent pumps located in two key areas; and use gravity. Portable pumps can only be used 

in small impoundments or those in which most of the water has already been removed. It is very 

expensive to operate the large, permanent pumps; therefore the refuge can only afford to do this 

when TVA will help pay the cost, which is from May 1 through September 1. Although these pumps 

move relatively large volumes of water, it is difficult or impossible to dry the fields in time to plant corn 

if they contain a lot of water. Large amounts of rain or flooding of the impoundments by high 

reservoir levels in the spring make it difficult to remove enough water using the large pumps to plant 

corn. Thus, the more we can use gravity to remove water from the units the better chance we have of 

drying the appropriate low-lying areas. In addition, costs to operate pumps are less when water can 

be first removed via gravity. Currently, less time is available to gravity flow water out of the units. 

The current reservoir water level management creates other problems for meeting the refuge’s 

wildlife management objectives. For example, the reservoir mudflats are covered by water by the 

time the majority of shorebirds move through the area in the spring heading north to breed and 

are also under water when these birds move through during late summer heading south to the 

areas where they winter. Shorebirds historically fed on these mudflats and in shallow water 

during these migration periods. Now the areas are covered by water too deep for a majority or all 

of the species to feed. Furthermore, Canada geese arriving early in the fall would use mudflats 

along the reservoir to rest. These areas are now inundated in the early fall due to the current 

reservoir water level schedule. 
80 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

High water levels over expanded periods of time also create other problems. Erosion of the shoreline 

along the river and its sloughs increases and makes it more expensive to maintain refuge lands and 

facilities close to the water. In addition, important archaeological sites located just beneath or 

adjacent to the bank may be exposed or washed away. Exposure of artifacts makes them more 

susceptible to illegal collecting activities. 

Impoundment Management 

Wheeler NWR staff manages water on the refuge to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds through the management of impoundments. In managing these areas, 

the staff produces moist-soil and flooded cropland that produces natural, desirable vegetation and 

planted high-calorie “hot food” for waterfowl. Impoundments also benefit colonial waterbirds, marsh 

birds, and shorebirds. 

To grow moist-soil plants, water in the impoundments must be drawn down in the spring to permit 

germination of wetland plants. The areas are then flooded in the fall just before waterfowl begin to 

arrive. A lack of water management capability limits both the production of desirable foods and 

control of undesirable plants. This management objective is difficult to accomplish because TVA 

manages Wheeler Reservoir in a manner that is essentially opposite that needed for establishment of 

moist-soil plants that provide food for waterfowl (see reservoir management above). 

Grassland Management 

Native grasslands are one of the most endangered ecosystems in the mid-south (Harper et al., 2004). 

Historically, the region contained vast acreages of native grasslands and savannas with scatted trees 

and shrub cover. Natural fire maintained the grasslands. Today, native grassland acreage has been 

replaced with non-native grass, such as fescue and Bermuda grass, as well as croplands, forests, 

and urban development. As a result, several wildlife species dependent upon early successional 

habitat have experienced population declines. 

Old Field/Shrubland Management 

Old fields and shrublands are important wildlife habitats that are essential for the survival of many 

wildlife species. The loss of these habitats through conversion to other land uses and/or through 

succession is resulting in the decline and disappearance of some wildlife species that are dependent 

on early successional habitats. In eastern North America over the last 60 years, open habitats 

(grasslands, savannas, barrens, and shrublands) have declined by 98 percent (Hunter et al., 2001). 

Wildlife species that use old field habitat types for nesting, feeding, and shelter include mammals, 

such as the cottontail rabbit, meadow vole, and red fox, and birds species, such as the American 

woodcock, field sparrow, northern bobwhite, song sparrow, and American goldfinch. Butterflies, such 

as the monarch and Eastern black swallowtail, also frequent this habitat type. 

Forest Management 

Constraints on burning and thinning due to logistical or hydrological (i.e., overflow flooding) problems 

have led to overstocking and shading out of understory species and loss of regeneration in some 

forested areas. Understory shrubs and trees are highly important to nesting and foraging neotropical 

migratory birds. It is unknown whether or not management activities are resulting in an appropriate 

forest structure, composition, and associated understory for floodplain forest conservation when they 

are implemented on an overflow refuge such as Wheeler NWR. 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Karst Formations (Caves and Sinkholes) 

Cave habitats are of tremendous importance to many invertebrates, amphibians, and mammals. 

Many species are only known from one or two caves. For example, the Alabama cavefish has only 

been found in Key Cave and the Cave Springs spider has only been found in Cave Springs Cave. 

The health of these underground habitats is heavily influenced by surface activities. Airflow, 

microclimate, water quality, organic influx, and hydrology can all be impacted by land management 

within the recharge area (ADWFF 2005). In addition, caves depend on outside sources of plant 

material and bat guano for energy sources and are threatened by any changes in the quantity and 

quality of water from terrestrial sources (Kingsbury and Gibson 2002). Land use changes, more 

importantly urban growth, in surrounding landscapes are negatively impacting karst formations. This 

problem will only get worse as populations grow and urban sprawl continues to alter landscapes. 

Invasive and/or Exotic Plant Species Management 

Exotic, invasive, and nuisance species negatively impact native habitats and wildlife through habitat 

disturbance and destruction, through direct mortality, and by out competing native plant species. At 

the present time, the Complex does not have a concise inventory and/or quantitative analysis of the 

invasive or exotic plants that occur on each refuge. Some of the invasive or exotic plant species 

known to occur on the Wheeler Complex include: Chinese privet, kudzu, bamboo, alligatorweed, 

thistles, American lotus, Japanese honeysuckle, Sericea lespedeza, Bermuda grass, Johnsongrass, 

and Eurasian watermilfoil. The presence and rate of spread of some of these species is a concern. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Law Enforcement 

Illegal activities that typically occur in urban areas also take place on the Complex, in addition to 

refuge specific violations. The majority of cases made by law enforcement officers (LEOs) in the 

recent past have been trespass due to possession of alcohol or drugs, hunting related violations, 

searching for archaeological artifacts, public indecency and lewdness, littering, and possession of 

firearms. As the population continues to grow in northern Alabama, illegal activities on the Wheeler 

Complex are expected to increase. 

Currently, the Wheeler NWR Complex is limited to two full-time LEOs. Fortunately, other local 

and state LEOs are available to back-up Service officers and help enforce local and state laws 

and regulations. In some cases, such as operations to curtail public indecency, drug use, and/or 

violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Service special agents and/or LEOs from other 

national wildlife refuges may assist. The current staff of two LEOs is insufficient to address 

current law enforcement issues, much less the rise in these issues anticipated to increase with 

the growth in the area's population. 

Urbanization 

Wheeler NWR Complex has some very serious challenges confronting it, many related to the urban 

environment in which it is located. The cities of Decatur, Florence, Huntsville, Madison, and 

Scottsboro continue to increase in population. Commercial, industrial, and residential developments 

continue to destroy or degrade farmland and natural areas at an alarming rate. Although many 

portions of the Complex are still surrounded by large agricultural tracts, this is likely to decline at an 

increasing rate over the next 10-20 years. 
82 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

One of the many problems associated with urbanization are requests for new access rights-of-way 

(ROW) or easements on refuge lands and waters. For example, port authorities in Madison County 

have requested that a new ROW across Wheeler NWR be approved in order to construct and operate 

a port on the Tennessee River. Complex management has deemed this use to be inappropriate. 

Rights-of-way and other easements have the potential to further fragment habitats and negatively 

impact native wildlife. As the population continues to explode in this area, more requests for ROW or 

other easements will be initiated. Currently, there are approximately 60 existing ROW or ROW 

easements that cross Wheeler NWR. 

Another issue directly related to urbanization is an increase in sedimentation in the waterways from 

soil erosion. This problem is most evident at Wheeler NWR. As more and more housing and 

industrial developments are built in close proximity to refuge lands, increased levels of sedimentation 

occur. This greatly degrades habitats such as streams, creeks, sloughs, and bays along the 

Tennessee River both outside and within the boundaries of the refuge. 

A rise in residential development and population levels also brings other impacts. Increases in 

contaminants from increased applications of fertilizers and pesticides on lawns, runoff from 

impervious surfaces carrying oil and other harmful pollutants, and excessive nutrients from septic 

tanks and sewer systems are anticipated. Encroachment onto the refuge lands from free-roaming 

and feral dogs and cats are becoming more common and illegal activities such as drugs and alcohol 

abuse, destruction of refuge property, and lewd behavior are increasing. 

Littering is also an increasing problem on the Complex. All sorts of materials, including containers of 

contaminants such as oil, construction materials, and household trash are dumped on refuges. In 

addition, large quantities of trash are deposited on Wheeler NWR when the Tennessee River floods and 

then recedes. Impacts to plant and animal life on Complex lands are currently unknown. 

Water Quality/Contaminants

Past and current activities around Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs have resulted in the release or 

transport of a variety of contaminants to the refuge and its aquatic resources. Environmental 

monitoring on Wheeler NWR has indicated that several contaminants in water, sediment, and 

biological tissues exceed levels that may adversely affect fish, wildlife, and habitat quality on the 

refuge. Sources of contamination concerns on Wheeler NWR include: 1) contaminated runoff 

and/or leaching from activities at Redstone Arsenal, 2) agricultural runoff containing elevated 

nutrients and agricultural chemicals from surrounding cropland, 3) storm water runoff from urban 

areas around the refuge containing a variety of organic and inorganic contaminants, and 4) other 

industrial activities and discharges. 

Redstone Arsenal - Contaminants 

Various contaminants assessment programs have identified 298 contaminated sites on Redstone 

Arsenal (U.S. Department of Defense 1998). The U.S. Army has primary responsibility for 216 of the 

sites and NASA has responsibility for 82 of the sites. As of 2000, response actions were completed 

for 110 sites (Olin Corporation 2001). Site assessment, risk assessment, or remedial design activities 

for the remaining sites are in progress. Contaminants at the remaining sites include a variety of 

potentially toxic solvents, metals, or organic compounds, which may enter Wheeler NWR as the result 

of wastewater treatment discharges, stormwater runoff, or migration in groundwater. The threat of 

contaminants originating from the Redstone Arsenal to fish, wildlife, or habitat quality on Wheeler 

NWR is not fully understood at this time. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Chief among the contaminant concerns on Redstone Arsenal is DDT contamination in and around the 

Huntsville Spring Branch and Indian Creek system. The Olin Corporation manufactured this pesticide 

on Redstone Arsenal between 1947 and 1970. During this period, an estimated release of 417 tons 

of DDT was discharged into the Huntsville Spring Branch (Olin Corporation 2004). Environmental 

monitoring in the1980s demonstrated high concentrations of DDT contamination in water, sediment, 

and biological samples from the Huntsville Spring Branch and Indian Creek. Concentrations of this 

persistent, bio-accumulative, and toxic pollutant were well in excess of levels associated with adverse 

effects to fish, wildlife, and humans. 

These findings resulted in the addition of this site to the National Priorities List (NPL) under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (i.e., Superfund). Under a 

1983 EPA Consent Decree, the Olin Corporation initiated a remediation project in 1987. The primary 

strategy was to contain DDT contamination by placing clean soil over about 400 tons of DDT-laden 

sediments in the Huntsville Spring Branch stream channel and excavate a new stream channel 

around the filled area. Based on Olin’s figures, a minimum of 14.5 tons were not isolated by the 

project (Olin Corporation 2004). It should be noted that the only current fish consumption advisory 

issued for Wheeler Reservoir by the State of Alabama is for two fish species, largemouth and 

smallmouth buffalo from the Indian Creek and Huntsville Spring Branch. No consumption of these 

fish from Redstone Arsenal to the Tennessee River is advised due to DDT contamination. 

Agricultural - Contaminants 

Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs are both largely surrounded by agricultural land. Cotton, corn, and 

soybeans are the predominant crops grown by local farmers. Historically, lands that are now part of 

Key Cave NWR were used primarily for growing cotton. Past cotton farming practices have led to 

severe soil erosion problems both on and off refuge lands. Initial management efforts at Key Cave 

NWR were focused on controlling erosion, thus protecting the water entering the underground cave 

system from contaminants such as chemicals, excessive nutrients, and sedimentation. Water quality 

monitoring by the U.S. Geological Survey has identified a variety of agricultural pesticides in surface 

waters near Wheeler NWR. In addition, water quality monitoring by the Service has identified 

detectable levels of atrazine in surface waters flowing onto Wheeler NWR. The threat to fish, wildlife, 

or habitat quality on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs and within Key Cave itself is unknown at this time. 

Urban and Industrial - Contaminants 

Treated wastewater discharges from Huntsville and Madison cities and stormwater runoff from 

urban/ industrial areas enter Wheeler NWR through several surface water streams, creeks, and 

the reservoir. Contaminants, including nutrients, pesticides, metals, and organic pollutants, may 

be present in the runoff. The threat to fish, wildlife, or habitat quality on the refuge is currently 

unknown at this time. 

Cultural Resources 

Refuges in the Wheeler Complex contain cultural resource sites dating from prehistory to very 

modern times: from Native American burial mounds and shell middens to shelters, cemeteries, 

and civil war mines. Looking to the future, issues to be addressed involving the Complex's 

historical and archaeological resources include the potential for disturbance, vandalism, and theft. 

In addition, information on the locations of other potential cultural resource sites is unknown; 

especially at Wheeler NWR where the locations of potential Native American burial mounds and 

shell middens may be unknown. 
84 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Resource Protection 

Several areas within and adjacent to acquisition boundaries within the Wheeler Complex are threatened 

by illegal and uncontrolled access, wildlife and habitat disturbance, future development, and habitat 

fragmentation. These areas include the fifth entrance to Fern Cave; the lower reaches of Piney and 

Limestone Creeks, and the high-risk water recharge zone near Key Cave (see figures 6, 16 and 17). 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority Public Use 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established six priority public uses 

on refuge lands when they are compatible and desirable for that specific refuge. These priority 

uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation.

Hunting 

As expressed in the public scoping meeting, hunting and fishing opportunities on the Complex are of 

great public interest. Public comments expressed interest in enhancing hunting opportunities with 

special youth hunts and by providing additional hunting days for small game. Currently, the public 

demand for hunting is not greater than the Complex can accommodate and the demand can be met 

without provisions for limiting participation. Continuing development of surrounding lands has the 

potential to cause increases in demand. It may become necessary in the future to limit hunter 

numbers to ensure safe, high quality hunting experiences. 

Deer management is often an issue with a variety of user groups. The Complex has received public 

comments for deer management changes ranging from more or different harvest, to leaving the 

harvest as is, to not allowing deer hunting at all. Bow hunters often want no gun hunting, or some 

want special muzzle-loader seasons. Often, deer management comments are associated with trophy 

hunts, antler limits, and limitations to doe and buck days. 

Wheeler NWR does not currently offer turkey hunting, but the public has been requesting a hunt. 

Quality turkey habitat is limited on the refuge and populations are extremely low. 

Waterfowl hunting is not permitted on Wheeler NWR, but there is some demand for it. Waterfowl hunting 

was permitted in the White Springs Dewatering Unit during waterfowl seasons from November 1964 

through January 1969. But the loss of a prime goose use area and other concerns over the impact of 

hunting on waterfowl populations caused the refuge staff to terminate refuge waterfowl hunts. The prime 

goose area was the Point Mallard Peninsula that was managed as part of Wheeler NWR until TVA 

withdrew the property and transferred it to the city of Decatur. During the scoping process for the Draft 

CCP, the public asked management to consider conducting a youth waterfowl hunt. 

Use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on Wheeler NWR is prohibited, except by special permit for 

handicapped hunters within the special designated handicapped hunting area (500 acres). 

Provisions for issuing special access permits are on file at the refuge's Visitor Center and 

headquarters. Some of the commenters during the public scoping asked the refuge to consider 

limited ATV use during deer season. However, most comments received indicated a strong desire to 

keep ATVs off all Service Lands. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Figure 16. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 
86 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 17. Potential land conservation areas surrounding Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Fishing 

Sportfishing on Wheeler NWR, including method of take, daily creel limits, possession limits, and size 

limits, is permitted in accordance with State regulations. Challenges associated with meeting the 

goals of the Service's 2002 Fisheries Program Vision for the Future Plan include addressing local 

water quality issues, such as sedimentation, contaminants, channelization, and agricultural impacts. 

Most streams or rivers within Wheeler Complex's boundaries have been channelized or altered. 

These issues hinder the ability of the Complex to meet the goals of the 2002 Fisheries Program 

Vision for the Future Plan (USFWS 2002). 

In addition, barriers to the natural migration of desirable game fish into refuge waters due to hydrological 

alterations have resulted in a higher proportion of “rough fish,” such as carp, in refuge waters. Parking 

and boat launching facilities constructed in support of fishing and other uses are adequate and are 

maintained by the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries under partnership agreements. 

Requests have been made to improve and upgrade boat launching facilities. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wheeler Complex provides the public with many opportunities to conduct wildlife observation and 

photography within its refuges. Some of the public comments received during the scoping period 

included: constructing additional permanent photography blinds, establishing additional nature 

trails, improving the wildlife observation building at Wheeler NWR, and developing an auto tour 

on Wheeler NWR. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Wheeler Complex provides an extensive environmental education and interpretation program to 

educate visitors about the Complex and the Refuge System. Due to limitations of a small public use 

staff, the Complex relies heavily on a network of local volunteers, student interns, and work campers 

for the implementation of its public outreach programs. During the public scoping portion of the CCP 

process, the public requested more off-site environmental education opportunities for areas 

surrounding Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. Road distance (> 50 miles) between the 

Complex headquarters and the other refuges makes this request a very difficult task. 

Visitor Access 

Many roads on Wheeler NWR are closed to vehicular traffic seasonally to minimize waterfowl 

disturbance from human activities and to protect the integrity of the road system during the wet winter 

months. The roads remain open to foot and bicycle traffic, allowing access to the refuge for 

compatible public uses. Public comments indicated a desire to relax certain road closures for easier 

access during the white-tailed deer hunting season. 

 

Several areas on Wheeler NWR are also closed seasonally. For example, the Garth Slough area is 

closed to all entry from November 15 - January 15 and the area immediately associated with the 

Visitor Center and Wildlife Observation Building is closed year-round with the exception of the Wildlife 

Observation Building Nature Trail and the Atkeson Nature Trail. Crabtree Slough and the White 

Springs Unit are closed to watercraft from November 15 through February 15 and November 15 

through January 15, respectively. This action slightly reduces the water acreage available to persons 

fishing from boats. Fishing is always prohibited in the Waterfowl Display Pool, waters adjacent to the 

Visitor Center, and around the shoreline of the refuge headquarters and housing units. 
88 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

The public also requested increased access for horseback riding. Currently, Wheeler NWR is open to 

horseback riding with limitations. Horseback riding is limited to open gravel and/or paved roads and 

horses are not permitted to enter closed areas. Issues associated with horseback riding are habitat 

degradation and conflicts with other uses. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Funding and Staffing 

Limited staff, facilities, equipment, water management capability, and other factors have prevented 

refuges in the Wheeler Complex from better serving refuge purposes and accomplishing many 

management objectives. Staff shortages are compounded by the necessity of sharing limited 

equipment and facilities with other refuges in the Complex. Further problems are introduced by the 

necessity of managing refuge lands that are separated by 50 or more miles. The end result is a 

negative impact on biological, maintenance, and visitor services programs. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Chapter IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is for the Service to 

maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. A refuge is a vital link in the overall 

function of an ecosystem. To offset the historic and continued loss of habitats within the ecosystem, 

the refuges in the Wheeler Complex, in conjunction with other public lands and waters, provide a 

biological safety net for native species, trust resources, and State and Federal listed species. Public 

uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The 

above-mentioned Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation as priority wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge 

System. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are therefore emphasized in this plan. 

Described below is the proposed comprehensive conservation plan for managing the Wheeler 

Complex over the next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, 

objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the vision of the Complex. 

Four alternatives for managing the Complex were considered: Alternative A (Maintain Current 

Management/No Action Alternative), Alternative B (Maximize Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public 

Use), Alternative C (Maximize Wildlife/Habitat Management), and Alternative D (Balance 

Wildlife/Habitat Management with Compatible Wildlife-Dependent Public Use). Each of these 

alternatives is described in the Alternatives section of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA). The 

Service chose Alternative D as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed action would result in Complex lands being protected, maintained, 

restored, and enhanced for waterfowl; migratory birds; resident wildlife; shorebirds; wading and 

marsh birds; and threatened, endangered, and imperiled species. Extensive wildlife and plant census 

and inventory activities would be initiated to develop the baseline biological information needed to 

implement, monitor, and evaluate management programs on each refuge in the Complex. 

All management actions would be directed towards achieving the purposes of each refuge in the 

Complex, while contributing to other state, regional, and national goals. Cooperation with Alabama’s 

Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF) for fisheries monitoring, implementing aquatic 

habitat improvement projects, and conducting game and non-game fish surveys would continue and 

increase as opportunities become available. Existing migratory bird monitoring, including waterfowl 

surveys, bald eagle surveys, Christmas Bird Counts, call counts, and breeding bird surveys would 

continue. Prescribed fire may be used, in conjunction with other refuge management tools, to reduce 

hazard fuels, restore natural processes and vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or 

reduce non-native species, and conduct research. Suppression of all wildland fires would continue. 

Special use permits would be issued on a case-by-case basis to universities, partners, and other 

interested parties to perform compatible, appropriate wildlife-related research and/or surveying. 

Research would continue to be encouraged to evaluate contaminant levels and their impacts on 

fish, wildlife, and plants. 
90 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Cultural resource protection efforts would continue, including a partnership with the TVA to conduct 

bank stabilization projects at Wheeler NWR. Efforts to increase cultural resource protection through 

education and inventories would be explored. To aid and promote refuge management programs, 

currently established partnerships with agencies, organizations, and individuals would continue. 

Additional partnerships would be welcomed. The volunteer program would continue and would likely 

grow as more individuals become interested in volunteering. Technical assistance for private land 

management would continue to be offered through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Efforts to expand the program would be explored. 

The general use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) would continue to be prohibited on all refuges in the 

Complex. Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs would continue to be closed at night and 

horseback riding would be prohibited on these refuges. New management activities, such as a 

comprehensive water sampling and monitoring program, would be developed and technologies such as 

global positioning systems (GPS) and geographic information systems (GIS) would be utilized to 

establish, document, and monitor conservation measures. A Complex-wide litter control program would 

be initiated. A large majority of Complex lands would be closed at night and select areas of high 

waterfowl and goose/cranes use on Wheeler NWR would have area closures extended from November 1 

to March 1, slightly reducing acreages for boat access and night bank fishing. However, all six improved 

boat launching facilities and several other designated night bank fishing areas would remain open at 

night. These actions would help reduce illegal activities and human disturbance to wildlife. 

Habitat management and maintenance programs for waterfowl impoundments, old field, cropland, 

grassland, and forests would be re-evaluated and step-down management plans would be developed 

or updated to meet the foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species, 

particularly migratory birds. Law enforcement (LE) activities to protect resources and provide visitor 

safety would be intensified. Additional LE officers would be required. A study to analyze the impacts 

of existing rights-of-way (ROW) on resources would be initiated and results would determine if current 

Complex policy concerning ROW and ROW easements should be altered. Coordination with local 

planning and zoning departments would be increased to help minimize encroachment. 

Under this plan, the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on first 

acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Based on recommendations from 

the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, the Wheeler Complex would explore 

methods to protect lands within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks close to Wheeler 

NWR, as well as lands within the Key Cave high risk water recharge zone close to Key Cave NWR. 

The Service would work with partners to explore various methods to protect these resources (e.g., 

through conservation easements, through technical assistance and advice from the Service to the 

landowner, and through other methods). [No Land Protection Plan would be developed as part of this 

CCP. However, if in the future Service acquisition of these lands was determined to be the most 

appropriate conservation measure, the Service would undertake all required planning activities (e.g., 

development of appropriate documents and involvement of interested and potentially affected parties, 

governmental agencies, and landowners in the process).] 

Hunting and fishing would continue with greater emphasis on increasing opportunities and enhancing 

the quality of the experience, including those for youth and disabled hunters/anglers. At Wheeler 

NWR, the number of hunting days for small game hunting would be increased within the state hunting 

season framework. Feral hogs would be hunted during both the large game and small game 

seasons. At Key Cave NWR, the hunting program would be evaluated annually. Results would 

dictate if the hunting program should be reduced, expanded, or remain the same. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction 

of three new visitor facilities (a photo blind, a wildlife observation tower, and an auto tour) and the 

maintenance of existing visitor facilities would continue as budgets allow. Environmental 

education and interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs 

with local schools and by constructing an environmental education center at Wheeler NWR. New 

informational brochures would be developed and published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern 

Cave NWRs and visitor access would be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. 

Administration plans would stress the need for increased maintenance of existing infrastructure 

and construction of new facilities. Funding for new construction projects would be balanced 

between habitat management and public use needs. An additional staff of 19 would be required 

to accomplish the goals of this alternative. 

VISION 

The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex will protect, manage, and, where appropriate, 

restore native systems of lands and waters to provide habitat for wildlife, fisheries, and plants 

within northern Alabama for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations of 

Americans. In addition, the Complex will seek partnerships that promote environmental 

stewardship on non-refuge lands, foster research opportunities to enhance resource management 

and restoration efforts in the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem, and protect historical 

and cultural resources of the Complex. When compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation will be provided, while promoting the public’s understanding of the 

purposes of refuges in the Wheeler Complex and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. 

 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, 

concerns, and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the 

public and are presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the 

projects associated with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; the vision of the Wheeler Complex; and the purposes of Wheeler, Key 

Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. With adequate resources as outlined in Chapter V, 

Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies 

within the 15-year life of the CCP. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be 

protected from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy the 

Refuge System long into the future. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife 

refuge, the uses must be found to be compatible. A compatible use is one that will not materially 

interfere with, or detract from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes 

of the refuge [§668ee (1) USC]. “Wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a 

refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety” [§668dd (d)(3)(A)(iii) 

USC]. See Appendix E for compatibility determinations. 
92 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Population Management. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore healthy 

and viable populations of migratory birds, resident wildlife, fish, and native plants, including all federal 

and state threatened and endangered species found within northern Alabama in a manner that 

supports national and international treaties, plans, and initiatives. 

Overview: The Wheeler Complex is home to a large variety of resident fish and wildlife species, 

including both Federal and State threatened and endangered species. In addition, a wide diversity of 

habitats provide feeding, resting, and loafing habitat for many species of migratory birds, more 

specifically wintering waterfowl. 

Objective 1.1. Migratory Waterfowl – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide conservation 

management to meet population goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) 

as stepped down through the Central Hardwoods Joint Venture (CHJV) and the Lower TennesseeCumberland Ecosystem Bird Management Plan (LTCEBMP). 

Discussion: Concern over waterfowl population declines in the 1980s resulted in the 

establishment of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), which focused the 

attention of Federal, State, and private conservation groups on critical wintering and breeding 

areas. Further efforts led to the creation of joint ventures such as the Lower Mississippi River 

Joint Venture Evaluation Plan (LMRJVEP) to step down goals and objectives to smaller scales. 

More recently, a Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Evaluation Plan (CHJVEP) was formed in 

2002 to develop goals and objectives for the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region 

(CHBCR). The CHBCR includes all of the refuges in this CCP. According to the CHJVEP, 

Wheeler NWR has been identified as an Important Bird Area. 

With the exception of the northern bobwhite (Dimmick et al., 2002), global population goals have 

yet to be stepped down to the level of bird conservation regions by the national and international 

bird initiatives. However, waterfowl population goals have been stepped down to the level of 

Joint Ventures and translated to acreage objectives in the past, but the North American 

population goals are currently under revision and have yet to be quantified for the Central 

Hardwoods region as a whole (NABCI 2003). 

For Wheeler NWR, guidelines for minimum duck-use-day objectives were determined by the 2003 

Biological Review Team using a series of step-down plans starting with the NAWMP population 

objectives. These objectives were further stepped down to the LTCEBMP by using procedures 

described in the LMRJVEP. Taking into account sanctuary requirements (in addition to foraging 

requirements), public land managers determined the potential for meeting objectives. Wheeler NWR 

was then allocated a minimum number of duck-use days based on past wintering waterfowl surveys 

and available habitat types. These population objectives were translated into minimum habitat 

objectives for bottomland hardwoods, moist soil, and unharvested crops. 

Results outlined in the 2003 Biological Review call for providing adequate foraging habitat to support 

about 53,000 ducks for 110 days and 29,200 Canada geese for 90 days in the three Alabama 

counties of Limestone, Madison, and Morgan that encompass Wheeler NWR. Since Wheeler NWR 

manages primarily for dabbling ducks, the foraging objectives key on this group. Canada goose 

goals are based on the average annual number of geese observed during the Midwinter Waterfowl 

Inventory (1985-89). In addition to Canada geese, foraging habitat is also needed to support 3,000 

snow geese and an anticipated population of 2,000 sandhill cranes bringing the total to 34,200 for 

large birds (geese and cranes). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

The 2003 Biological Review of the Wheeler Complex, as part of this comprehensive conservation 

planning process, identified specific strategies needed for Wheeler NWR to provide sufficient winter 

water, food, sanctuary, resting/loafing, and breeding areas to meet the habitat and population goals 

of the NAWMP as stepped down by the CHJVEP and the LTCEBMP. 

Strategies: 

y Participate in LTCE semi-annual meetings and conference calls. 

y Update the Wheeler NWR wildlife and habitat management step-down plans. 

y Review the LTCEBMP and implement goals and objectives into step-down plans. 

y Archive complete digital databases of all waterfowl surveys and habitat use on Wheeler NWR. 

y Analyze habitat conditions and waterfowl use to determine if preferred habitat conditions 

throughout the winter period exist on Wheeler NWR. 

y Review population objectives and compare with actual waterfowl use data annually on 

Wheeler NWR. 

y Complete an annual assessment on available forage amounts for both grain crops and moistsoil vegetation on Wheeler NWR. 

y Continue efforts to improve water management capabilities in the White Springs and 

Rockhouse/Buckeye dewatering units, as well as other potential waterfowl habitat sites on 

Wheeler NWR. 

y Maintain a GIS database of all wood duck box locations on Wheeler NWR. 

y Maintain a GIS database of all water control structures and water level gauges on Wheeler NWR. 

y Ensure continued operation of pumps at the White Springs and Rockhouse/Buckeye 

dewatering units via TVA cooperative agreements and ensure budget priority for annual 

operation and maintenance of the pumps and associated facilities on Wheeler NWR. 

y Continue to conduct bi-weekly waterfowl surveys on Wheeler NWR. 

y Develop a plan to create waterfowl sanctuary areas where human disturbance to waterfowl would 

be minimal during the critical wintering period (November 15 – March 1) on Wheeler NWR. 

y Continue using GPS to calculate acreages for crop shares at Key Cave and Wheeler NWRs. 

Objective 1.2. Migratory Waterfowl – Within five years of plan approval, protect a minimum of 2,000 

acres of habitat at Wheeler NWR so that disturbance to ducks, geese, and cranes from human 

activities would be minimal during the critical winter period (November 15 – March 1). 

Discussion: The establishing legislation for Wheeler NWR is “for use as an inviolate sanctuary 

for migratory birds.” Sanctuaries, areas designated for protection so that human disturbance is 

minimal, are necessary to reserve the habitat elements essential for waterfowl survival and to 

serve as reservoirs from which populations can be replenished. Sanctuaries also protect 

waterfowl from over-harvest (Munro 1964). Sanctuaries have long been considered an important 

part of waterfowl management (Bellrose 1954), although research on their role in maintaining 

populations has received limited attention. 

Excessive disturbance has been shown to reduce the fat storage and feeding success of greater 

snow geese (Feret et al., 2003) and increase energy expenditure by several species of migrating and 

wintering waterfowl (Havera et al., 1992, Kahl 1991). Undisturbed areas provide wintering waterfowl 

with food, cover, and water, and provide areas for pair bonding. Waterfowl in sanctuary areas can 

maintain vital fat reserves that they will need for long distance migration and is necessary for hens to 

produce eggs on the nesting grounds after long migrations. 
94 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Strategies: 

y Expand the closure of Crabtree Slough for boat access (November 15 – March 1). 

y Evaluate other areas on the refuge with high waterfowl use, such as White Springs, Penny 

Bottoms, Flint Creek Island, Rockhouse/Buckeye/Thorson Arm units, and Cain Slough for 

potential closures. 

y Post signs in appropriate areas of closure. 

y Use GIS and GPS technologies to determine possible locations for future closures. 

Objective 1.3. Migratory Waterfowl – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue efforts to document 

waterfowl use of the various habitats on Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: The Fish and Wildlife Service establishes hunting seasons and bag limits for waterfowl 

based on factors like species number, reproductive success, and survivorship. Various studies are 

conducted to learn more about waterfowl populations, including their movements. 

Wheeler NWR staff conducts bi-weekly winter waterfowl surveys each year. Numbers of ducks, 

geese, and cranes are recorded by water management unit. Staff also supports waterfowl population 

survey efforts by banding wood ducks. Migratory bird managers determine how many wood ducks of 

various age and sex classes must be banded on Wheeler NWR each year. Each summer, refuge 

staff commits time and resources to band wood ducks. This information is provided to the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s and/or U.S. Geological Survey’s migratory bird managers for further study. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct ground-based refuge-wide waterfowl surveys bi-weekly from October - March, and 

record species numbers by major units within the refuge and total numbers. 

y Participate in the official mid-winter waterfowl survey, working with the State to report data in 

accepted formats. 

y Monitor wood duck nest boxes regularly before, during, and after the breeding seasons. 

y Meet wood duck banding quotas during the July 1 - September 30 preseason banding period 

thereby contributing to the achievement of State, regional, and national flyway goals. 

y Work with the State to obtain assistance with aerial surveys and provide species numbers by 

major refuge units. 

y When conducting ground counting/inventories in addition to or in lieu of aerial surveys, 

describe the procedures and repeat using the same procedures for each count. 

Objective 1.4. Migratory Waterfowl – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide adequate moist-soil 

and agriculture habitats to meet the foraging needs of 53,000 ducks for 110 days and other habitats 

that are needed for loafing, roosting, and molting on Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: Although ducks will feed in fields, they much prefer to forage in shallow water. Unlike 

geese, many duck species will feed near or in cover where they can avoid aerial predators. At 

Wheeler NWR, corn, milo, and millet are left standing in areas that will flood in the fall and winter. 

These crops are left mainly in water impoundments not being managed for moist-soil vegetation. In 

the refuge impoundments that are managed for moist-soil vegetation, production is limited due to the 

lack of water supply and water level control. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Strategies: 

y Provide approximately 1,000 acres of flooded moist-soil habitat that averages 400 pounds of 

seed per acre. 

y Provide 5-10 acres of flooded habitat in at least one moist soil unit during the August-October 

period for early arriving ducks. 

y Provide a minimum of 114 acres of flooded, un-harvested corn, which averages at least 100 

bushels per acre or an equivalent amount of other grains. 

y Explore the possibility of providing cooperative farmers a larger share of upland grain in return 

for planting crops in lower sites that can be flooded. 

y Continue to flood about 1,400 acres of timber that provides good cover as well as mast and 

invertebrate food resources. 

y Consider alternating flooding years in areas where the refuge controls flooding and/or stagger 

the flooding period. 

y Improve water supply and control in White Springs and Rockhouse de-watering units. 

Objective 1.5 Nesting/Resident Waterfowl – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide nesting and 

brood rearing habitat (200 nest boxes) for wood ducks to support objectives of the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan at Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: Early in the 20th century, nesting cavities for wood ducks became scarce. Many land 

managers, including Wheeler NWR, began placing wood duck nest boxes in the appropriate habitat. 

Today, Wheeler NWR maintains about 226 boxes. These boxes are checked at least once each year 

to determine how many were used and the amount of reproduction that occurred. 

Strategies: 

y Provide nesting, brood-rearing, and feeding areas for wood ducks in key areas of the refuge. 

y Before the breeding season, inventory wood duck boxes for proper predator guards and 

nesting material, and repair as necessary. 

y Conduct at least one wood duck nest box check after the breeding season to ensure the box 

and predator guards are in good condition and to refresh nesting material. 

y Continue to flood about 1,400-acres of timber that provide good cover as well as mast and 

invertebrate food resources. 

y Do not harvest older trees that may form natural cavities. 

y Follow the publication entitled “Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: Guidelines for 

Management and Banding-USFWS Refuge Lands (Southeast Region)” (Division of Migratory 

Birds 2003) for nest box programs. 

y Reduce the number of wood duck boxes maintained from 226 to 200. 

Objective 1.6. Migratory Geese/Cranes – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide adequate corn and 

wheat browse to meet the needs of a maximum of 34,200 birds, including 24,200 Canada geese, 

3,000 snow geese, and 2,000 sandhill cranes for 90 days on Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: Geese require a high-energy food source such as corn, but will also feed on green plants 

such as winter wheat. Corn must be located in the middle of relatively large (depending on shape, 

about 20 acres or larger), open fields because geese are wary of predators that may be lurking in 

hedgerows, woodlands, and other types of cover. In addition, winter wheat is planted by either the 

Wheeler NWR staff or the cooperative farmers each year in areas that need to be supplemented. 
96 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Strategies: 

y Provide 130 acres of unharvested corn that averages at least 100 bushels/acre in traditional 

goose use areas. 

y Provide approximately 300 acres of winter wheat browse in traditional goose use areas. 

y Keep habitats open in traditional goose use areas. 

y Reevaluate the foraging needs of geese and cranes every five years. Once migratory Canada 

geese peak populations have remained below 5,000 for 10-15 consecutive years, adjustments 

to the foraging needs for Canada geese should be considered. 

y Increase the use of contract or force account farming in the next 5-10 years. 

Objective 1.7. Colonial Waterbirds (including the bald eagle and osprey) – Within five years of plan 

approval, increase waterbird management capabilities and monitoring efforts on Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: In the past, several colonial waterbird rookeries were present on Wheeler NWR. 

However, about 55 years ago they disappeared. In 2002, one great blue heron rookery (with four 

nests) was discovered in the Blackwell Swamp area. In 2006, great egrets used this same rookery to 

nest. No other rookeries have been documented on the refuge. 

Water impoundments, wetlands, and backwater areas located on Wheeler NWR provide foraging 

habitat for wading birds. Thousands of wading birds gather to feed in the spring and summer 

months, especially during water drawdown in the impoundments. 

There are potential long-term effects of the previous DDT production at Redstone Arsenal on colonial 

nesting waterbirds, bald eagles, osprey, and colonial nesting long-legged waders. Breeding has not 

recovered in these species/groups since the 1950s. There also may be exposure to non-breeding 

populations from elsewhere. 

Strategies: 

y Designate one refuge impoundment that would be managed for colonial waterbirds. 

y Increase the monitoring of colonial waterbirds by conducting monthly surveys. 

y Conduct studies to determine why colonial waterbirds no longer nest in large numbers 

downstream of Redstone Arsenal and along the Tennessee River. 

y Investigate the role that continued presence of DDT and breakdown products may be playing 

on the present status of fish-eating species within Wheeler NWR relative to sites upstream of 

Redstone Arsenal. 

Objective 1.8. Marsh Birds (including Wilson’s Snipe) – Within five years of plan approval, investigate 

the potential importance of the Wheeler Complex for supporting priority marsh bird species. 

Discussion: During the last several decades, overall loss of freshwater emergent wetlands has 

increased due to development pressures. King rail, least bittern, pied-billed grebe, American coot, 

and purple gallinule are species in decline locally and/or regionally due to the loss of freshwater 

emergent wetlands. Most of the potential marshbird habitats on Wheeler NWR do not support tall 

emergent vegetation. Current management practices, limited staffing, and less than optimum water 

control does not allow managers to effectively provide this type of habitat. However, with 

improvements to Wheeler’s water management system, the necessary management attention to 

address the habitat needs of marshbirds could be achieved. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Wheeler Refuge would be a good location to support habitat for marsh bird species, in conjunction 

with waterfowl objectives. Studies are needed to determine species composition and abundance on 

the refuge and if other habitats on the refuge support breeding marsh bird populations. The White 

Springs Dewatering Unit may serve as a candidate for managing focus species, including potential 

breeders, such as king rail and least bittern and transient species, such as yellow and Virginia rails, 

sora, and LeConte’s sparrow. 

Strategies: 

y Designate one refuge impoundment at Wheeler NWR that would be managed for marsh birds. 

y Increase monitoring of marsh birds by conducting monthly surveys. 

y Institute marsh bird surveys in the White Springs Dewatering Unit of Wheeler NWR. 

y Locate any additional permanent marsh on Wheeler NWR with taller vegetation and determine 

the presence of king rail and least bittern during the breeding season. 

y Work with the partners to initiate research into marsh bird use of different habitat types on 

Wheeler NWR. 

Objective 1.9. Shorebirds (including the American Woodcock) – Within three years of plan approval, 

increase shorebird management capabilities and monitoring efforts. 

Discussion: Shorebirds currently forage on mud flats and in moist-soil areas on Wheeler NWR. 

Although limited, opportunities do exist for managing shorebirds in waterfowl impoundments and in 

fallow crop fields. Providing suitable conditions would include disking dead vegetation and 

conducting a detailed schedule of water level manipulations. Water level management would have to 

be improved in order to accomplish this objective. 

The American woodcock is a migratory game bird that occurs throughout the forested portions of the 

eastern United States. Woodcock populations have declined in this region for the past 40 years. 

Population declines are thought to be the result of land use changes associated with land conversion 

and the maturing of forest habitats. 

In 1990, the American Woodcock Management Plan was completed, setting an objective to protect 

and enhance wintering and migration habitat on public lands. The plan also set objectives to 

inventory and monitor woodcock habitat and develop management demonstration areas; however, 

objectives have not been stepped down to states or to individual refuges. 

Strategies: 

y Designate one refuge impoundment at Wheeler NWR that would be managed for shorebirds. 

y In concert with Swan Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA), increase monitoring of 

shorebirds by conducting monthly surveys under guidelines established by the International 

Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocols during the birds' northbound (mid-March to late-May) and 

southbound migration (early-July to late-October) periods. 

y Implement survey protocols for the American woodcock during migration and winter to 

determine the level of occurrence on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

y Conduct woodcock winter surveys to ascertain its occurrence on Wheeler and Key Cave 

NWRs and nocturnal use of select fields. 

y Initiate an American Woodcock Management Study on Complex lands. 
98 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Objective 1.10. Forest Breeding Birds – Within eight years of plan approval, determine the status of 

forest breeding landbirds at Wheeler NWR and take necessary actions to improve their status via 

habitat management. 

Discussion: Forested habitats on Wheeler NWR are predominantly bottomland hardwoods consisting 

of intermediate and early successional stages. In general, forest breeding landbird issues include: 

defining forest conditions; addressing structural issues, including development of native understory 

regeneration and growth; retaining the largest trees; reducing forest fragmentation; and replacing 

Chinese privet with switchcane and/or other native understory. 

Strategies: 

y Establish point counts in various sized forest patches to sample bird species presence by the 

spring of 2009. 

y Establish six to 10 point counts in 6 forested blocks 1,000-acres, and six to 10 point counts in 

6 forested blocks 1,000-acres. 

y Determine if any relationships exist among species or species groups for increasing forest 

patch size. 

y Determine any relationships among priority species with habitat characteristics that could be 

managed for in experimental sites. 

y Develop a closer working relationship with Redstone Arsenal's Directorate of Public WorksEnvironmental Division's Department of Natural and Cultural Resources to compare bird use 

of forest blocks larger than those found on Wheeler NWR. 

y Establish breeding bird surveys or Monitoring Avian Production and Survival (MAPS) in at 

least one large and one small forest block and determine reproductive success or measures 

of post-breeding survival. 

Objective 1.11. Forest Wintering Landbirds – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue to contribute 

to the regional understanding of forest wintering landbird status and trends in the southeast. 

Discussion: Forest wintering landbirds are likely to benefit from the same forest management techniques 

proposed above for forest breeding species, such as development of larger forest blocks; improvement of 

understory growth; and development of a more complex forest structure. One of the forest breeding 

species of concern that could benefit from population trend analysis is the rusty blackbird. 

Strategies: 

y Determine rusty blackbird population trends (birds per party hour) based on Wheeler NWR 

Check Christmas Bird Count (CBC) data. 

y If negative trends are detected based on CBC data, determine rusty blackbird foraging and 

roosting use of Wheeler NWR. 

Objective 1.12. Forest Transient Landbirds – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue to contribute 

to the regional understanding of forest transient landbird status and trends in the southeast. 

Discussion: Wheeler NWR's forest resources support transient landbirds when they pass through 

during migration. These birds should benefit from a more diverse forest structure over time. Even 

smaller patches would contribute to these species. There appear to be opportunities to conduct 

migration surveys at Wheeler NWR with volunteer birders. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Strategies: 

y Establish at least one migration survey transect on Wheeler NWR following protocols used by 

Gulf Coast Bird Observatory. Priority sites include Dancy Bottoms Nature Trail and a second 

site along a road (HGH) in the Blackwell-Buckeye area. 

y Determine any relationships among species for increasing forest patch size. 

Objective 1.13. Grassland Landbirds – Within eight years of plan approval, increase management 

efforts for grassland dependent landbird species on Key Cave and Wheeler NWRs. 

Discussion: Grassland birds were historically found in vast numbers across North America. Today, 

these birds have shown steeper, more consistent, and more geographically widespread declines than 

any other group of North American species. These losses are a direct result of the declining quantity 

and quality of habitat due to human activities, such as conversion of native prairie to agriculture, 

urban development, and suppression of naturally occurring fire. Opportunities exist at Key Cave and 

Wheeler NWR to increase management for these bird species. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct surveys to determine the trends in grassland dependent bird species populations at 

Key Cave NWR, including a survey for Henslow’s sparrow. 

y Maintain unused farmland at Wheeler NWR in grassland/old field conditions, requiring periodic 

disturbance, until decisions are made on whether these lands will be permanently retired from 

the farming program. 

y Conduct point counts or transects to survey grassland breeding birds on Key Cave NWR. 

y Consider softer, feather edges (i.e., edges with various sized layers of vegetation, starting with 

large trees and ending in small grasses and forbs) around farm fields followed by native warm 

season grasses and forests at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

y Develop small patches of native grasslands from retired unused farm fields at Wheeler NWR. 

y Conduct prescribed burning operations at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

y Continue conducting northern bobwhite covey call counts on Key Cave NWR. 

y Continue the July 1-15 northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, and dickcissel call count 

surveys at Key Cave NWR. 

y Correlate survey data with habitat restoration activities to measure bird response to 

management practices at Key Cave NWR. 

Objective 1.14. Scrub-shrub Landbirds – Within eight years of plan approval increase management 

efforts for scrub-shrub landbird species. 

Discussion: Scrub-shrub species group have also been affected by loss of habitat. Opportunities 

exist at the Wheeler Complex to increase management for these bird species on Key Cave and 

Wheeler NWRs. 

Strategies: 

y Create softer, feather edges (i.e., edges with various sized layers of vegetation, starting with 

large trees and ending in small grasses and forbs) around farm fields at Wheeler and Key 

Cave NWRs. 

y Conduct surveys and point counts to determine the trends in scrub-shrub bird species 

populations at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 
100 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Maintain unused farmland at Wheeler NWR in various earlier successional conditions, 

requiring periodic disturbance. 

y Establish point counts and/or transects to monitor breeding and wintering bird use over time 

on early successional sites at Wheeler NWR. 

y Cut edges into existing forest to increase light or move edges into farm fields to increase 

perennial/annual/scrub-shrub cover at Key Cave and Wheeler NWRs. 

y Develop large tracts of old field habitat from retired unused farm fields at Wheeler NWR. 

y Conduct periodic prescribed burning operations at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

Objective 1.15. Other Bird Management Issues – Over the 15-year life of the plan, address other 

special bird-related issues on Complex lands as needed to support Service goals. 

Discussion: Specific bird management issues not considered in other categories or considered in 

other objectives will arise periodically. Examples of these issues include the 2006 discovery of 

nesting bald eagles on Wheeler NWR; the potential for natural establishment of double-crested 

cormorant nesting areas; the effects of mosquito control on birds; and the effects of communication 

towers on birds. 

Strategies: 

y Implement Southeast Regional Bald Eagle Management Guidelines, or the most recent 

update, on any Bald Eagle nest found on Complex lands. 

y Monitor the reproduction of cormorants. 

y Attempt to determine the affects of mosquito control on birds. 

y Consider the impacts of communication towers on birds. 

Objective 1.16. Game Species – Within eight years of plan approval, increase efforts at Wheeler 

NWR for conducting white-tailed deer health checks and population studies. 

Discussion: Wheeler Complex supports a variety of habitats typical of the Tennessee River Valley 

and, consequently, hosts the full range of wildlife game species common to the area, such as whitetailed deer. Sound habitat management allows the Complex to maintain or increase population levels 

of game species. Population monitoring and a number of control measures can be implemented to 

provide recreational opportunities and maintain wildlife populations at or slightly below carrying 

capacity (the population level that can be sustained over the long term by the available habitat). 

White-tailed deer are abundant on Wheeler NWR. Based on general observations and harvest data, 

deer numbers appear to be approaching carrying capacity. The deer population needs to continue to 

be monitored in conjunction with harvest so deer do not become overpopulated on the refuge. With 

no predators controlling deer population levels, hunting will continue to be a preferred method to 

control the deer population, while providing a compatible recreational hunting opportunity. Continued 

monitoring in conjunction with harvest is important to prevent overpopulation. 

Overpopulation of deer can lead to the damage of seedlings, especially oaks, which can impede 

regeneration success in the bottomland hardwood areas of the refuge. Overgrazing can lead and 

contribute to changes in species composition, which, in turn, can result in negative effects on other 

plant and animal species (Cote et al., 2004). Damage to surrounding landowner property can also 

occur if deer populations rise above the carrying capacity. A firm understanding of population size 

and strong management decisions based on annual survey information prevents these negative 

effects, while sustaining a viable population to satisfy the needs of the public. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

White-tailed deer are currently monitored at Wheeler NWR through data collected through herd health 

checks every five years by the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), which is 

based in Athens, Georgia. State wildlife agencies from 15 southern states and the U.S. Geological 

Survey, Biological Resources Division, fund the SCWDS. The SCWDS is also supported by 

Veterinary Services of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), for consultation and surveillance on a national and international basis where 

diseases may interact among wildlife, domestic livestock, and poultry. The last deer herd health 

check conducted at Wheeler NWR was in 2002. 

Strategies: 

y In conjunction with State partners, integrate key resident species population objectives into 

habitat management plans. 

y Utilize hunting as a tool to manage wildlife populations when it is compatible with other refuge 

purposes and activities. 

y Maintain a stable deer population through a program of either-sex hunting. 

y Aim for removal of approximately one-third to one-half of the herd annually with a 1:1 harvest 

ratio of the sexes. 

y Evaluate deer populations and adjust hunting programs as needed. 

y Work with adjacent landowners to manage deer populations for the benefit of deer populations 

on and off of the refuge. 

y Construct a self-service deer weigh-in and health check station to acquire more accurate data. 

y In conjunction with State partners, analyze deer harvest data to monitor the health and density 

of the deer population at Wheeler NWR. 

y Conduct herd health checks every 5-7 years and monitor habitat conditions to determine the 

health and population of deer at Wheeler NWR. 

Objective 1.17. Amphibians and Reptiles – Within five years of plan approval increase management 

for improving populations of amphibians and reptiles on Complex lands. 

Discussion: Amphibians and reptiles are an important component of the overall biological diversity of 

the Wheeler Complex and are declining worldwide. A variety of hypotheses for this decline have 

been suggested. Some possible reasons for declines in the vicinity of the Complex include predation 

by fire ants (especially ground dwelling and breeding species), loss of the ground layer (dead and 

down woody material), and contaminant impacts. Methods to monitor, survey, and inventory 

amphibians and reptiles must be addressed. In addition, ways to increase habitat for amphibians and 

reptiles must be evaluated. 

Strategies: 

y Prepare a Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan by 2008, which includes inventorying, 

monitoring, habitat utilization, and standardized data collection procedures for amphibians and 

reptiles. 

y Use a variety of methods to inventory amphibians and reptiles and determine population 

trends of selected species or species groups. 

y Determine an effective method(s) for long-term monitoring of selected species or species 

groups so population trends can be determined. Include karst species and the American 

alligator. 

y Prepare a Habitat Management Plan by 2008 for each refuge in the Complex, which identifies 

and protects essential habitat for amphibians and reptiles. 
102 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Manage specific forested areas on longer rotations to create habitat for species adapted to 

these areas. 

y Create and conserve downed woody material in refuge forests. 

y Review the National Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC) Habitat 

Management Guidelines for Amphibian and Reptiles of the Southeastern United States and 

the proceedings of the Second Alabama Non-game Conference for species-of-concern and 

focus on refuge sites potentially harboring those species. 

y Assist with national efforts to monitor anurans via calling surveys. 

y Determine factors that may be influencing the amphibian and reptile population status on the 

Wheeler NWR (e.g., chemicals or habitat loss). 

y As needed, assist with abnormal amphibian and reptile studies. 

y Develop methods to monitor the effects of firewood cutting on amphibian and reptile 

populations. 

Objective 1.18. Fisheries and Other Aquatic Species – Over the 15-year life of the plan, maintain and 

improve the management of fisheries resources at Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: Wheeler NWR has limited ability to manage the fishery resources in the Wheeler 

Reservoir and much work is already being accomplished by both Federal and State partners. 

Water levels are controlled by TVA, which limits management. Information from partners can be 

utilized to construct a species list and determine which further studies are needed. Opportunities 

for fish management are generally limited to population monitoring. There has not been a priority 

for the refuge to construct separate impoundments for fisheries management; however, a small 

pond for holding children’s fishing events and similar public use activities was constructed in 1999 

near the Visitor Center. 

Strategies: 

y Survey non-game fish in waters within Wheeler NWR and update the species list of all fish 

found within refuge waters. 

y Update the 1984 Fishery Management Plan. 

y Consider managing for year-round water in selected impoundments to improve the fishery 

resource in these areas. 

y Improve ingress and egress of fish during management of water levels in selected refuge 

impoundments. 

y When possible, improve protection measures for streams (increase the width of vegetative 

buffers along streams) and restore any degraded streams. 

y Work with partners to create additional habitat for fish in areas such as Flint Creek and 

Limestone Bay. 

y Cooperate with partners to participate in fish management studies. 

Objective 1.19. State and/or Federal Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species – Over the 

15-year life of the plan, protect, inventory, monitor, and conserve imperiled terrestrial and aquatic species. 

Discussion: The Wheeler Complex supports a variety of valuable habitats that are home to both 

Federal and State threatened, endangered, and species of special concern. The Complex should 

conserve these species and their habitats and, where possible, create the habitat they need per 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act as amended, pertinent Federal and State regulations, 

and Service policies. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Strategies: 

y Contract with the Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) to survey and classify unique 

terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the Complex and the rare species that are present or may 

be present in these habitats. 

y Determine ownership of subsurface waters in caves and the level of protection afforded by 

laws and regulations. 

y Consider special designations at Wheeler NWR to create/simulate old growth forest, while 

carefully considering the designation criteria’s constraints on management. 

y In cooperation with partners, continue to inventory and monitor rare species found in karst 

habitats. Expand this effort to include invertebrates, such as a new species of cave shrimp 

being discovered in nearby caves. 

y Search for Rafinesque’s big-eared bat within appropriate habitat. 

y Monitor the population of Price’s potato-bean at Sauta Cave NWR. 

y Monitor the population of American Harts-tongue fern at Fern Cave NWR. 

y Consult with Ecological Services (ES) before any spraying occurs for control of West Nile virus 

vectors. If spraying occurs, attempt to determine if it has an adverse affect on listed bats. 

y Assist the ADCNR when it surveys the area for Allegheny (New England) cottontail rabbits. 

y Continue to partner with malacologists from the ADCNR, TVA, and the Service to monitor and 

conserve mussels and snails in the creeks, rivers, and streams. 

y Work with partners to survey habitat on the north side of Wheeler NWR to determine 

presence/absence of the eastern hellbender to include habitat immediately north of the refuge. 

y If hellbenders are located on Wheeler NWR, review the literature to determine ways to 

conserve and improve the habitat. 

y If hellbenders are found north of Wheeler NWR, explore ways to conserve their habitat via 

private lands initiatives, conservation easements, and similar methods. 

y Use existing private lands initiatives and explore new ones for riparian habitat protection and 

other efforts to protect creeks where listed or imperiled species are found. 

y Apply for ecosystem flex funds to help conserve and protect areas such as Piney and 

Limestone Creeks. 

y Explore other initiatives for protection of these lands, such as Forever Wild and land trusts. 

y Work with NRCS to provide riparian buffers and restore riparian habitats through incentive 

programs, such as Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). 

y Support ADCNR and TVA’s efforts to transplant Anthony’s riversnail into Piney Creek, by 

using individuals from Limestone Creek. 

y Support research to re-introduce the Rough pigtoe pearly mussel into its historic range. 

y Develop educational materials about mussel species. 

y Encourage establishment of protective water quality designations, stream buffer zones, and 

other habitat protection strategies. 

y Determine threats, support research on measures needed to decrease these threats, and 

implement these measures where needed. 

y Investigate habitat improvement needs and techniques to identify sites for habitat 

improvements for supporting Anthony’s riversnail and the pink mucket (pearly mussel). 

Objective 1.20, State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Over 

the 15-year life of the plan, contribute to the stabilization and/or increase of gray bat populations 

found within Key Cave. 
104 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Discussion: Key Cave is a priority one maternity cave for the endangered gray bat. Gray bat emergence 

counts are conducted annually and have averaged 33,400 gray bats since inception of the refuge in 1997. 

Approximately 12,000 to 13,000 young gray bats are produced annually by this maternity colony. It 

should be noted that TVA owns a portion of this cave, including the cave entrance. 

Strategies: 

y Expand the existing partnership with TVA to implement State and Federal recovery plans for 

the gray bat. 

y Establish a partnership with ADCNR, TNC, and other partners to implement State and Federal 

recovery plans for the gray bat. 

y Continue the annual monitoring program consisting of emergence and juvenile/maternity 

colony counts presently conducted by the ADCNR. 

y Establish and implement a water quality monitoring program for Key Cave NWR. 

y Ensure that a buffer of undisturbed vegetation is maintained around cave entrances. 

y Protect wooded travel corridors between roosting and foraging sites. 

y Prevent disturbance to important roost habitat (pertinent sub-tasks include prevent entry, 

install warning and information signs, conduct education activities, monitor roost sites to 

determine if management is effective, and conduct monitoring by law enforcement). 

y If pesticide poisoning is suspected, periodically sample insects in foraging areas, guano in summer 

caves, and bats. Trace source of any pesticides discovered and take corrective action(s). 

Objective 1.21. State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Within 

two years of plan implementation, develop a protection plan to increase conservation efforts for the 

Alabama cavefish found within Key Cave. 

Discussion: Key Cave is the only known location of the Alabama cavefish, which inhabits the 

underground pools in Key Cave. Current efforts to monitor the cavefish are limited. 

Strategies: 

y Support research that would develop suitable survey methodology, possibly using remote 

sensing techniques, to conduct an Alabama cavefish survey. 

y Continue to restrict access into the cave. 

y Establish a water quality monitoring program for Key Cave NWR. 

y Review results from the water sampling study that was initiated in 2001. 

y In cooperation with partners such as TNC, NRCS, and the Lauderdale County Soil and Water 

Conservation District to protect the recharge area, including addressing options outside of the 

current acquisition boundary. 

y Work with private landowners and other interested partners to establish buffers around 

sinkholes. 

Objective 1.22. State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Over 

the 15-year life of the plan, contribute to the stabilization and/or increase of gray and Indiana bat 

populations found within Sauta Cave. 

Discussion: Sauta Cave provides a summer roosting site for about 250,000-400,000 gray bats and a 

winter hibernaculum for both Indiana and gray bats. The site was a major maternity colony for gray 

bats, but recent evidence indicates that the colony may be mainly bachelor males. However, a new 

maternity site with about 4,000-5,000 young was discovered in 2003. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

Strategies: 

y Establish a partnership with the ADCNR, TNC, and other partners to implement State and 

Federal recovery plans for Indiana and gray bats. 

y Establish and implement a water quality monitoring program for Sauta Cave NWR. 

y Expand the search to other parts of the cave during monitoring of hibernating Indiana bats. 

y Ensure that a buffer of undisturbed vegetation is maintained around cave entrances. 

y Protect wooded travel corridors between roosting and foraging sites. 

y Prevent disturbance to important roost habitat. Pertinent sub-tasks include prevent entry, 

install warning and information signs, conduct education activities, monitor roost sites to 

determine if management is effective, and conduct monitoring by law enforcement. 

y Conserve water quality; conserve forest cover; perform research on effects of environmental 

disturbances, including that on prey species; and identify foraging areas for maternal caves. 

y Monitor population trends. Census Priority 1 maternity colonies annually. If pesticide 

poisoning is suspected, periodically sample insects in foraging areas, guano in summer 

caves, and bats. Trace source of any pesticides discovered and take corrective action(s). 

Objective 1.23. State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Within 

two years of plan implementation, develop a protection plan to increase the conservation of Price’s 

potato-bean at Sauta Cave NWR. 

Discussion: The threatened Price’s potato-bean grows in forest openings in mixed hardwood stands 

where ravine slopes grade into creek or stream bottoms. Currently, Sauta Cave NWR has a very healthy 

population of the species; however, recovery efforts and conservation measures must continue. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct yearly surveys to monitor the status of Price’s potato-bean. 

y Consult with Ecological Services (ES) regarding Price’s potato-bean management issues. 

y Since this species tends to utilize open, disturbed habitats, support a series of forest thinning 

studies to evaluate the response of the species to different management techniques. 

y Use GIS and GPS technologies to document and record the location of the population's 

boundary. 

y Use remote sensing techniques to located potential sites for expanding the population. 

y Develop an informational brochure to educate the public; have them available at the Wheeler 

Visitor Center. 

Objective 1.24. State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Over 

the 15-year life of the plan, contribute to the stabilization and/or increase of gray and Indiana bat 

populations found within Fern Cave. 

Discussion: Fern Cave contains the largest wintering colony of gray bats in the United States, with some 

estimates indicating over one million bats hibernating there. Bat experts also think that as many as one 

million Indiana bats may be using the cave. However, this hypothesis has not been proven. 

Strategies: 

y Establish a partnership with ADCNR, TNC, and other partners to implement State and Federal 

recovery plans for the gray bat. 

y Monitor populations of bats once every five years. 
106 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Establish and implement a water quality monitoring program for Fern Cave NWR. 

y Use current Service policies and procedures to explore methods to ensure conservation of 

Surprise Pit, the fifth entrance to Fern Cave and Little Gnat Cave, which is about 1/4-mile from 

the Morgue entrance to Fern Cave. These methods might include conservation easements, 

agreements, technical assistance, and land acquisition. 

y Ensure that a buffer of undisturbed vegetation is maintained around cave entrances. 

y Maintain current Service policies and procedures for issuing special use permits for 

conducting research in the cave system. 

Objective 1.25. State and/or Federal Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species – Within 

two years of plan implementation, develop a protection plan to increase conservation of the American 

Hart’s-tongue fern at Fern Cave NWR. 

Discussion: In the past, the threatened American Hart’s-tongue fern has been found on Fern Cave 

NWR. In fact, Fern Cave NWR gets its name from this rare plant. Two decades ago, 20 plants were 

documented on the refuge; however, the most recent survey was not able to find any plants. The 

disappearances of the plants are likely the result of unscrupulous plant collectors. The plant may still 

be present in the form of spores in the soil and may produce plants in future years. Past attempts to 

propagate this plant have failed. 

Strategies: 

y Support research on the propagation of the American Hart’s-tongue fern. 

y Restrict access into the Morgue Pit. 

y Consult Ecological Services (ES) regarding American Hart’s-tongue fern management issues. 

y Conduct yearly surveys to monitor the status of the American Hart’s-tongue fern. 

y Develop an informational brochure to educate the public; have them available at the Wheeler 

Visitor Center. 

y Increase law enforcement (LE) patrols. 

y Continue efforts to acquire lands within the approved acquisition boundary of Fern Cave 

NWR. 

 

Objective 1.26. Exotic/Invasive/Nuisance Animals – Within 10 years of plan implementation, remove 

65 percent of the invasive and nuisance animals from Wheeler Complex lands and waters. 

Discussion: A basic tenant of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is management 

for biological diversity and integrity. The Wheeler Complex has several documented native and nonnative invasive/exotic/nuisance animal species and free-roaming domestic and feral animals. These 

species impact the Complex’s ability to carry out desired management objectives to varying degrees. 

The Complex should be extremely concerned with the presence of feral hogs. Studies have shown 

that an adult feral hog will consume 160 pounds of hard mast, such as acorns, during a single winter 

(Yarrow 1987). In areas like Wheeler NWR, where the major habitat type is bottomland hardwoods 

and its associated hard mast production, feral hogs will be efficient competitors with native wildlife, 

including deer, turkey, quail, squirrels and waterfowl, for available hard mast resources. In addition to 

being a host of various diseases, such as swine brucellosis, feral hogs cause enormous structural 

damage to levees and roadways by rooting large holes while feeding on grasses, roots, and stems. 

The feral hog population on the Complex should be curtailed by any means possible; such control is 

both practical and attainable. 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

Strategies: 

y Conduct a Complex-wide inventory that identifies problem species. 

y Develop a detailed list of invasive/exotic/nuisance animals and prioritize for control efforts. 

y Update the Pest Control Plan delineating authorized methods and personnel to control pests. 

y Evaluate use of staff, public, or contractors in reducing populations. 

y Utilize municipal animal control agencies and public education tools to combat free-roaming 

household pets. 

y Reduce the feral hog population on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs by allowing removal 

activities to be conducted by refuge staff, refuge volunteers, and/or under contract. 

y Reduce the feral hog population on Wheeler NWR by expanding the current hunting program 

to allow feral hogs to be hunted during all established refuge hunting seasons. 

y Increase efforts to control the population of resident Canada geese. 

y Increase beaver control on Wheeler NWR by expanding the current contract with USDAAPHIS, Wildlife Services. 

y Work with adjacent landowners at Wheeler NWR to participate in control efforts, especially for 

feral dogs and cats. 

y Research and monitor nuisance animal response to control efforts. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal 2. Conduct Habitat Restoration and Management. Protect, maintain, enhance, and restore optimum 

habitat for the conservation and healthy management of migratory birds, resident wildlife, fish, and native 

plants, including all Federal and State threatened and endangered species found within northern Alabama 

in a manner that supports national and international treaties, plans, and initiatives. 

Overview: Wheeler Complex has an active land management program that is designed to provide 

habitat for a diversity of wildlife. Land management activities are implemented to provide food, cover, 

and shelter for wildlife throughout the year. Most of Wheeler Complex’s wildlife and habitat 

management programs are funded for supporting wintering waterfowl (impoundment and agricultural 

cropland management). However, the Complex is also involved with several other wildlife and habitat 

management programs. These programs include old field management; grassland management; 

forest management; and invasive, exotic, and nuisance plant species control. 

Objective 2.1. Impoundments and Shallow Water Areas (SWAs) (including moist soil) – Over the 15-

year life of the plan, continue efforts to improve and refine the management of impoundments and 

SWAs on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

Discussion: Impoundments and shallow water areas (SWAs) are important habitats that provide food 

and resting areas for waterfowl and other wildlife. To be effective, excellent water level management 

is required. This task is accomplished two ways on Wheeler NWR. The first method is to leave water 

on an impoundment year-round to promote the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation. The second 

method is by conducting moist-soil management, which includes timely dewatering activities. 

The refuge has several crucial impoundments that require dewatering to achieve moist-soil habitats. 

Water levels in these impoundments are operated in concert with the TVA. Continued operation and 

maintenance of such sites are crucial to successful waterfowl management. In addition, 16 acres of 

potential water impoundment habitat are currently located on Key Cave NWR. However, these SWAs 

do not currently hold water. Restoration efforts are needed to improve their water holding capacities. 
108 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Strategies: 

y Conduct moist-soil plant composition surveys to assist in determining if or when moist-soil 

units should be disked. Normally, most moist-soil units will need to be shallow-disked every 

three to five years. 

y Develop a rotational management scheme for soil disturbance activities to keep moist-soil 

areas in an early successional stage. 

y Do not dewater moist-soil units at the same time. 

y Stagger water removal throughout the late spring and summer. 

y Precede mowing by conducting plant composition surveys. 

y Place water level gauges in all impoundments to correlate water levels with management 

practices and plant responses. 

y Record all manipulation activities by date for each unit. 

y Record all activities in water impoundments. 

y Ensure continued operation of pumps at the White Springs and Rockhouse Impoundments via 

TVA cooperative agreements and ensure budget priority for annual operation and 

maintenance of the pumps and associated facilities. 

y Initiate intensive water control and record water depth conditions at time of drawdown and at 

least twice/month during growth in spring/summer. 

y In late summer or early fall, sample moist-soil impoundment plant communities to determine, 

at a minimum, the percent of poor, fair, and good waterfowl foods available in each 

impoundment. 

y Prepare a Water Management Plan for each impoundment. 

y Explore the use of bentonite clay to seal the underlying soil for the shallow water areas at Key 

Cave NWR to improve their water holding capacities. 

y Continue efforts to control alligator weed. 

y Retain some beaver ponds in sites where they will not detract from other management or 

damage adjacent property. 

Objective 2.2. Agricultural Cropland – Over the 15-year life of the plan, utilize a well-managed farming 

program to provide food, cover, and resting areas for waterfowl and other wildlife on Wheeler and 

Key Cave NWRs. 

Discussion: Farming is an integral part of the Complex’s habitat management program, providing 

food, browse, cover, and resting areas for waterfowl and other wildlife. Cooperative farming has 

been used for more than 50 years to meet these goals. Currently, Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs 

have active cooperative farming programs with seven farmers at Wheeler and one at Key Cave 

participating for the primary purpose of providing food and other needed habitats for waterfowl 

and other wildlife. Crops, such as corn, milo, millet, and wheat (green browse), supplement 

natural foods. Corn is the preferred crop chosen for Complex shares, although millet is planted in 

areas too wet for corn production. 

Currently, the Complex share is 18 percent of the corn and soybean crop. The Complex does not 

take soybeans as shares, so the soybean acreage is converted to corn shares. The Complex share 

for winter wheat is currently 20 percent. Over the last five years, an average of about 4,000 acres 

has been planted annually, including some acreage by force account (using Complex staff and 

equipment). Force account farming has been limited to the planting of winter wheat in harvested corn 

fields for green browse and planting of millet. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

As Canada geese populations have declined from an average of 35,000 in the late 1980s to current 

averages below 5,000, the need for a large farming program at Wheeler NWR has somewhat 

diminished. The recognized needs of neotropical migratory birds necessitate the evaluation of 

converting some of the cropland to wooded habitat. It has been estimated that 300 acres of corn, 

300 acres of wheat, and 2,500 acres of moist soil is required to meet the needs of a maximum of 

34,200 geese and cranes and 53,000 ducks. This estimate should be re-evaluated every five years. 

The use of cooperative farming requires approximately five times the above corn acreage (1,500 

acres) to provide 18 percent to the refuge and 82 percent to the farmer. To allow for crop rotation, 

the cooperative farming program requires twice the corn acreage (3,000 acres). However, more corn 

and corn acreage may be required to fulfill these goals as the refuge refines acreages available for 

production of good moist-soil plants. Additional farming acreage will be needed in wet years when 

millet has to be planted instead of corn, since millet supports fewer ducks. 

To provide for years when more millet needs to be planted, and if more hot foods must be planted due to 

lack of good moist-soil acreage, few croplands can be converted to other habitat types. Therefore, it has 

been recommended by the Biological Review Team that contract farming be investigated as a long-term 

(five or more years) solution. Less cropland would be needed, since 100 percent would be left as food 

instead of 18 percent using cooperative farming. The major constraint for this approach would be the 

cost. The refuge would also have to plant 300 acres of green browse. The advantages would be less 

chemical use, reduced row-cropping, increased acres converted to other types of habitat, and improved 

soil conservation and water quality. 

Another option would be to plant these 300 acres of corn and 300 acres of green browse with the 

Complex staff or seasonal employees (i.e., by force account). Under this option, the Complex would be 

required to purchase or rent planting, cultivating and, spraying equipment; purchase all seed, fertilizer, 

chemicals, and lime; and assure that employees were trained and available to carry out these duties. 

Under the contract farming and force account options, it would still require about 800 acres under ideal 

conditions, which is if all the needs of waterfowl and cranes could be met through corn planting. 

Strategies: 

y Continue current cooperative farming program until such time as an alternative farming 

strategy is adopted, including the availability of appropriate resources. Modify the current 

program as needed. 

y Review acreage needed to provide for the annual hot food, primarily corn, and green browse 

needs of waterfowl and cranes and their proper placement on Wheeler NWR. 

y Identify highest priority fields to achieve waterfowl and crane management goals. 

y Initiate a process to convert any excess farm fields to alternate habitat types and/or reduce 

farmed acreage by creating soft edges. 

y Secure equipment, training, and other resources to carry out the farming operation. 

Objective 2.3. Old Field/Shrubland Habitat – Over the 15-year life of the plan increase management 

of old field and shrubland habitats at Wheeler NWR. 

Discussion: There is an increasing need for more stable acreage and a dependable supply of earlysuccessional habitat in the Interior Low Plateau. Although there is an increase in scrub-shrub habitat 

on surrounding private lands, these areas are increasingly less suitable for early-successional 

species. The dense stocking of plantings, the increased use of pesticides, and the lack of burning all 

lead to lower quality scrub-shrub habitat. 
110 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Old fields and shrublands are valuable habitats for wildlife, particularly important for ground-nesting 

birds and for a variety of songbirds. The loss of these habitats through conversion to other land uses, 

predominantly into residential development or through succession is resulting in the decline and 

disappearance of some wildlife species that are dependent on early successional habitats. Old field 

and shrubland communities provide vegetative structure and diversity vital to nesting, brood rearing, 

feeding, and providing escape cover for early-successional wildlife. 

These habitats are typically comprised of many kinds of plants, which furnish key habitat components 

for a variety of wildlife species. Wildlife use of an old field and shrubland habitats are directly related 

to the kinds of plants in the field. As succession advances from one plant stage to another, the 

animal community also changes. The primary management objective is to maintain the field in plant 

stages that will provide the basic daily and seasonal cover requirements for the desired wildlife. 

The key to restoring and maintaining an old field habitat type is periodic disturbance of the vegetation 

to alter plant succession. Disturbances causing vegetative changes can be triggered by natural 

causes, such as fire, wind, and flooding, or artificially by activities, such as cultivating, mowing, 

cutting, or using herbicides. Planned disturbances at the proper time during succession can enhance 

old field and shrubland habitat for wildlife. Unused farmland on the Wheeler NWR could be managed 

as old field habitat subject to regular disturbances on a 10- to 15-year cycle. The Rockhouse area 

and land surrounding the Visitor Center provide opportunities for scrub-shrub management. 

Strategies: 

y Evaluate areas on Wheeler NWR to be managed as old field or shrubland habitats. 

y Either cut the edge back into the existing forest to increase light or move the edge into farm 

fields to increase perennial/annual/scrub-shrub cover. 

y Consider softer, feather edges (edges with various sized layers of vegetation, starting with 

large trees and ending in small grasses and forbs) around farm fields and forests to benefit 

these species. 

y For sites determined to be maintained in an early successional condition, establish a series of 

point counts and/or transects to monitor breeding and wintering bird use over time. 

y On retired agriculture fields, allow natural succession to occur for three to five years, while 

controlling invasive plants, and then determine which of these sites should be set back, 

allowed to succeed into forest, or planted in preferred forest species. 

 

Objective 2.4. Grassland Management – Within six years of plan implementation, promote the 

establishment of native warm season grassland (NWSG) habitats for the conservation of migratory 

birds and a natural diversity of wildlife at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs. 

Discussion: Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs are connected to adjacent Tennessee counties designated 

under the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Partnership as grassland focus areas. There is an 

increasing need for more stable acreage and a dependable supply of grassland habitat. Unused farmland 

on Wheeler NWR could be managed as grassland habitat subject to regular disturbances. 

Since Key Cave NWR was purchased by the Service in 1997, Complex management has dedicated 

time, funds, equipment, and labor to restore a large portion of the refuge to native warm season 

grasses (NWSG). Each year, the Complex staff converts additional acreages of farmland and 

erosion ditches into grasslands. This effort not only helps protect the fragile Key Cave aquifer from 

harmful contaminants, but it also provides valuable habitat for a variety of migratory bird species. 

These efforts help support regional habitat goals. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

Strategies: 

y Increase native warm season grassland (NWSG) management at Key Cave NWR by 

controlling encroaching vegetation. 

y Evaluate areas on Wheeler NWR to plant additional NWSGs. 

y Develop a management regime for size and timing of prescribed burns in native grasslands 

(four to five years for Henslow’s sparrows and two to three years for other target species, such 

as dickcissels, grasshopper sparrows, northern bobwhite, and others). 

y Consider haying, discing, and grazing as another form of grassland management. 

y Train Wheeler NWR staff in prescribed burning and utilize partners when needed. 

y If available, obtain and use local NWSG seed. 

Objective 2.5. Forest Management – Over the 15-year life of the plan, manage forested habitats for 

priority species and use adaptive management on all Complex lands. 

Discussion: The following management schemes were recommended by the Biological Review Team: 

various forests that are in a mature hardwood condition should remain basically unchanged to promote 

old-growth conditions; selected bottomland stands should be managed to promote the regeneration of 

oaks with a relatively open canopy (60-80 percent closure), large trees, and a native understory with 

many layers; upland stands managed for hardwoods and thinned more aggressively than bottomlands to 

promote large trees with a complex understory; and off-site pine converted to hardwoods. 

Forestry and prescribed burning have the potential to mold the forest and other areas into preferred 

habitats for wildlife. Depending on the type of management, forestry can benefit species that prefer 

various types of forests, different successional stages, different stocking levels, and many other forest 

variables. It should be noted that prescribed burning is difficult to use at Wheeler NWR due to smoke 

management concerns (e.g., due to the proximity of the cities of Decatur and Huntsville, many roads, 

and Huntsville International Airport). 

Strategies: 

y Update existing forest management plans. 

y Choose specific forested areas to promote old-growth. 

y Establish an organized, safe, and well-documented prescribed burning program. 

y Promote large trees, promote oaks, and retain snags. 

y Promote switchcane and other native understory plants. 

y Thin more aggressively to promote the growth of the understory to create a multi-layered effect. 

y Use firewood permits as a thinning tool. 

y Create forested buffers to improve, protect, and restore streams. 

y Survey selected plants, fish, and wildlife in forested areas pre- and post-management to 

monitor the effectiveness of forest management and change. 

y Convert an existing 75-acre oak woodlot at Key Cave NWR to oak savanna habitat by an 

initial thinning to 40 square-feet basal area, from below, followed by a series of prescribed 

burns. Plant the open areas in native grasses to aid in savanna establishment. Consider 

future thinning to 20 square-feet basal area. 

y Evaluate other areas on Key Cave NWR for possible conversion to oak savanna habitat. 

y Maintain shagbark hickory and other loose bark trees. 
112 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Objective 2.6. Invasive/Exotic Plant Species Management – Within five years of plan implementation, 

eliminate at a minimum 25 percent of the non-native invasive or exotic plant species from Complex lands. 

Discussion: A basic tenant of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is management 

for biological diversity and integrity. Wheeler Complex has several documented native and nonnative invasive and/or exotic plant species. These species impact the Complex’s ability to carry out 

desired management objectives to varying degrees. Staff must determine the priority and degree of 

control in combating these species. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct an inventory and identify problem species. 

y Develop documentation and mapping systems by using GPS and GIS. 

y Develop a list identifying and ranking the priority species for control. 

y Evaluate the options of biological, mechanical, and chemical control. 

y Implement control techniques, monitor results, and re-evaluate. 

y Seek partners in the federal government, state government, private sector, and academia, 

and utilize volunteers, whenever possible, to identify, locate, and remove invasive and/or 

exotic plant species. 

y Control the spread of native invasive plant species. 

y Increase efforts to educate the public about invasive plant species. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal 3. Provide Resource Conservation and Protection. Provide coordination and cooperation 

among organizations to enhance effective management and protection of natural and cultural 

resources within northern Alabama. 

Overview: Resource protection means safeguarding the integrity of the various resources 

present on refuges, including wildlife, habitat, and cultural resources. Resource protection 

includes ensuring that any use of Refuge lands is compatible with the purposes of those sites and 

the Service’s mission; reducing the illegal take and overuse/exploitation of biological and cultural 

resources; and minimizing or eliminating adverse effects on trust species, their habitats, and 

Service lands by working with other regulatory and land management agencies, developers, and 

other resource users. Work to integrate the Service’s ecosystem approach with that of other 

agencies and organizations, as well as with their planning activities, and increase cooperation 

and coordination within the Service. This also includes protecting resources and improving 

habitats off-refuge through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Objective 3.1. Law Enforcement – Over the 15-year life of the plan, maintain and improve a highly 

trained and effective law enforcement (LE) program to ensure resource protection, visitor safety, and 

that visitors adhere to all Complex related acts and regulations. 

 

Discussion: Protecting the natural resources of the Wheeler Complex and ensuring the safety of 

all refuge visitors are fundamental responsibilities of the Refuge System. The Wheeler Complex 

is currently accomplishing this increasing responsibility with only two full-time LE officers. As 

crime continues to increase in America, the Wheeler Complex faces a larger and more 

complicated enforcement problem. Additional full-time officers are needed to fulfill the LE 

requirements of Wheeler Complex. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

Strategies: 

 

y Hire an additional LE officer. 

y Provide up-to-date training and equipment, including support for K-9 activities. 

y Continue to cooperate with State, county and local law enforcement agencies by developing 

partnerships to share LE responsibilities on Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

y Continue to provide LE education and outreach programs to local citizens. 

y Provide assistance to Service special agents and State conservation activities within existing 

policy, as requested. 

y Continue to develop and implement LE procedures for protecting cultural resources and for 

diminishing site destruction due to looting and vandalism. 

y Ensure that by 2010, all LE officers have completed the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act training course. 

y Provide specialized communication and surveillance equipment. 

Objective 3.2 (Cultural Resources) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue to identify and protect 

cultural resources on the Wheeler Complex in accordance with Federal and State historic 

preservation laws and regulations. 

Discussion: 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. Cultural 

resources include archaeological resources, historic and architectural properties, and areas or sites of 

traditional or religious significance to Native Americans (Service Manual 614 FW 1, Policy, 

Responsibilities, and Definitions). 

The body of historic preservation laws has grown dramatically since 1906. Several themes recur in 

the laws and the promulgating regulations. They include: 1) each agency is to systematically 

inventory the historic properties on their holdings and to scientifically assess each property’s eligibility 

for the National Register of Historic Places; 2) Federal agencies are to consider the impacts to 

cultural resources during the agencies’ management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate adverse 

impacts; 3) the protection of cultural resources from looting and vandalism are 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 and African American 

communities, to address how a project or management activity may impact specific archaeological 

sites and landscapes deemed important to those groups. 

Strategies: 

y Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979, and any other pertinent historic preservation mandates 

prior to the initiation of any undertaking or habitat management action. 

y Draft a cultural resources overview of each refuge in the Complex using existing information, 

such as the regional and State Site File Databases and technical reports describing past 

archaeological, historical, and geomorphic investigations. 

y By 2011, complete an archaeological survey for the Complex using a comprehensive 

scientific approach. 

y The Regional Archaeologist, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, will 

evaluate the National Register eligibility of those buildings and/or structures found on Wheeler 

Complex that are older than 50 years. 
114 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Develop and implement LE procedures to protect cultural resources and to diminish site 

destruction due to looting and vandalism. 

y Facilitate partnerships to aid in the management of cultural resources with the pertinent 

Federal and State agencies, the State Historic Preservation Office, professional 

archaeologists, Native American communities, and the general public. 

y Develop and implement an educational program that will provide an understanding and 

appreciation of the Complex’s ecology and the human influence on the Lower TennesseeCumberland Ecosystem. 

y Develop and implement a plan to protect identified sites in consultation and cooperation with 

federally recognized Native American tribes, the Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and the professional archaeological community. 

y In consultation with the Regional Archaeologist, integrate cultural resources management and 

protection strategies into refuge management plans. 

y Catalog refuge artifacts and historic documents and assure appropriate archival. 

y Develop a GIS layer for the archaeological and historic sites of the Complex that will mesh 

with existing layers for habitat type, vegetative cover, hydrology, and soils. 

y Ensure that by 2010, all LE officers have completed the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act training course. 

Objective 3.3 (Private Land Assistance Program) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide technical 

assistance, and where appropriate, use private lands conservation programs to assist private 

landowners in managing lands for biological diversity with emphasis on trust resources and 

watersheds adjacent to refuges within the Wheeler Complex. 

Discussion: Many national wildlife refuges have implemented private lands programs to address 

broader ecosystem and landscape issues, both problems and opportunities (such as wetlands 

restoration and conservation corridors). Service authorities for involvement with private landowners 

in developing and carrying out habitat improvement projects are found in the Improvement Act and in 

the policy documents for the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife (PFW) Program. Additional 

authorities reside within the Fish and Wildlife Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Under 

the PFW Program, landowners may receive up to $25,000 for on-the-ground project implementation. 

PFW projects typically receive a minimum 50 percent in-kind cost share and require a minimum 10-

year commitment from the landowner. 

The Farm Bill conservation programs, available through the USDA under successive Farm Bills, 

provide opportunities for the development and implementation of habitat improvement projects on 

private lands. These programs include the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Conservation 

Reserve Program (CRP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), the Grassland Reserve 

Program (GRP), and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Many millions of dollars 

are available to eligible private landowners for habitat conservation under these programs. 

Wheeler NWR initiated a private lands program in 1997 to support efforts of the Lower TennesseeCumberland Ecosystem’s Strategic Plan and Migratory Bird Plan. In doing so, the Wheeler NWR 

private lands program has initiated projects to establish native warm season grass habitats on private 

land. The refuge has also worked cooperatively with partners (NRCS, County Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts, TNC, private landowners, and other interested parties) to protect and restore 

selected watersheds, with emphasis on those containing threatened and endangered species. 

Furthermore, it has worked with the USDA’s State Technical Committee to place greater emphasis 

(i.e., attain a higher ranking) on its wildlife habitat programs that have direct benefits to wildlife using 

Wheeler Complex and to help eradicate or control invasive species. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115

Strategies: 

y Continue to work with and support other organizations in efforts to promote wildlife 

conservation on private lands. 

y Continue to work with and support other organizations in efforts to eliminate invasive and/or 

exotic plant and animal species on private lands. 

y Seek other sources of support for conservation on private lands in northern Alabama. 

y Work with local USDA offices and State technical committees to acquire support for higher 

ranking of projects related to refuges within the Wheeler Complex. 

y Review ranking criteria for private lands projects in an attempt to place more emphasis on 

migratory bird projects, particularly projects that help Wheeler Complex achieve stated goals. 

y Continue working under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alabama Mountains, 

Rivers, and Valleys Resource Conservation, and Development Council to make the Truax No-till 

Native Grass Seed Drill available to private landowners for planting native grasses. 

y Continue to develop and implement cooperative agreements with the Limestone County Soil and 

Water Conservation District for riparian protection in the Piney and Limestone Creeks watersheds 

to benefit the endangered Anthony’s riversnail, the slender campeloma, and the armored snail. 

y Continue to develop and implement cooperative agreements with the Lauderdale County Soil 

and Water Conservation District in the Cypress Creek watershed for riparian protection to 

benefit the threatened slackwater darter and for establishment of sinkhole buffers in the Key 

Cave watershed to protect the endangered Alabama cavefish and gray bats. 

Objective 3.4 (Cooperation with Partners) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, maintain and enhance 

existing partnerships and seek new partnerships to improve conservation of natural resources on and 

off Complex lands. 

Discussion: In recent years, the Service has encouraged national wildlife refuges to increase their 

cooperation with partners. This includes State and Federal agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

volunteers, universities, colleges, the public, adjacent landowners, and others. Through partnerships, 

the refuge harnesses not only the manpower of these groups, but also their knowledge, wisdom, and 

enthusiasm. This activity leverages resources to conserve the natural resources on Complex lands 

and elsewhere. Wheeler Complex currently works with many partners. Existing partnerships can 

always be improved and other partnerships initiated. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to develop and implement cooperative agreements with local soil and water 

conservation districts to develop private land projects. 

y Continue work with the Wildlife Habitat Council and local industries, creating wildlife habitat 

and corridors on corporate lands and other conservation projects. 

y Approach the ADCNR regarding assistance with aerial waterfowl surveys. 

y Seek the assistance of TNC, Alabama Forestry Commission, and others for prescribed 

burning at Key Cave NWR. 

y Partner with the city of Decatur, city of Huntsville, Redstone Arsenal, and others to develop 

and enhance the GIS capabilities of the Wheeler Complex. 

y Work with Redstone Arsenal on conservation issues, such as migratory bird surveys, invasive 

and/or exotic plant and animal species control, and forest management. 

y Work with the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region (CHBCR) in managing migratory 

birds and their habitat on the Wheeler Complex. 
116 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Communicate key issues with off-site audiences by attending local civic organization 

meetings. 

y Develop partnerships with universities, junior colleges, and other research based 

organizations to conduct wildlife and habitat studies on Complex lands. 

Objective 3.5 (Land Acquisition) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue efforts to pursue the 

acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary at Fern Cave NWR. 

Discussion: All of the lands within the approved acquisition boundary for Fern Cave NWR have not 

been obtained by the Service. In fact, 476 acres within the approved acquisition boundary remain in 

private ownership. If funds and willing sellers become available, the Complex will attempt to acquire 

these lands in accordance with current Service policy. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to acquire the remaining 476 acres of land within the current refuge acquisition 

boundary, with special emphasis on those areas that would (1) protect Fern Cave and its 

habitat; (2) contribute to national and regional objectives; (3) reduce impacts to refuge 

resources; and/or (4) provide access. 

Objective 3.6 (Land Protection) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, explore methods to protect land by 

developing conservation focus areas. 

Discussion: Several land protection/conservation areas were identified in the Alabama 

Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (Figures 16 and 17). In order to help meet 

these objectives, methods to conserve specific areas should be explored by the Service. 

Strategies: 

y Work with the partners to establish sufficient interests to protect a buffer of land along Piney and 

Limestone Creeks near Wheeler NWR to help conserve the listed snails in these streams. 

y Work with the partners to secure sufficient interests in additional lands necessary to maintain 

or develop forested blocks to provide areas of about 5,000 acres with a minimum of 70 

percent forest cover near Wheeler NWR. 

y Work with the partners to establish sufficient interests to protect a buffer of land surrounding 

the high hazard recharge zone for the Key Cave aquifer. 

Objective 3.7 (Minimize Effects of Urbanization) – Within three years of plan approval, increase 

efforts to protect Complex resources and minimize impacts from urbanization to include rights-of-way, 

encroachment, and littering. 

Discussion: Wheeler Complex has serious challenges confronting it, many related to the urban 

environment in which it is located. The cities of Decatur, Huntsville, Madison, Florence, and 

Scottsboro continue to increase in population. Commercial, industrial, and residential development 

continues to destroy and degrade farmland and natural areas at an alarming rate. Although many 

portions of the Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs are still surrounded by large agricultural tracts, these 

are likely to decline over the next five to 10 years. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117

Strategies: 

y Support a study analyzing the impacts of existing fights-of-way easements on refuge 

resources. Results would be used to determine if current refuge policy should be altered. 

y Work with local city, county, and State planning departments to minimize encroachment onto 

refuge boundaries. 

y Establish refuge-wide habitat surveys to determine baseline conditions and longer-term 

habitat community changes to evaluate short- and long-term refuge treatments and 

management strategies; and to assess changes in habitats/urban sprawl within a 10-15 mile 

radius of each refuge in the Complex. 

 

Objective 3.8 (Water Quality and Quantity Management) – Within five years of plan implementation, 

develop and implement a water quantity and water quality monitoring program to ensure that the 

Wheeler Complex maintains adequate and environmentally safe water supplies to meet the needs of 

plants, fish, and wildlife, including the natural processes that support these resources (e.g., water 

levels in ground and surface that support hydric soils). 

Discussion: Activities impacting both water quality and quantity are appearing with increasing 

frequency. Water quality is a major human and wildlife concern because of the number of people in 

the area that depend on drinking water from the Tennessee River or its tributaries and the number of 

fish and wildlife species that are directly dependent on high water quality. In the late 1980s and early 

1990s, the Tennessee River was considered one of the ten most polluted rivers in the country. Its 

status was related to point source pollution from industries and non-point source pollution from 

residential development and agricultural practices. 

Refuges in the western United States have dealt with water issues for a number of years, including the 

amount of water refuges are allotted. Water quantity issues are now developing in the eastern United 

States. Locally, large water irrigation systems are increasing in number each year. In addition, ground 

and surface waters are being used for a number of purposes, such as drinking water. As the human 

population increases, competition for water will become an extremely important issue. 

 

Strategies: 

y Ensure the Wheeler Complex has input into the TVA’s Reservoir Operations Study. 

y Work with partners to ensure that Wheeler NWR receives adequate water supplies. 

y Work with the USGS to install and monitor water gauging stations. 

y Establish a working relationship with local city and county planning agencies to ensure that 

the Wheeler Complex staff is involved in decisions regarding water quantity and quality 

issues. 

y Develop and implement a water quality sampling program. 

y Hire an additional staff member in conjunction with Ecological Services (ES) to address the 

various water quality, contaminant, and similar issues in northern Alabama, including the 

refuges in the Wheeler Complex. 

y Review reports, environmental risk assessments, and other documents about these issues 

and comment as needed. 

y Develop a regional water quality sampling scheme and contaminants monitoring plan to 

address impacts to the Wheeler Complex and other natural resources. 

y Continue and expand DDT monitoring efforts on Redstone Arsenal and downstream areas 

impacted by this contaminant. 

y Continue working with the EPA technical committee to address the DDT issue. 
118 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Work with the solicitor to determine appropriate actions related to DDT contamination of the 

refuge by Olin Corporation. 

y Explore funding opportunities to continue DDT monitoring (e.g., flex funding and Superfund). 

y Work with other agencies and individuals to accomplish this work. 

y Work closely with Redstone Arsenal, NASA, and other entities that are using or that have 

used their facilities to reduce/mitigate the effects of their activities on Wheeler NWR and 

natural resources on private lands. 

y Participate on teams reviewing contaminants on and moving away from their facilities. 

y Review and provide comments on all contamination assessment documentation. 

y Determine if the Army; NASA; and/or other entities, such as Olin Corporation, have the 

responsibility to fund Service contaminant assessment and cleanup/mitigation efforts related 

to contaminants produced by these entities. 

y Explore using buffer/border zones along surface waters on refuge properties to reduce the 

impact of sedimentation and pesticide runoff. 

y Assess, characterize, and monitor the toxicity of on- and off-site agricultural activities. 

y Work with the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service to develop an Integrated Pest 

Management (IPM) plan for the Complex and identify alternatives to more toxic pesticides and 

pesticide use in general. 

y Ensure that cooperative farmers use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to conserve soil 

loss and reduce pesticide use. 

y Determine if infield drains are a direct conduit into the recharge area of Key Cave and, if so, 

reduce/mitigate any impacts of these on this refuge. 

y Continue and expand water quality monitoring on all refuges, especially in karst habitats. 

y Continue and expand monitoring of bats for contaminants. 

y Be proactive in addressing the developing issue of West Nile Virus vector control via 

pesticides or other contaminants. 

y Develop a comprehensive Complex-wide litter control and reduction program. 

Objective 3.9 (Clean Air Management) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, work with partners to 

ensure that air quality standards are maintained. 

Discussion: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was consulted for information on air 

quality in the vicinity of the Wheeler Complex. Currently, the only National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard exceeded in this area (in Madison and Morgan Counties) is the eight-hour ozone 

concentration– by 0.01 parts per million. According to the web site, this standard was blocked from 

implementation by a 1999 Federal court ruling. Thus, technically, there are no air quality standards 

violations in any of these counties. The Complex has little ability to control air quality in this area. 

Strategies: 

y Obtain air quality information from agencies that are monitoring this resource to determine if it 

meets standards. 

y With the help of agencies that sample air quality (NASA, Redstone Arsenal, TVA, and EPA), 

monitor the status of air quality around refuges in the Wheeler Complex. 

y Work closely with TVA air quality sampling staff. 

y Establish a partnership with the Air Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM). 

y Coordinate fire management activities with ADEM and the Alabama Forestry Commission in 

order to minimize the potential air quality impacts that prescribed burning may cause. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal 4: Provide Education and Visitor Services. Visitors, students, wildlife-dependent 

recreationists, and nearby residents enjoy, appreciate, and support Wheeler Complex and its 

management practices. 

Overview: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses are the priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System (e.g., hunting, 

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

and will receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses. Volunteers, partners, 

recreation fees, and concessions are tools available to assist in managing these uses. The Service 

will only permit other uses when it is determined that they are appropriate and compatible and 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. (Service Manual 605 FW 1, General 

Guidance, and 603 FW 1, Appropriate Refuge Uses). 

Approximately 650,000 people visit Wheeler NWR annually, engaging in hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation. Wheeler NWR is fortunate to 

have a 10,000-square foot Visitor Center that provides environmental educational outreach programs and 

land stewardship education programs for both youth and adults. Public use is currently light at Key Cave, 

Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs; however, Complex administration anticipates an increase in public 

use at both Key Cave and Sauta Cave NWRs over the next 15 years. 

 

Objective 4.1 (Provide Quality Hunting Opportunities) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide 

safe, quality hunting opportunities of species, such as white-tailed deer, feral hog, squirrel, rabbit, 

raccoon, opossum, morning dove, and northern bobwhite, consistent with sound biological 

principals, in support of the Complex’s wildlife management objectives, and in accordance with 

Refuge System policy and State and Federal laws. 

Discussion: Managing wildlife populations and their habitats is the primary responsibility of the 

Complex and a required component of the Refuge System’s wildlife first mission. If managed 

appropriately, hunting provides a biologically sound form of outdoor recreation that is used throughout 

the Refuge System to help manage wildlife populations. Hunting is one of the priority public use 

activities recognized by the Improvement Act of 1997 when it is compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established (see Service Manual 605 FW 2, Hunting). 

Wheeler NWR has a well-established hunting program that has been in place for more than 50 years. 

Through these years the hunting program has gone through constant change and annual reviews and 

adjustments. This practice will continue. The current program consists of only resident game hunts 

in which hunting is permitted on approximately 18,000 acres and hunting regulations are published 

each year in the hunting permit. White-tailed deer, feral hog, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and 

northern bobwhite are hunted within the State's hunting season framework. General hunting is 

governed by Section 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations and refuge-specific regulations are 

spelled out in the Wheeler NWR Hunting Regulations Brochure. 

Small game hunting provides quality recreation for many people and is allowed on Wheeler NWR. In 

the future, squirrel season will be extended by a few days to ensure that two consecutive weekends 

are included. This action is a direct result of comments obtained during the public scoping process. 
120 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

White-tailed deer hunting on Wheeler NWR is essential for maintaining a healthy deer herd and 

preventing overpopulation levels that, in turn, can negatively impact habitat. Because Wheeler 

NWR was established for migratory birds, deer populations must be controlled to prevent adverse 

impacts to migratory bird habitats. Not only do deer eat the understory in forested areas, they 

also consume large quantities of agricultural crops planted as high-calorie foods for wintering 

waterfowl. In addition, overabundant populations of deer can inflict major economic losses in the 

transportation industry and contribute to the transmission of several animal and human diseases 

(Cote et al., 2004). The primary focus of deer management on Wheeler NWR is to maintain a 

healthy population and is not to produce trophy animals. 

In 2005, feral hogs were added to the hunting permit for Wheeler NWR in an effort to help control this 

exotic, invasive species and to limit habitat destruction and negative impacts to native wildlife. Feral 

hogs can cause extensive habitat damage and the Service suspects that they also negatively impact 

wildlife by direct mortality and through competition for food, in fact feral hogs are viewed as serious 

threats to ground nesting gamebirds (e.g., bobwhites) (Tolleson et al., 1993). They also can cause 

economic damage through vehicle collisions and through destruction of landscaped areas and road 

shoulders by rooting. On Wheeler NWR, feral hogs are currently allowed to be taken during the 

white-tailed deer season. However, as a result of comments during public scoping, the feral hog 

season will be expanded throughout all of the established hunting seasons on the refuge. 

Hunting is allowed on approximately 1,060 acres at Key Cave NWR through a permitting program 

in conjunction with the State’s Seven Mile Island Wildlife Management Area. Squirrel, rabbit, 

raccoon, opossum, mourning dove, and northern bobwhite are hunted within the State's hunting 

season framework. 

The refuge hunt season runs concurrently with the State hunting season and hunting for the above 

species is allowed on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday. Hunting opportunities would be 

increased over the next three to five years with a greater emphasis would be placed on the quality of 

the experience with more diverse opportunities, including those for youth and disabled hunters. 

Hunting is currently allowed on approximately 264 acres at Sauta Cave NWR through a permitting 

program in conjunction with the State’s North Sauty Wildlife Management Area. No changes are 

planned for the hunting program at Sauta Cave NWR. 

Hunting is not currently allowed at Fern Cave NWR. Access is extremely difficult and public access is 

through private land or from the Paint Rock River. As a result, law enforcement is limited and access 

is not available to the general public. In addition, Fern Cave NWR is only 199 acres in size. In the 

future, if more land becomes available and/or public access is improved, the Service will give 

consideration in providing limited hunting opportunities at Fern Cave NWR. 

Strategies: 

y Continue current hunting program with minor annual modifications to include the hunting of 

feral hogs during all established hunting seasons at Wheeler NWR and the extension of the 

squirrel season at Wheeler NWR to include two consecutive weekends. 

y Prohibit hunting in areas designated as high-priority habitat for waterfowl to reduce human 

disturbance to ducks, geese, and cranes. 

y Evaluate the hunting program to assure it is consistent with State seasons and regulations. 

y Assure adequate signage and law enforcement (LE) presence utilizing Service and/or State 

LE officers. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121

y Review 50 CFR special regulations and annual hunt brochure to assure proper codification 

and information is documented. 

y Conduct a deer herd health check on Wheeler NWR every five years. 

y Provide safe, quality hunting opportunities for persons with disabilities by improving access for 

hunters with special handicapped equipment and/or needs. 

y Encourage youth to enjoy hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and other wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities. 

y Develop a hunting program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan. 

y Evaluate Tally-Ho fox hunting as an appropriate use. 

Objective 4.2 (Provide Quality Fishing Opportunities) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, conduct a 

safe, quality fishing program in accordance with Refuge System policy, and State and Federal laws. 

Discussion: Fishing is an appropriate use of wildlife resources on units of the Refuge System, when 

compatible (Service Manual 605 FW 3, Fishing). 

Fishing is a major recreational activity at Wheeler NWR, accounting for approximately 40 percent of 

total visitation (or over 250,000 annual visitors). The refuge provides approximately 11,250 surface 

acres of fishable waters when the Wheeler Reservoir is at full-lake level. Method of take, daily creel 

limits, possession limits, and size limits are conducted in accordance with State regulations. Special 

refuge regulations apply to posted areas. 

Both bank fishing and boat fishing opportunities abound on Wheeler NWR and facilities developed in 

support of the fishing program are excellent. There are six improved boat launching facilities and 

many primitive launch sites, as well as numerous places to launch canoes, kayaks, and small boats. 

Littering is an ongoing major problem at each of these areas, as well as others on the refuge. 

Special fishing events are held at the handicapped-accessible fishing pond and its associated 

pavilion. The pond is closed to all public access and use except during special programs and has 

become an integral part of the refuge’s Special Events program. 

 

Fishing opportunities do not exist at either Key Cave or Sauta Cave NWRs. 

Fishing is only available along the eastern bank of the Paint Rock River at Fern Cave NWR. State 

rules and regulations apply. 

Strategies: 

y Continue the current fishing program at Wheeler NWR with annual evaluation and needed 

modifications. 

y Evaluate the fishing program to assure it is consistent with State seasons and regulations. 

y Assure adequate signage and law enforcement presence by utilizing Service and/or State 

officers. 

y Conduct at least two youth fishing rodeos at Wheeler NWR each year. 

y Develop a fishing program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan. 

y Eliminate night bank fishing in most areas except improved boat ramps and designated night 

bank fishing areas to reduce illegal activities and minimize disturbance to wildlife. A valid 

night fishing permit will be required. 

y Extend the boat access restriction on Crabtree Slough to March 1st to minimize human 

disturbance to waterfowl. 
122 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Objective 4.3 (Provide Quality Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities) – Over the 15-

year life of the plan, conduct a safe, quality wildlife observation and photography program in 

accordance with Refuge System policy and State and Federal laws. 

Discussion: Wildlife observation and wildlife photography are appropriate wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses of Refuge System lands, when compatible. Visitors of all ages and abilities have 

the opportunity to observe and photograph wildlife and habitat resources on the Wheeler Complex 

(Service Manual 605 FW 4 Wildlife Observation and FW 5, Wildlife Photography). 

Wheeler NWR provides many opportunities for observing and/or photographing wildlife. Whether one 

is visiting the Wildlife Observation Building, walking on one of the refuge's five nature trails, walking 

on many of the dirt/gravel roads, driving on open roads, or visiting the Beaverdam Peninsula Wildlife 

Observation Tower, ample opportunities may present themselves at any time to view a wide variety of 

species. A photography blind near the Wildlife Observation Building pond provides photography 

enthusiasts opportunities to capture incredible wildlife photographs. 

At Key Cave NWR, public use is steadily increasing. The refuge has 2.5 miles of roads and trails that 

are now open for nature walking and bicycling that passes through native grasslands, upland 

hardwoods, and agricultural land. The nature trail system offers opportunities to view or photograph 

an assortment of wildlife, including many grassland bird species. 

At Sauta Cave NWR, watching bats emerge at dusk from Sauta Cave is a very popular activity. It is not 

uncommon to see 250,000 gray bats exit from Sauta Cave. At dusk, bats leave the cave to begin their 

nightly foraging. This event can last for up to an hour. The refuge offers a viewing platform in which 

visitors can safely view the bat emergence. The platform is located near the lower entrance to the cave. 

Due to its difficult terrain, wildlife observation and photography opportunities are limited at Fern 

Cave NWR. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a wildlife observation and photography program section in the step-down Visitor 

Services Plan for the Complex. 

y Continue current wildlife observation and wildlife photography program with annual evaluation 

and needed modifications. 

y Construct an additional wildlife observation tower and photography blind on the north side of 

the river at Wheeler NWR. 

y Add interpretive panels along Flint Creek Nature Trail and develop a loop trail to connect to 

the existing Dancy Bottom Nature Trail at Wheeler NWR. 

y Develop a bat viewing platform and replace signs at Cave Springs Cave at Wheeler NWR. 

y Boardwalk the Wildlife Observation Building Trail at Wheeler NWR. 

y Place directional signs at decision points along Atkeson Nature Trail and Flint Creek Nature 

Trail at Wheeler NWR. 

y Develop a wildlife drive (auto tour) at Wheeler NWR. 

y Develop new brochures for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

Objective 4.4 (Provide a Quality Environmental Education Program) – Over the 15-year life of the 

plan, continue to conduct a safe, quality environmental education program in accordance with Refuge 

System policy and State and Federal laws and tied to national and State education standards. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123

Discussion: The Wheeler Complex currently conducts formal, curriculum-based environmental 

education programs that are tied to national and State education standards through the use of 

facilities, equipment, educational materials, teacher workshops, and study sites that are safe and 

conducive to learning. These programs help advance public awareness, understanding, 

appreciation, and knowledge of key fish, wildlife, plant, and resource issues (Service Manual 605 FW 

6, Environmental Education). 

Environmental education is a focal point of the public use program at Wheeler NWR. Approximately 

20,000 people annually attend either on-site or off-site programs provided by refuge staff or refuge 

volunteers. The Visitor Information Center and Wildlife Observation Building serve as the hub for 

public use activities and host approximately 75,000 visitors annually. In addition, area schools 

conduct numerous environmental education activities at the Visitor Center annually, normally hosting 

over 2,000 school children. A live red-tailed hawk and several species of snakes are kept at the 

Visitor Center for educational programs. Three park rangers and several volunteers conduct the 

environmental education programs. 

Current programs include: 

y Refuge Summer Day Camps – 10 one-day long camps for ages 8-13 that teach students 

environmental education using hands-on learning. 

y Annual Wet-n-Wild Festival – a three-day event hosted by the refuge each October for 

approximately 1,800 local 5th graders. 

y ACES Program - a partnership with the Decatur Police Department that brings 250 local innercity youths to the refuge during the summer months for one-half day of fishing and 

environmental education programs. 

y FAWN (Forestry Awareness Week Now) - all Decatur City and Morgan County schools 6th 

grade classes come to the refuge for a day of outdoor, environmental educational programs. 

y EARTHSCOPE - an environmental education program conducted by the Huntsville City 

School System brings 2,000+ students to Wheeler NWR annually. 

y Junior Duck Stamp - a program that encourages students to design a duck stamp 

encouraging education about waterfowl and wetland conservation. 

y Several youth fishing events are held on the special use pond near the Visitor Center, 

including some handicapped accessible fishing group events. 

 

Strategies: 

y Continue the current environmental education programs with annual evaluation and needed 

modifications. 

y Improve on community-based environmental education programs in coordination with area 

schools and other educational organizations. Place emphasis on developing programs for 

local schools near Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

y Explore ways to increase participation in the Junior Duck Stamp contest to include web-site 

development. 

y Develop an environmental education program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan 

for the Complex. 

Objective 4.5 (Wildlife Interpretation) – Within seven years of plan approval, at least 75 percent of 

visitors will have a better understanding of the Complex’s contribution to the protection and 

restoration of the Tennessee River Valley. 
124 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Discussion: Through formal, curriculum-based environmental education tied to national and State 

education standards, the Wheeler Complex communicates the most important fish, wildlife, habitat, 

and other resource issues to visitors of all ages and abilities through effective interpretation. Through 

heightened awareness, visitors are inspired to take positive actions supporting refuge goals and the 

Refuge System mission (Service Manual 605 FW 7, Interpretation). 

The primary interpretive theme of Wheeler NWR focuses on the awareness and importance of 

waterfowl and migratory birds and their conservation. Trails, boardwalks, parking areas, signs, and 

informative kiosks provide managed access to and provide valuable information about the Complex. 

Informative displays are designed to provide visitors with clear information so they can easily 

determine where they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in 

recreational and educational activities. 

Strategies: 

y Continue current interpretation program with annual evaluation and needed modifications. 

y Develop interpretive kiosk displays and interpretive signs at various locations throughout the 

Complex that will provide information about the Service and the Refuge System to include 

areas at Key Cave and Sauta Cave NWRs. 

y Provide tree identification brochure for use at Flint Creek Nature Trail. 

y Install new informative wildlife education displays at the Visitor Center. 

y Provide interpretation regarding bats and karst/cave ecosystems during some summer 

weekend evenings at Sauta Cave NWR. 

y Explore possibility of taped guided tours for the proposed wildlife drive (auto tour). 

y Develop an interpretation program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan for the 

Complex. 

Objective 4.6 (Public Use Limitations) – Within three years of plan implementation, critically review 

public use activities that may lead to wildlife disturbance or habitat degradation and initiate changes 

as needed to enhance resource protection and reduce illegal activities. 

Discussion: All public use activities on the Wheeler Complex must be evaluated periodically to ensure 

wildlife resources and habitats are not being compromised. The listed strategies were designed to 

limit or slightly modify some public use programs in order to increase resource protection and reduce 

illegal activities. A high priority will be placed on protecting areas of high duck, goose, and crane use 

to minimize disturbance from human activities. 

Strategies: 

y Close Wheeler NWR to public entry between sunset and sunrise except for (1) access to 

developed boat launching facilities, (2) access to designated bank fishing areas, (3) any night 

hunting as provided in the hunting permit, and (4) activities covered under a special use 

permit. 

y Through media outreach, educate the public in reference to the new hours for Wheeler NWR. 

y Require night hunters to carry a night hunting permit and be actively engaged in hunting. 

y Publish new regulations in 50 CFR. 

y Prohibit boat entry into Crabtree slough at Wheeler NWR from November 15th through March 

1st. This action would extend the current closure policy by adding and additional fifteen days. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125

y Maintain the current policy for horseback riding at Wheeler NWR. The current policy for horse 

and mule riding is as follows: Horse and mules are permitted on open graveled roads only. 

They are not permitted on refuge hunts. 

y Evaluate Tally Ho fox hunts on Wheeler NWR for appropriate use. 

y Continue to prohibit all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) on all Complex lands except by permit in 

established handicapped hunting area. 

y Develop a public access and limitation program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan 

for the Complex. 

y Require night bank anglers to carry a night fishing permit and be actively engaged in fishing. 

Objective 4.7 (Visitor Services Plan) – Within three years of plan implementation, develop a Wheeler 

Complex Visitor Services Plan. 

Discussion: A Visitor Services Plan will set goals, determine measurable objectives, identify 

strategies, and establish evaluation criteria for all visitor services, stepping down the direction and 

guidance outlined in the CCP. Careful planning provides the visiting public with opportunities to enjoy 

and appreciate fish, wildlife, plants, and other resources. 

Strategies: 

y Review and update the Wheeler NWR Visitor Services Plan. 

y Develop Visitor Services Plans for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

y Merge all Visitor Services Plans into one overall Visitor Services Plan for the Complex. 

Objective 4.8 (Volunteer Program) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, continue to build a highly visible 

and dynamic volunteer and intern workforce for the Wheeler Complex and improve on the highly 

successful Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Association (WWRA). 

Discussion: Volunteers and refuge support (friends) groups fortify refuge staffs with their gifts of time, 

skills, and energy and are integral to the future of the Refuge System. Refuge staff will initiate and 

nurture relationships with volunteers and refuge support groups, and will continually support, monitor, 

and evaluate these groups with the goal of fortifying important refuge activities. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act of 

1998 (P.L. 105-242) strengthens the Refuge System’s role in developing effective partnerships with 

various community groups. Whether through volunteers, refuge support groups, or other important 

partnerships in the community, refuge personnel will seek to make the refuge an integral part of the 

community, giving rise to a stronger Refuge System. 

In 1998, Wheeler NWR staff worked with a local newspaper specifically to recruit volunteers to 

expand the volunteer program. Since that time, the program has grown from four to five active 

volunteers to approximately fifty volunteers. Duties include staffing the Visitor Center; conducting onand off-site environmental education programs, trail maintenance, litter removal, bluebird trail 

management, and wildlife surveys; and assisting with special events. 

A training program is in place for all volunteers to ensure the volunteer understands his/her role and 

responsibilities, as well as refuge regulations. Orientation tours are provided for new volunteers and 

updates are provided on an as-needed basis. Field trips and an appreciation dinner are held annually for 

all refuge volunteers. The Supervisory Park Ranger serves as the volunteer coordinator for all volunteers, 

except those who work strictly on biological projects who are supervised by the Refuge Biologist. 
126 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

The Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Association (WWRA) was officially formed in 1998 through the signing 

of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Service. The purpose of WWRA is “to promote 

conservation, awareness, and appreciation of the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and to provide 

assistance to refuge environmental education programs and other conservation efforts on the refuge.” 

The group provides a voice for the refuge in the community and has greatly assisted with 

controversial issues that have had the potential to negatively impact refuge lands. 

 

Strategies: 

y Continue the current volunteer program with annual evaluations and needed modifications. 

y Purchase a vehicle that would be dedicated for use by volunteers, thus enhancing efforts of 

volunteers. 

y Develop a section on the Wheeler Complex website to provide information about the volunteer 

program. 

y Work with the Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Association (WWRA) subcommittees and/or members 

to handle all responsibilities (e.g., handling the financial matters, producing the newsletter, 

and stocking bookstore). These responsibilities should not be conducted by refuge staff. 

y Continue efforts to attend national and regional friends group meetings. 

y Assign a staff person who has at least 1⁄2 of his/her job dedicated to being the Volunteer 

Coordinator. 

y Develop an additional camper pad and expand the volunteer camper program at Wheeler 

NWR. 

y Develop volunteer-led interpretive programs for peak times (e.g., roving interpreters and offsite presentations). 

y Develop a volunteer program section in the step-down Visitor Services Plan for the Complex. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal 5. Provide Refuge Administration. Provide administrative support and guidance to ensure that 

the goals and objectives for fish and wildlife populations, habitats, resource protection and 

conservation, and visitor services are achieved for the Wheeler Complex. 

Overview: The administrative functions associated with the Wheeler Complex include a wide range of 

activities that are critical to the mission of the Refuge System and the purpose(s) of each refuge. 

These functions include staffing, training, budgeting, planning, law enforcement, facility management, 

computerized databases, road infrastructure, community relations, partnering, and equipment 

maintenance. To carry out these functions, a national wildlife refuge complex must have the 

appropriate level of staffing. 

Objective 5.1 (Personnel) – Within the 15-year life of the CCP, obtain additional staff (19 full-time 

employees) and the resources needed to accomplish all of the outlined comprehensive conservation 

management goals and objectives. 

Discussion: Currently, the Wheeler Complex has fifteen full-time employees and one term employee. 

One maintenance position is currently vacant, but funds have not been allocated to fill the position. 

To implement this CCP and accomplish the vision, goals, and objectives identified for this Complex, 

additional resources will be needed. Staff positions for the Wheeler Complex will need to be 

increased by 19 full-time positions, with priority focused on resource protection, resource 

conservation, habitat management, and environmental education and interpretation. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127

Strategies: 

y Provide continuing education and training opportunities to all Complex staff members to 

include computer-based systems. 

y Focus Complex staff training activities on improved recordkeeping, adaptive management 

procedures, standardized data storage, and archiving. 

y Hire an assistant manager and a tractor operator for Key Cave NWR. 

y Hire a biologist and a biological science technician for Sauta Cave NWR. 

y Hire a biologist and a biological science technician for Fern Cave NWR. 

y Hire one additional law enforcement (LE) officer, one maintenance leader, one facilities 

manager, one additional wildlife biologist, two additional biological science technicians, one 

GIS specialist, and one contaminants specialist for the Complex. 

y Hire two additional park rangers, one education specialist, one additional maintenance worker, 

and one education coordinator to increase the capabilities of the environmental education and 

interpretation program. 

y By 2010, ensure that pertinent Complex staff members have taken the Overview for Cultural 

Resources Management Requirements Course (WLD 2117). 

Objective 5.2 (Facilities and Equipment) – Over the 15-year life of the plan, provide adequate and 

functional offices, maintenance facilities, and equipment to support existing and future expansions of 

Complex programs. 

Discussion: Adequate office space, updated residential housing, modern maintenance facilities, and 

updated office equipment are essential components needed to maintain an efficient and wellorganized Complex staff. 

Strategies: 

 

y Replace the current headquarters administration building with a new modern administrative 

building. 

y Replace Residence #2 at Wheeler NWR. 

y Provide modern office equipment and supplies to include updated computer hardware / 

software, high-speed Internet access, digital cameras, GPS, and video projectors. 

y Provide safe, efficient, and modern maintenance equipment, facilities, and vehicles to carry 

out Complex operations. 

y Dedicate operational funds to purchase high resolution aerial imagery to type map vegetation 

and classify habitats on the Complex. 

y Dedicate operational funds for performing all biological work to include: basic wildlife and 

habitat inventorying and monitoring on Complex lands, with an emphasis on standardized 

scientific protocol procedures; data recording; data storage; data analysis; and data retrieval 

procedures. 

y Update and maintain the Wheeler Complex website. 

y Complete the necessary requirements to enable the Traveler Information System at Wheeler 

NWR to be fully operational. 

y Provide operational funds to update the Traveler Information System at least one per quarter 

to ensure that the public is kept abreast of current events. 

y Develop GIS products and/or capabilities to spatially show and document locations and trends 

of such conditions as: invasive plant habitat locations/trends; moist-soil impoundment 

locations; farmed fields and acreage; forest canopy; boundary locations, and urban 

encroachment. 
128 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129

Chapter V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation 

of the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources and not wholly dedicated to compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife 

species first and foremost, but considerable emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and 

demands for appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purposes, vision, goals, and objectives for the refuges contained in this plan for 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel 

needs, volunteers, partnerships opportunities, step-down management plans, a monitoring and 

adaptive management plan, and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their estimated associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the 15-year life of the CCP. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs 

identified by the public, the CCP planning team, and core Complex staff based upon available information. 

These projects were generated for the purpose of serving the purposes of the refuges and achieving 

the goals, objectives, and strategies for each refuge in the Wheeler Complex and are organized by 

goal and project categories. The Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) and/or Service Asset 

and Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) project number is included for those projects 

already defined in RONS, which is a Service system of identifying and prioritizing new projects, or in 

SAMMS, which is a Service system of identifying and prioritizing maintenance projects. 

The primary linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary of 

the project category. A complete listing of each proposed project, its ranking of priority within the 

Complex, its associated costs, and recurring costs can be found in Appendix J. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project Category 1: Increase Control of Invasive, Exotic and Nuisance Animal Species 

Controlling invasive, exotic and/or nuisance animal species is a top priority of the Wheeler Complex. 

Some of the more problematic species, such as beaver and feral hogs, have caused extensive damage to 

important wildlife habitats and to other wildlife species. If they are not controlled, beavers and feral hogs 

will continue to destroy habitat at a rapid pace. This project category contains two projects (1A and 1B). 

Each project is designed to supplement current management practices already underway or currently 

funded. (Linkages: Objective 1.2; Objectives 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4; and Objective 4.1.) 
130 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 1A: Beaver Management – RONS #97007 Wheeler NWR 

Beavers are seriously impacting water control infrastructure, hampering dewatering operations, and 

killing hundreds of acres of forested wetlands on Wheeler NWR. In addition, privately owned forested 

areas adjacent to the refuge are being impacted. Project 1A would provide funding for developing an 

intensive contract beaver management program. A contract beaver trapper would trap and remove 

nuisance beaver from water management areas and adjacent forested wetlands. The estimated firstyear cost for this project is $25,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000. 

Project 1B: Control Feral Hogs – New Project for Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs

Feral hogs on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs are compromising efforts in wetland restoration, 

reforestation, and habitat management. Currently, management is using a multi-faceted control 

program, including public hunting, staff control, trapping, and various other techniques. Project 1B 

would provide the necessary funds to contract professional animal damage control personnel to 

supplement the Complex staff’s feral swine control efforts. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $30,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000. 

Project Category 2: Increase Inventory, Surveys, and Monitoring of Plant and Animal 

Populations 

Inventories, surveys, and monitoring of plant and animal populations are needed to ensure the 

biological integrity of Complex lands is maintained. This information is critical for developing habitat 

management plans that will influence all other management activities. This project category contains 

three projects (2A, 2B, and 2C), which include two additional staff members. (Linkages: Objectives 

1.1, 1.3, and 1.5 -1.18) 

Project 2A: Conduct Needed Monitoring of Wildlife Populations on Wheeler Complex by Establishing 

an Additional Wildlife Biologist Position – RONS #000006 Wheeler NWR 

Inventories, surveys, and monitoring of wildlife populations are critical pieces of information needed to 

develop and update wildlife management plans. Project 2A provides funds for the hiring of a Wildlife 

Biologist to monitor and survey fish, wildlife, and plant populations on the Wheeler Complex. 

Currently, population levels and basic biological information are lacking on most species. Limited 

surveys of migratory birds do occur; however, this project will expand and increase these efforts. In 

addition, a comprehensive wildlife survey plan would be developed and initiated. The estimated firstyear cost for this project is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000. 

Project 2B: Classification of Natural Plant Communities and Inventory of Vascular Flora – RONS 

#02001 Wheeler NWR 

Inventories and classification of plant communities and vascular flora are critical pieces of information 

needed to develop comprehensive habitat management plans. Project 2B provides funds for 

conducting a detailed systematic inventory and classification of plant species on approximately 

16,500 acres at Wheeler NWR, which have not been conducted. Results would contribute to the 

baseline knowledge of natural resources on Wheeler NWR and provide a framework to evaluate 

impacts of habitat management strategies on the other refuges in the Complex. The estimated firstyear cost for this project is $40,000, with a recurring cost of $4,000. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 131

Project 2C: Manage American Woodcock by Establishing an Additional Biological Science 

Technician Position – RONS #97002 Wheeler NWR

Project 2C would provide funds for the hiring of a Biological Science Technician to monitor migratory 

bird activities and to conduct an American woodcock management study on Wheeler NWR. 

Information of the extent of use and quality of nesting and wintering American woodcock habitat on 

the refuge is lacking. Information on woodcock use and nesting on the refuge would be determined 

by this project and the information would be used to develop forest management priorities to enhance 

13,000 acres of potential woodcock habitat. Woodcock nesting densities would be calculated and 

correlated with singing ground surveys to determine annual nesting trends. This study could have 

region-wide woodcock management applications. The estimated first-year cost for this project is 

$118,000, with a recurring cost of $53,000. 

Project Category 3: Increase Management Activities for the Conservation of Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Wheeler Complex is home to a wide array of threatened and endangered species. In fact, Key Cave, 

Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWR were established to conserve and protect threatened and 

endangered species. These refuges are currently un-staffed and are managed at a distance by 

Wheeler NWR. Basic fundamental biological information is lacking about these species and 

additional staff at each refuge would greatly enhance conservation and protection efforts. This 

project category is comprised of six projects (3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, and 3F), which include the addition 

of five new staff members. (Linkages: Objectives 1.18-25; 2.2, 2.4-6; and 3.3-4) 

Project 3A: Manage Endangered Wildlife and Habitats by Establishing a New Assistant Manager 

Position at Key Cave NWR – RONS #97010 Key Cave NWR 

Project 3A would provide funds for the hiring of an Assistant Manager at Key Cave NWR to direct 

habitat restoration and management operations, conducting soil conservation efforts, serving as a 

liaison with local landowners for resource protection, and providing visitor safety. Key Cave NWR is 

critical to the conservation and continued existence of the Alabama cavefish, serving as the primary 

recharge area for the only known population of this highly endangered fish. In addition to the 

cavefish, Key Cave is home to approximately 40,000 endangered gray bats. All management at Key 

Cave NWR is currently conducted by Wheeler NWR, which is an already understaffed refuge located 

more than an hour away from Key Cave NWR. The estimated first-year cost for this project is 

$154,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000. 

Project 3B: Manage Endangered Bats and other Rare Wildlife by Establishing a New Biologist 

Position at Sauta Cave NWR – RONS #000001 Sauta Cave NWR 

Project 3B would provide funds for the hiring of a Wildlife Biologist at Sauta Cave NWR to help 

ensure the conservation, protection, and recovery of federally listed endangered gray and Indiana 

bats. Sauta Cave serves as a summer roost and small maternity/bachelor cave for 250,000 – 

400,000 gray bats and an important hibernating location for several hundred Indiana bats. In addition 

to the endangered bats, the threatened Price’s potato-bean is found on Sauta Cave NWR. This 

satellite refuge has never been staffed and basic biological information needed to manage these 

species is lacking. A Wildlife Biologist is needed to conduct research and other studies to 

recommend and direct proper management decisions to ensure the conservation of these rare 

species and their habitats. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $140,000, with a recurring 

cost of $75,000. 
132 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 3C: Monitor Endangered Bats and other Rare Wildlife by Establishing a New Biological 

Science Technician Position at Sauta Cave NWR – RONS #000002 Sauta Cave NWR 

Project 3C would provide funds for the hiring of a Biological Science Technician at Sauta Cave NWR 

to help ensure the conservation, protection, and recovery of federally listed species. A Biological 

Science Technician is needed to assist in basic surveys, monitoring, and research to provide data for 

proper management decisions and to ensure the conservation of these rare species and their 

habitats. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $128,000, with a recurring cost of $63,000. 

Project 3D: Manage Endangered Bats and other Rare Wildlife by Establishing a New Biologist 

Position at Fern Cave NWR – RONS #000001 Fern Cave NWR 

Project 3D would provide funds for the hiring of a Wildlife Biologist at Fern Cave NWR to help ensure 

the conservation, protection, and recovery of federally listed endangered gray bats and the 

threatened American Hart's-tongue fern. Fern Cave NWR contains the only population of American 

Hart's-tongue fern on public land and is the single most important gray bay "hibernaculum" in North 

America, hosting more than one million hibernating gray bats. This satellite refuge has never been 

staffed and basic biological information needed to manage these species is lacking. A Wildlife 

Biologist is needed to conduct research and other studies to recommend and direct proper 

management decisions to ensure the conservation of these rare species and their habitats. The 

estimated first-year cost for this project is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000. 

Project 3E: Monitor Endangered Bats and other Rare Wildlife by Establishing a New Biological 

Science Technician Position at Fern Cave NWR – RONS #000002 Fern Cave NWR 

Project 3E would provide funds for the hiring of a Biological Science Technician at Fern Cave NWR to 

help ensure the conservation, protection, and recovery of federally listed species. A Biological 

Science Technician is needed to assist in basic surveys, monitoring, and research to provide data for 

proper management decisions and to ensure the conservation of these rare species and their 

habitats. The estimated first-year cost for this project is $128,000, with a recurring cost of $63,000. 

Project 3F: Conduct a Forest Management Study at Sauta Cave NWR to Evaluate Price’s PotatoBean Response to Various Forest Thinning Techniques – New Project for Sauta Cave NWR 

Project 3F would provide the necessary funding to conduct a series of forest research experiments at 

Sauta Cave NWR. These experiments would be designed to evaluate Price’s potato-bean response 

to various forest thinning techniques. Results would indicate if a change in forest management 

should be initiated at Sauta Cave NWR. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $70,000, with 

a recurring cost of $10,000. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project Category 4: Improve Water Management System Operations 

A system of levees, water control structures, and mechanical pumps are necessary to provide 

dependable flooded habitats that correspond with the migration chronologies of migratory birds. 

Effective water management is critical in flooded habitats to meet the needs of migratory birds, to 

stimulate the production of desirable moist-soil plants, and to control undesirable plants. This project 

category is comprised of seven projects (4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, and 4G) that are designed to 

improve the operation of the water management system at Wheeler NWR. (Linkages: Objectives 1.4-

9 and 2.1-2 and 2.7) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 133

Project 4A: Construct Two Pump Stations in the White Springs Dewatering Unit to Provide an 

Effective Water Supply – RONS #96002 Wheeler NWR 

Project 4A would provide funding for the installation of two pumping stations in the White Springs 

Dewatering Unit to provide water for effective, less costly habitat management for a large percentage 

of Wheeler NWR's migratory bird population. The 3,000-acre White Springs Unit has few water 

supply capabilities short of costly contract pumping or unpredictable/uncontrollable rainfall. The 

ability to provide or remove water when needed is essential to provide quality habitat. Completion of 

this project would enhance the production of both natural waterfowl foods and planted grain crops, 

resulting in increased use of the unit by birds and other wildlife. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $835,000, with a recurring cost of $60,000. 

Project 4B: Install Three Water Control Structures in the White Springs Dewatering Unit to Enable 

Effective Water Movement – RONS #96003 Wheeler NWR 

The White Springs Unit has few water control capabilities, short of costly contract pumping. The 

ability to manage water levels effectively is essential to providing quality habitat for migratory water 

birds. Project 4B would provide funding to install three water control structures, facilitating more rapid 

gravity flow drawdown in early spring. Project completion would result in substantial savings in 

pumping costs and also permit more timely water control, thus improving management for migratory 

birds. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $319,000, with a recurring cost of $25,000. 

Project 4C: Construct Two Pump Stations in the Rockhouse Dewatering Unit – RONS #02002 

Wheeler NWR 

Project 4C would provide funding for the construction of two pumping stations in the Rockhouse 

Dewatering Unit. The Rockhouse Unit is heavily used by migratory waterfowl. Under optimum 

conditions, it can provide habitat for approximately 30,000 waterfowl. Management of the unit is presently 

limited due to an inability to efficiently move water through the unit. Construction of two pumping stations 

would allow optimum management of water levels in the 1,500-acre unit, while enhancing production of 

both natural waterfowl foods and planted grain crops, resulting in increased use by waterfowl. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $800,000, with a recurring cost of $40,000. 

Project 4D: White Springs #4 Water Control Structures – RONS #97008 Wheeler NWR 

Project 4D would provide funding for the construction of a low head dike and installation of a water 

control structure in White Springs #4 Unit, dividing the impoundment into two units and allowing 

greater flexibility in management and increased water level control. Management options for 

migratory birds would be increased by allowing units to be operated independently. The estimated 

first-year cost of this project is $100,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000. 

Project 4E: Rehabilitate Inefficient White Springs Water Distribution System – SAMMS #00103414 

Wheeler NWR

The White Spring Dewatering Unit at Wheeler NWR is heavily used by migratory birds. Extensive 

siltation has occurred in the dewatering unit and in areas adjacent to existing water control structures. 

Water levels can no longer be effectively managed. Project 4E would provide funding to clean out 12 

miles of water distribution canals to include the removal and disposal of associated vegetation and 

debris. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $176,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000. 
134 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 4F: Replace Defective Crabtree Slough Water Control Structure – SAMMS #01113573 

Wheeler NWR

Crabtree Slough provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl, wading birds, and other migratory 

and resident birds. Water levels are controlled by a concrete stoplog structure constructed in 1953. 

The structure is aging and becoming less efficient in controlling water levels. Project 4G would 

provide funding to replace this water control structure. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$72,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000. 

Project 4G: Replace Blackwell Swamp Main Water Control Structure – SAMMS #01113576 

Wheeler NWR

Blackwell Swamp provides important habitat for migratory waterfowl, wading birds, and many other 

fish and wildlife species. Water levels are controlled by an outdated double screwgate aluminum and 

concrete structure. Corrosion of the aluminum pipe structure is decreasing the water level control 

efficiency of the structure. Project 4H would provide funding to replace this water control structure. 

The estimated first-year cost of this project is $125,000, with a recurring cost of $4,000. 

Project Category 5: Increase Control of Invasive and Undesirable Plant Species 

The biological integrity of Complex lands is threatened by a variety of invasive and undesirable plant 

species. The majority of these problematic species are aquatic; however, some terrestrial species 

also occur throughout the Complex. The ability to control invasive plants is crucial in meeting 

objectives of local, state, and national conservation plans. This project category is comprised of two 

projects (5A and 5B). (Linkages: Objective 2.7 and Objectives 3.3-4, and 3.7) 

Project 5A: Dewatering Unit Vegetation Control. – RONS #96001 Wheeler NWR 

Many of the impoundments on Wheeler NWR are infested with invasive plant species. Project 5A would 

provide funding for invasive vegetation control in these areas through mechanical mowing and discing. In 

addition, it would fund maintenance of these units, thus providing optimum conditions for moist-soil 

management. The estimated first-year cost is $75,000, with a recurring cost of $30,000 per year. 

Project 5B: Develop an Invasive Plant Species Program to Control Invasive Plants on Wheeler 

Complex – New Project for Wheeler Complex 

Project 5B would provide funding to implement a Complex-wide program to control invasive, exotic, 

and undesirable plants that would target both aquatic and terrestrial invasive plant species. Invasive 

plant occurrence would be mapped and quantified. Control efforts would be documented with GPS 

and stored in GIS databases for further analysis. The estimated first-year cost is $35,000, with a 

recurring cost of $5,000 per year. 

Project Category 6: Improve Cropland Management 

Habitat management at Wheeler Complex includes overseeing a cooperative farming program to 

provide food for wildlife. Currently, farmers plant between 3,500 - 4,000 acres at Wheeler NWR and 

290 acres at Key Cave NWR annually through cooperative farming agreements. In addition, the 

Complex conducts a limited amount of force-account (in-house) farming as budgets and workforce 

allow. This project category is comprised of two projects (6A and 6B). One project is designed to 

convert the current farming program to contract farming and the other to increase the Complex’s 

ability to conduct force account farming. (Linkages: Objectives 1.1, 1.4, 1.6, and 2.4) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135

Project 6A: Convert Cooperative Farming to Contract Farming – RONS #00027 Wheeler NWR 

Project 6A would provide funding to convert the current cooperative farming program to contract 

farming. Contract farming would increase wildlife benefits through conversion of unneeded rental 

cropland to wildlife habitat. The total land base utilized by farming would be reduced by up to 50 

percent, permitting the utilization of up to 2,000 acres as wildlife habitat instead of as cleared 

farmland. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $405,000, with a recurring cost of $300,000. 

Project 6B: Increase Force-Account (Using Complex Staff and Equipment) Farming Capabilities – 

New Project for Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs

Project 6B would provide funding to increase the Complex’s ability to conduct force-account farming. 

This action would allow for more precise and timely placement of food for wildlife. Costs associated 

with this project include the purchase of seed, fertilizer, soil amendments, pesticides, equipment, and 

diesel fuel for conducting force-account farming. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$350,000, with a recurring cost of $100,000. 

Project Category 7: Improve Habitats at Key Cave Refuge 

Successful habitat management at Key Cave NWR is important to the conservation and continued 

existence of the Alabama cavefish, serving as the primary recharge area for Key Cave. Approval of 

the projects in this category would support habitat improvements, such as restoring native warm 

season grasses and upland hardwoods. These actions would help improve water quality in the 

watershed to benefit the endangered species in Key Cave and provide habitat for migratory birds. 

This project category is comprised of nine projects (7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, 7F, 7G, 7H, and 7I), which 

include the addition of one staff position. (Linkages: Objectives 1.13, 1.14, 1.20, and 1.21; 2.5 and 

2.7; and Objectives 3.4 and 3.7) 

Project 7A: Restore and Maintain Habitats by Establishing a New Tractor Operator Position – RONS 

#97009 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7A would provide funding for the hiring of a Tractor Operator at the unstaffed Key Cave NWR 

to conduct activities such as planting native warm season grasses and hardwood tree species, 

constructing check-dams for erosion control, and performing general maintenance. All management 

activities are currently conducted by staff at Wheeler NWR, an already understaffed refuge located 

more than one hour away from Key Cave NWR. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$122,000, with a recurring cost of $57,000. 

Project 7B: Re-establish Native Grasses and Forested Uplands – RONS #00012 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7B would provide funding for the re-establishment of native grasses and forested uplands at 

Key Cave NWR. Native warm season grass seed and hardwood tree seedlings are expensive and 

require labor to plant. In addition, prescribed burning and other disturbance techniques would have 

to occur. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $35,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000. 

Project 7C: Purchase a New Truck-Tractor – RONS #00029 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7C would provide funding for the purchase of a large truck-tractor unit to assist in restoration 

and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave NWR. The estimated first-year cost of 

this project is $125,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. 
136 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 7D: Purchase a New Lowboy Trailer – RONS #00028 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7D would provide funding for the purchase of a 45-foot lowboy trailer that would be used in 

the restoration and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave NWR. The estimated 

first-year cost of this project is $90,000, with a recurring cost of $3,500. 

Project 7E: Purchase a New Medium Tractor and Rotary Mower – RONS #00026 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7E would provide funding for the purchase of a 100-horsepower tractor and batwing rotary 

mower to assist in the restoration and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave 

NWR. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $120,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. 

Project 7F: Purchase a New Cover Disk – RONS #00030 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7F would provide funding for the purchase of a 20-foot cover disk to assist in the restoration 

and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave NWR. The estimated first-year cost of 

this project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $1,000. 

Project 7G: Purchase a New Small Tractor and Rotary Mower – RONS #00025 Key Cave NWR 

Project 7G would provide funding for the purchase of a 45-horsepower (PTO) tractor and 8-foot rotary 

mower to assist in the restoration and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave 

NWR. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $25,000, with a recurring cost of $2,500. 

Project 7H: Purchase a New Native Grass Drill and Spray Rig – RONS #00027 Key Cave NWR

Project 7H would provide funding for the purchase of a 12-row native grass drill to assist in the 

restoration and maintenance of native warm season grasses at Key Cave NWR. The estimated firstyear cost of this project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $3,000. 

Project 7I: Improve the Water Holding Capacity of Shallow Water Areas – New Project for Key 

Cave NWR 

Project 7I would provide funding for rehabilitating the underlying soil of three shallow water areas to 

improve their water holding capacities. When properly mixed and compacted, bentonite clay has 

been shown to be successful in sealing leaky ponds. Success of the project would result in the 

creation of 16 acres of waterfowl and waterbird habitat at Key Cave NWR. The total estimated firstyear cost of this project is $30,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Project Category 8: Increase Law Enforcement (LE) Activities 

Wheeler Complex currently relies on only two full-time law enforcement officers (LEOs) whose time is 

split covering a 7-Refuge Complex spread over 12,500 square miles of northern Alabama. Public use 

has continued to increase each year with issues requiring LE, such as vandalism, littering, 

compliance with access, and public use regulations. This project category is comprised of two 

projects (8A and 8B), which include the addition of one LE staff position and the purchasing of special 

surveillance equipment. (Linkages: Objective 3.1, 4.1, 4.12, and 5.1.) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137

Project 8A: Increase Resource and Visitor Protection by Establishing an Additional Law Enforcement 

Officer (LEO) – RONS #03012 Wheeler Complex 

Project 8A would provide funds for the hiring of an additional full-time LEO for the Wheeler Complex to 

ensure the safety of the visiting public and increase the protection of natural resources and facilities. An 

additional officer would reduce the amount of overtime current LE officers must work in order to provide 

public safety. The estimated cost is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000 per year. 

Project 8B: Increase Law Enforcement (LE) Capabilities by Purchasing Specialized Surveillance 

Equipment – New Project for the Wheeler Complex 

Project 8B would provide funding for purchasing state-of-the-art surveillance equipment for the Complex’s 

LEOs to ensure the safety of the visiting public and increase the protection of Complex natural resources 

and facilities. Costs associated with this project include the purchase of equipment and labor for 

installation. The estimated first-year cost is $10,000, with a recurring cost of $1,000 per year. 

Project Category 9: Increase Land/Water Conservation and Protection 

The health of aquatic ecosystems, systems that also provide human drinking water and irrigation water, is 

directly linked to the health of the land. Land conservation measures are critical actions needed for 

protecting and improving water resources. Complex management supports both land and water 

conservation measures, however efforts are currently limited. This project category is comprised of five 

projects (9A, 9B, 9C, 9D and 9E) that would provide resources and additional staff to develop both land 

and water conservation programs. Costs associated with these projects include the purchase of 

equipment and the increase in two staff positions. (Linkages: Objective 1.21, 3.4, 3.6, and 3.7) 

Project 9A: Conduct Needed Water Quality Monitoring by Establishing a Biological Science 

Technician Position – RONS #99004 Wheeler Complex

Project 9A would provide funding for the development of a comprehensive water quality monitoring 

program for the Wheeler Complex. Areas adjacent to the refuges are under intense industrial, 

agricultural, and residential development (especially Wheeler NWR). Consequently, water quality 

may be declining. This project would result in the establishment of 25 permanent water quality 

stations where water would be sampled monthly. Funds from this project would also be allocated to 

hire an additional Biological Science Technician for the Complex to conduct the program. The 

estimated first-year cost is $213,000, with a recurring cost of $98,000 per year. 

Project 9B: Establish a Contaminants Program – New Project for Wheeler Complex

Project 9B would provide funding for the development of a comprehensive contaminants monitoring 

program for the Wheeler Complex. Areas adjacent to the refuges are under intense industrial, 

agricultural, and residential development, which may produce contaminants (especially Wheeler 

NWR). In addition, the Redstone Arsenal military installation has released contaminants into refuge 

waters in the past. Funds from this project would hire a Contamination Specialist to conduct the 

program. The estimated first-year cost is $125,000, with a recurring cost of $85,000 per year. 
138 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 9C: Analyze Water Quality Impacting Endangered Alabama Cavefish – RONS #97011 Key 

Cave NWR 

Key Cave NWR is critical for the conservation and continued existence of the Alabama cavefish. The 

quality of water entering the cave system from its recharge area is of utmost importance to Alabama 

cavefish survival. Project 9C would provide funding for the development of a water quality sampling 

and analysis program in Key Cave. Results would be monitored over time to determine if habitat 

restoration activities are effective in improving water quality in the recharge area and enhancing 

habitat for this endangered fish. The estimated first-year cost is $22,000, with a recurring cost of 

$12,000 per year. 

Project 9D: Develop a Complex-Wide Litter Control and Reduction Program – New Project for the 

Wheeler Complex 

As urbanization continues to increase at an alarming rate, more and more of the Wheeler Complex is 

experiencing problems from littering (especially Wheeler NWR). Not only are visitors leaving trash, 

but construction materials and household garbage are being dumped on Service lands. Project 9D 

would provide funding for the development of a litter control and reduction program for the Complex. 

The estimated first-year cost is $15,000, with a recurring cost of $4,000 per year. 

Project 9E: Conduct a Study to Analyze Existing Rights-of-Ways (ROW) – New Project for 

Wheeler NWR 

Project 9E would provide funding to conduct a study that would identify and analyze the impacts of 

existing rights-of-way (ROW) easements on Wheeler NWR. Currently, there are approximately 60 

rights-of-way crossing refuge lands. Results from the study would help determine if the current 

refuge policy should be altered or updated. Global positioning systems (GPS) and GIS technologies 

will be used to locate and record ROW easements locations. The estimated first-year cost is 

$20,000, with a recurring cost of $1,000. 

 

Project Category 10: Increase Cultural Resource Protection

As required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and other legal mandates, it is the duty 

of each land management agency to identify, research, and protect cultural resources. Projects in 

this category would provide funding for conducting research and developing scientific reports to 

identify cultural resources located on lands within the Wheeler Complex. The funding of these 

projects is essential to help Complex management meet Federal cultural resource mandates. This 

project category is comprised of two projects (10A, and 10B). (Linkage: Objective 3.2) 

Project 10A: Develop a Cultural Resource Overview of the Wheeler Complex – New Project for the 

Wheeler Complex 

Project 10A would provide funding to develop and publish a cultural resources overview for each 

refuge in the Wheeler Complex. The cultural resources overview would include information about the 

area’s geomorphology, cultural history, paleo-environmental reconstruction, history of past 

archaeological investigations on and near each refuge, and a list of the Complex’s historical 

properties. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $20,000, with a recurring cost of $0. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139

Project 10B: Conduct a Comprehensive Cultural Resource Inventory of the Wheeler Complex – New 

Project for the Wheeler Complex 

Project 10B would provide funding to conduct a comprehensive archaeological survey of each refuge 

in the Wheeler Complex in coordination with Service policy. This survey would use scientific methods 

to inventory and then evaluate the National Register’s eligibility of historic properties. The estimated 

first-year cost of this project is $150,000, with a recurring cost of $15,000. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project Category 11: Expand Visitor Services and Volunteer Capabilities 

The Wheeler Complex is located near several major population centers, with more than four million 

inhabitants within 200 miles of Complex lands. For the past five years, the Wheeler Complex has 

averaged over 650,000 visitors annually. Projects within this category would support both the 

expansion of visitor services and volunteer programs. The project category is comprised of four 

projects (11A, 11B, 11C, and 11D), which include the addition of one staff member. 

(Linkages: Objectives 4.1 and 4.8) 

Project 11A: Expand Visitor Programs by Establishing an Additional Park Ranger Position – RONS 

#00012 Wheeler NWR

Project 11A would provide funding to hire an additional Park Ranger to support expansion of public 

use activities at Wheeler NWR. Public use opportunities would be broadened to fulfill requests for onand off-site programs, including expanded community outreach and the growing volunteer program 

and would result in additional wildlife observation opportunities. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $118,000, with a recurring cost of $53,000.

Project 11B: Purchase a Volunteer Rover Vehicle – RONS #00020 Wheeler NWR 

Wheeler NWR receives more than 650,000 visitors annually, with 10 percent or less of those using 

the Visitor Center. With over 100 miles of roads used by refuge visitors, an outstanding opportunity 

exists to contact visitors with the use of volunteers. The addition of a volunteer vehicle would 

enhance the refuge’s environmental education and outreach efforts by providing volunteers with 

additional transportation. Project 11C would provide funding for the purchase of a volunteer rover 

vehicle for use by refuge volunteers during outreach activities. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $30,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. 

Project 11C: Replace Secondary and Sub-entrance Signs – SAMMS #80103371 Wheeler NWR

Visitors to Wheeler NWR depend on signage to alert them to refuge entrances, units, boundaries, 

and other features. Over the past 10 years, a number of secondary and sub-entrance signs have 

weathered, been vandalized, and/or otherwise been damaged beyond repair. Project 11D would 

provide funding for the purchase of secondary and sub-entrances signs to be placed at appropriate 

locations. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $27,000, with a recurring cost of $4,000. 
140 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project Category 12: Expand Hunting Program 

Hunting is an extremely popular activity at Wheeler NWR. Public scoping comments have indicated a 

desire to expand the ability to monitor the health of the white-tailed deer population on Wheeler NWR. 

The project (12A) in this category would support the expansion of the deer monitoring program by 

constructing a new self-service deer weigh-in and health check station. (Linkage: Objective 4.1) 

Project 12A: Construct a Self Service Deer Weigh-In / Health Check Station – New Project for 

Wheeler NWR 

Project 12A would provide funding for the design and construction of a self-service deer weigh-in and 

health check station at Wheeler NWR. This facility would function as a full-service, self-service check 

station, where hunters would collect and record data themselves. The walls of the check station would be 

covered with educational posters; publications, charts, and data sheets that would help the hunters learn 

more about sound deer management and keep track of the deer harvest on the refuge. The posters 

would also assist hunters in determining approximate age and the overall health of the deer. 

At the station, hunters would be encouraged to fill out deer sighting cards and record post-harvest 

data, including hours hunted, deer sighted, field-dressed weights, sex, number of points on antlered 

deer, county in which deer were harvested, and approximate age. The estimated first-year cost for 

this project is $60,000, with a recurring cost of $3,000. 

Project Category 13: Increase Wildlife Observation and Photography Opportunities 

Wildlife observation and photography are quickly becoming popular activities on Complex lands. As a 

result, Complex management has recently renovated or constructed several wildlife viewing and 

photography facilities at Wheeler, Key Cave, and Sauta Cave NWRs. Projects in this category are 

designed to expand wildlife observation and photography opportunities on Complex lands. This project 

category is comprised of five projects (13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, and 13E). (Linkages: Objective 4.3) 

Project 13A: Develop a Wildlife Observation Building Live Camera – RONS #00025 Wheeler NWR 

Project 13A would provide funding for the purchase and installation of a remote live video camera for 

the Wildlife Observation Building. The Display Pool area adjacent to the Wildlife Observation Building 

provides a unique opportunity to observe wildlife in a natural setting. Thousands of ducks, geese, 

and cranes use the area for feeding and resting from November through February, and an amazing 

variety of other wildlife species use the area year-round. 

The remote live video camera, mounted on the Wildlife Observation Building, could be accessed via 

the Internet and would offer a unique look at the wide variety of wildlife using the area. The live video 

camera would be part of a web site providing information on Wheeler NWR and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and would be available to Internet users, greatly enhancing outreach efforts. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $69,000, with a recurring cost of $12,000. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141

Project 13B: Increase Wildlife Observation and Photography by Constructing an Additional Wildlife 

Observation Tower – New Project for Wheeler NWR 

One of the most popular wildlife observation facilities at Wheeler NWR is the wildlife observation 

tower located on the Beaverdam Peninsula. Project 13B would provide the funding to construct an 

additional wildlife observation tower at Wheeler NWR. The location of the tower has yet to be 

determined but possible sites include sites overlooking the Mooresville Peninsula and the White 

Springs #2 Waterfowl Impoundment. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $60,000, with a 

recurring cost of $2,000. 

Project 13C: Increase Wildlife Observation and Photography by Constructing a Wildlife Photography 

Blind on the North Side of the Tennessee River – New Project for Wheeler NWR 

Wheeler NWR currently has only one wildlife photography blind in operation. It is located on the 

south side of the Tennessee River near the Display Pool at the refuge’s Visitor Center and has 

recently been renovated. However, many wildlife photography enthusiasts live on the north side of 

the Tennessee River near the cities of Athens, Madison, and Huntsville, Alabama. 

Project 13C would provide funding to construct a new wildlife photography blind on the north side of 

the Tennessee River. Possible sites include areas near the Penny Bottoms Impoundment, Buckeye 

Impoundment, and/or the Thorson Arm Impoundment. Completion of this project would provide 

additional opportunities for capturing wildlife photographs. The location of the blind has yet to be 

determined. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $10,000, with a recurring cost of $1,000. 

Project 13D: Construct Wildlife Drive (Auto Tour) – SAMMS #97123406 Wheeler NWR

Project 13D would provide funding for the construction of a wildlife drive (auto tour) at Wheeler NWR. 

A Wheeler NWR AutoTour informational brochure would be developed along with interpretive stops 

along the drive, allowing the visitors to travel at their own paces. The wildlife drive would expose 

each visitor to a variety of refuge habitats and various wildlife management programs. The 

completion of this project would help reach visitors who do not use the refuge’s Visitor Center 

facilities. The estimated first-year cost is between $1.5 - 3.0 million, with a recurring cost of $25,000. 

Project 13E: Construct Cave Springs Kiosk and Viewing Platform – SAMMS #00124021 Wheeler NWR 

Cave Springs Cave, located at Wheeler NWR, provides crucial habitat for the endangered gray bat. 

During summer months, bats can easily be seen exiting the cave at dusk to forage. The cave is 

gated and closed to all public entry, but the public often visit the area to watch evening emergences. 

Project 13E would provide funding to construct a 30-foot by 10-foot wooden platform near the cave 

entrance from which to view the emerging bats. The platform would also be used for interpretation 

and educational activities during the summer months. A wooden kiosk would be constructed 

adjacent to the overlook to provide year-round information on bats and cave ecosystems. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $31,000, with a recurring cost of $2,500. 
142 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project Category 14: Expand Environmental Education and Wildlife Interpretation Programs 

The focal point of public use on Wheeler NWR is the Visitor Center (Givens Interpretive Center). In 

addition to providing public use opportunities for 34,000 visitors annually, the Visitor Center presently 

provides environmental education and wildlife interpretation opportunities for approximately 10,000 

local students annually. Projects in this category are designed to expand the environmental 

education and wildlife interpretation programs for the Complex by building and staffing a new 

Environmental Education Center. This project category is comprised of eight projects (14A, 14B, 

14C, 14D, 14E, 14F, 14G, and 14H), which include the addition of four new staff members. 

(Linkages: Objectives 4.4-5) 

Project 14A: Construct Environmental Education Center – SAMMS #00110155 Wheeler NWR 

The current Visitor Center, located at Wheeler NWR, was not designed to provide the current and 

expanded levels of environmental education that occur each year. Project 14A would provide funding 

for the construction of an Environmental Education Center that would increase the environmental 

education programs that could be offered to an additional 15,000 area students annually. 

Additionally, this new facility would provide laboratory space to conduct scientific investigations. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $795,000, with a recurring cost of $25,000. 

Project 14B: Coordinator for Proposed Environmental Education Center – RONS #00024 Wheeler NWR

Project 14B would provide funding to hire an Environmental Education Coordinator to administer the 

proposed environmental education center and its associated programs. Current staffing levels are 

inadequate to serve the new Environmental Education Center. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $89,000. 

Project 14C: Education Resource Specialist for Proposed Environmental Education Center – RONS 

#00023 Wheeler NWR

Project 14C would provide funding to hire an Education Specialist to develop environmental 

education programs for the proposed Environmental Education Center. The estimated first-year cost 

of this project is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000. 

Project 14D: Park Ranger for the Proposed Environmental Education Center – RONS #00004 

Wheeler NWR

Project 14D would provide funding to hire an additional Park Ranger to staff the proposed 

Environmental Education Center and assist in environmental education classes and activities. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $128,000, with a recurring cost of $63,000. 

Project 14E: Maintenance Worker for the Proposed Environmental Education Center – RONS 

#00003 Wheeler NWR

Even new facilities require daily, weekly, and monthly maintenance. Project 14E would provide 

funding to hire an additional Maintenance Worker to perform building maintenance and repair on a 

proposed Environmental Education Center. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $113,000, 

with a recurring cost of $49,000. 

Project 14F: Construct a Simulated Cave Exhibit to Interpret Protected Sensitive Areas – RONS 

#00015 and SAMMS #00124023 Wheeler NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 143

Project 14F would provide funding for developing and constructing a simulated cave exhibit at the 

Wheeler NWR Visitor Center. Cave ecosystems are unique and often critical to the health of a 

community's water supply due to the recharge and filtering of groundwater, yet most people are 

unaware of this importance and have no concept of their uniqueness. Cave systems provide critical 

habitat for federally listed species, including Indiana and gray bats, Alabama cavefish, and American 

Hart's-tongue fern. A simulated cave exhibit would provide educational information and increase 

public awareness of the importance of cave habitats. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$80,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000. 

Project 14G: Develop a Visitor Center Interactive Education Exhibit – RONS #00017 Wheeler NWR 

Project 14G would provide funding to purchase an interactive computer exhibit for the Wheeler NWR 

Visitor Center. A system with software programs geared toward different user groups would provide 

interactive learning for individuals and groups. Simulated habitat management, wildlife profiles, 

information on endangered species, and other options would be offered. The estimated first-year 

cost of this project is $30,000, with a recurring cost of $5,000. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project Category 15: Improve Safety, Environmental Compliance, and Asset Management

Complex management must address regulatory safety, environmental, and property accountability 

requirements in a systematic and cost-effective manner. By being proactive, management can help 

reduce the risk of non-compliance, enhance environmental protection, and improve health and safety 

practices for both employees and the public. Projects in this category are designed to improve safety 

programs, environmental compliance, and asset management at the Wheeler Complex. This project 

category is comprised of three projects (15A, 15B, and 15C), which include the addition of two new 

staff members. (Linkages: Objectives 5.1-2) 

Project 15A: Improve Safety, Environmental Compliance, and Asset Management by Establishing an 

Assistant Manager Position to Serve as Facilities Manager – RONS #02004 Wheeler NWR

Project 15A would provide funding to hire a safety/environmental compliance coordinator and asset 

manager to meet ever-increasing demands for environmental compliance and protection. The 

individual would be responsible for managing the Wheeler Complex's Service Asset and Maintenance 

Management System (SAMMS) program, while also serving as the Complex's safety officer. Refuge 

environmental audits and compliance implementation would be coordinated through this position. 

The estimated cost of this project is $140,000, with a recurring cost of $75,000. 

Project 15B: Administration of Geographic Information System (GIS) through Establishment of a GIS 

Coordinator Position – RONS #00001 Wheeler NWR

Effective management on a landscape scale through the use of geographic information systems 

(GIS) is now available. Project 15B would provide funding to hire a full-time GIS specialist to 

coordinate the Wheeler Complex's GIS program. The estimated cost of this project is $154,000, with 

a recurring cost of $89,000. 
144 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Project 15C: Purchase of a Geographic Information System – RONS #97004 Wheeler NWR

Project 15C would provide funding to purchase a computer server system with updated GIS software. 

This equipment would enhance management through efficient display, manipulation, and storage of 

data. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $50,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000. 

Project Category 16: Improve Maintenance Programs, Facilities, and Road Systems

With over 37,000-acres of refuge lands spread across northern Alabama, the maintenance staff at 

Wheeler Complex is challenged to adequately provide for existing needs. Projects in this category 

are designed to improve maintenance programs, facility support, and road system repairs throughout 

the Wheeler Complex. This project category is comprised of seven projects (16A, 16B, 16C, 16D, 

16E, 16F, and 16G), which include the addition of one new staff member. (Linkages: Objective 5.2) 

Project 16A: Improve Maintenance Programs by Establishing a Work Leader Position to Supervise 

the Wheeler Complex Maintenance Program – RONS #00008 Wheeler NWR

Project 16A would provide funding to hire a Work Leader/Wage Supervisor to direct maintenance 

operations and supervise other maintenance employees on the Wheeler Complex. The estimated 

first-year cost of this project is $137,000, with a recurring cost of $72,000. 

 

Project 16B: Replace Heavy Equipment Wash Rack – SAMMS #98103379 Wheeler NWR

The heavy equipment wash rack at the Complex's headquarters is inadequate for current use. 

Project 16B would provide funding to replace the existing wash rack with a larger, more efficient wash 

rack. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $26,000, with a recurring cost of $2,000. 

Project 16C: Rehabilitate Refuge Boundary – SAMMS #90103372 Wheeler NWR

The Wheeler NWR boundary consists of approximately 200 miles of irregularly shaped boundary 

interfaced with residential and commercial development. Many of the corner posts have been lost 

due to a number of factors and are impossible to find. Project 16C would provide funding to contract 

a retracement survey to relocate approximately 100 corners. The estimated first-year cost of this 

project is $82,000, with a recurring cost of $3,000. 

Project 16D: Repair Gravel Road System in Limestone County – SAMMS #00103393 Wheeler NWR

Wheeler NWR is served by a system of gravel roads that are heavily used and require continual 

maintenance and repair to provide safe travel for refuge staff, the visiting public, and cooperative 

farmers. Project 16D would provide funding to repair 40 miles of refuge gravel roads in Limestone 

County. Management options and public use will decline if these roads are not repaired. The 

estimated first-year cost of this project is $67,000, with a recurring cost of $10,000. 

Project 16E: Repair Garth Slough Road Damaged by Use and Erosion – SAMMS #99103381 

Wheeler NWR 

Garth Slough Road at Wheeler NWR provides access to Garth Slough and is subject to continuous 

wear and erosion. If not repaired and maintained periodically, its use will decrease and refuge 

management activities will be seriously impacted, reducing the refuge's ability to manage migratory 

birds and their enjoyment by the visiting public. Project 16E provides funding to repair the Garth 

Slough Road. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $27,000, with a recurring cost of $2,500. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 145

Project 16F: Replace Residence #2 – SAMMS #02120303 Wheeler NWR 

Residence #2, constructed in 1941 at Wheeler NWR, is experiencing mounting repair costs due to 

the age of the structure. Due to the increasingly urban nature of the area and the need to house 

essential personnel, replacement of the structure will be an advantage to the Government. Project 

16F would provide funding to replace residence #2. The estimated first-year cost of this project is 

$235,000, with a recurring cost of $7,000. 

Project 16G: Construct a New Refuge Headquarters – SAMMS #00100156 Wheeler NWR 

The present headquarters administrative building at Wheeler NWR was constructed in 1980, and is 

not large enough to house the present staff. Construction of a new headquarters administrative 

building will increase efficiency and productivity and provide better services to the visiting public. 

Project 16G would provide funding to construct a new refuge headquarters administrative building at 

Wheeler NWR. The estimated first-year cost of this project is $795,000, with a recurring cost of 

$15,000. 

Project Category 17: Provide Updated Vehicles and Equipment for Staff Operations

Complex operations, maintenance, and law enforcement depend on reliable vehicles and safe 

equipment to accomplish its mission. The Complex uses a combination of trucks, vans, all-terrain 

vehicles, and boats for access to refuges. These vehicles are subjected to rough terrain and severe 

duty that effectively shorten their serviceable condition to less than five years. On average, at least 

two vehicles should be replaced every year and one all-terrain vehicle every third year to maintain a 

safe and dependable vehicle fleet. In addition, both small and heavy construction equipment must be 

updated and/or replaced on a scheduled basis. A complete listing of vehicles and equipment with 

their associated purchase and/or replacement costs can be found in the SAMMS project table, 

Appendix J. (Linkage: Objective 5.2) 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

To complete the extensive wildlife habitat management, current restoration projects, and conduct the 

necessary inventorying, monitoring, and mapping activities, more staff is required. Biological and 

public use review teams and the general public identified the need for additional staff, especially for 

Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. The following organization chart (Figure 18) outlines 

the proposed future staffing requirements to implement Alternative D. The rate at which this Complex 

realizes its full potential to contribute locally, regionally, and nationally to wildlife conservation and 

appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education is totally 

dependent upon receiving adequate resources. 
146 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Figure 18. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex proposed future staffing chart 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 147

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and State and Federal natural resource agencies. Partnerships assist in conserving 

resources and providing recreational opportunities for all of the refuges in the Tennessee River Valley. 

Wheeler Complex already cooperates with many organizations and individuals on important 

projects, including other agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Alabama 

Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADFWW), and other non-governmental 

conservation groups, such as The Nature Conservancy (TNC). In addition, the refuge has 

partnered with and will continue to partner with local police and volunteer fire departments; 

nonprofit conservation organizations, such as the Audubon Society and Ducks Unlimited (DU); 

broad conservation initiatives, such North American Bat Conservancy Partnerships Strategic Plan 

and Partners In Flight; and last, but not least, many private individuals. 

New partnerships may be able to be established with agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), National Wild Turkey Federation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and 

Alabama’s Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). In addition, this CCP supports 

the NABCI Partners-in-Flight Initiative, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. 

Shorebird and Wading Bird plans, Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem Plan, Partners for 

Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC), the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, and 

the American Woodcock Management Plan. 

Successful partnerships will be essential for achieving the goals, objectives, and strategies set forth 

by this plan. This broad-based approach to managing fish and wildlife resources extends beyond 

social and political boundaries and requires a foundation of support from many. The Wheeler 

Complex will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities to achieve its vision for the future. 

 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of national wildlife refuges. A step-down 

management plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services 

management. These plans will step down the goals, objectives, and strategies from the CCP into 

specific management plans. These plans (Table 11) are also developed in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and 

public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other 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. To apply adaptive 

management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted for the Complex. 

The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine management 

effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and determine how 

effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem team and other 

appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable effects for target 

and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management projects will be 

made. Subsequently, the Complex’s CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation 

activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 
148 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Table 11. Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex step-down management plans and 

associated completion dates 

Step-down Plan Completion Date 

Wildlife Management Plan 2010 

 Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 2009 

 Endangered Species Recovery Plan 2008 

 Migratory Bird Disease 2009 

Habitat Management 2010 

 Moist Soil/Water Management 2009 

 Forest Management 2008 

 Cropland Management 2009 

Integrated Pest Management 2009 

 Nuisance Animal Control 2008 

 Exotic Plant Control 2009 

Wildland and Structural Fire Management 2008 

Law Enforcement 2008 

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2009 

Visitor Services Plan 2009 

 Hunting and Fishing 2008 

 Wildlife Observation and Photography 2008 

 Environmental Education and Interpretation 2008 

 Signage Plan 2007 

Safety/Contingency Plan 2008 

Oil and Hazardous Substances 2008 

Note: Plans are shown in sequence according to goals and objectives listed in Chapter IV of this plan. Dates are based on 

plan approval in 2007.

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

The CCP will be reviewed annually in the development of annual work plans and budgets. It will also be 

reviewed to determine the need for revision. Further, progress will be reported in annual narratives for the 

Complex. A revision will occur if and when conditions change or additional information becomes 

available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. This CCP will be 

augmented by detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in 

support of the Complex’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management 

plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Final Environmental Assessment 149

SECTION B. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Chapter I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service prepared this Environmental Assessment for the Wheeler National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans 

(CCPs) for all refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP, a final 

decision was made by the Fish and Wildlife Service that will be used to guide management actions 

and decisions over the next 15 years, provide understanding about the Complex and its management 

activities, and incorporate information and suggestions from the public and partners. 

The CCP proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies. The CCP addresses current management issues, provides long-term 

management direction and guidance for the refuges in the Complex, and satisfies the legislative 

mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. While the plan provides 

general management direction, subsequent step-down plans will provide more detailed management 

direction and actions. 

An environmental assessment determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management 

alternatives. The intent is to support informed decision-making regarding future management of the 

Wheeler Complex. Each alternative presented in this environmental assessment was generated with 

the potential to be fully developed into a final comprehensive conservation. The predicted biological, 

physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each alternative are analyzed in this 

environmental assessment. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining if the 

alternatives represent no significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI), or if the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more 

detailed analysis through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD). 

For the Wheeler Complex, the planning team, in accordance with guidelines of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with 

the public, agency managers, conservation partners, and others. From these issues, concerns, and 

needs, the Service’s planning team identified four alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences 

of implementing each alternative, and selected Alternative D as the preferred management action. In 

the opinion of the Service and the planning team, Alternative D is the best approach to guide the 

management direction of the Wheeler Complex. 

This CCP is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the Complex, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, which requires the preparation of a comprehensive conservation 

plan for all national wildlife refuges. Following public review and comment, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service developed this CCP and Final Environmental Assessment for the Wheeler Complex. 
150 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the environmental assessment is to meet the purpose(s) of the refuge and the goals 

identified in the comprehensive conservation plan (for which we evaluate each alternative). The 

purpose is to ensure that Wheeler Complex serves as a sanctuary for migratory birds; protects a 

variety of habitats to support native diversity; sustains an abundance of waterfowl and other migratory 

birds; conserves rare, threatened, endangered, and other imperiled species; controls and eliminates 

exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; provides opportunities for enjoyment of appropriate and 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation; promotes awareness and appreciation of natural 

resources; promotes support for refuge management activities; coordinates with a wide variety of 

governmental and non-governmental partners; protects and preserves archaeological and historical 

resources; protects outstanding natural, scenic, and ecologic values; and provides for appropriate 

and compatible scientific research. 

The need of the environmental assessment is to adopt a 15-year management plan that provides 

guidance for future management of Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and that 

meets the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Currently, 

there is no comprehensive plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated 

management of the Wheeler Complex, thus necessitating the need for this CCP. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on this Final Environmental Assessment, the Fish and Wildlife Service selected Alternative D to be 

implemented in the CCP for the Wheeler Complex. This CCP includes a Finding of No Significant Impact 

FONSI (Appendix N), which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation 

of the Service and Refuge System missions, the purpose(s) for which the refuges in the Wheeler 

Complex were established, and other legal mandates. Implementation of the CCP will begin and will be 

monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

The planning study area for this Final Environmental Assessment includes four national wildlife 

refuges, Wheeler NWR (established in 1938), Key Cave NWR (1997), Sauta Cave NWR (1978), and 

Fern Cave NWR (1981) and five Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation easements (Figure 1). All 

of these refuges are located in northern Alabama in an area locally known as the Tennessee River 

Valley. Refuge boundaries are found within the counties of Lauderdale, Limestone, Jackson, 

Madison, and Morgan. Farm Service Agency tracts are located in the counties of Calhoun, Lamar, 

Limestone, and Marion. Athens, Decatur, Florence, Huntsville, and Scottsboro, Alabama, are the 

nearest major cities. 

The Food Security Act of 1985 (Farm Bill) authorized the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), now 

known as the Farm Service Agency (FSA), to convey conservation easements of inventory farm 

property, without reimbursement, to Federal or State agencies for conservation purposes. During the 

late 1980s and early 1990s, several thousand acres of land, having high potential fish and wildlife 

value, were conveyed to the Service by a conservation easement, primarily in the southeastern 

United States. These tracts ranged in size from a few acres to several thousand acres and posed 

management problems for the Service due to several reasons, including distance from existing 

stations and lack of manpower and funding to manage and patrol, as well as trespass and other 

issues. For the most part, the FSA properties are assigned to the nearest refuge and managed along 

with other refuge lands based on their habitat types and size. 
Final Environmental Assessment 151

The Fish and Wildlife Service currently owns and manages 38,723 acres (99 percent) of the 39,206 

acres lying within the Wheeler Complex’s four refuges' approved acquisition boundaries. The only 

refuge with land available for acquisition within currently established acquisition boundaries is Fern 

Cave NWR. The Service will seek to acquire, from willing sellers, the remaining 483 acres within the 

acquisition boundary (682 acres) of Fern Cave NWR. This process will be conducted in accordance 

with current Service policy. In addition, the Complex manages 376 acres within five FSA 

conservation easements (Figure 2). This environmental assessment will identify management on 

refuge lands, as well as those lands proposed for acquisition by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, APPROPRIATE USES, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997 and Part 602 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning). 

The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act through the involvement of the public and 

the incorporation of an environmental assessment in this document, with a description of the alternatives 

considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV in 

this section). When fully implemented, the plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. The 

laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the purposes. Fish and 

wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and encourages 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the 

refuge’s mission and purposes. 

APPROPRIATE USES 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use 

appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and expands 

on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should deny a 

proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find that a proposed use is not appropriate, we 

will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are listed. 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate for refuges. However, the refuge manager 

must still determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers the take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 
152 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlifedependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

recommendations, public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of this 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Wheeler Complex. This plan has been written with input 

and assistance from interested citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and state 

agencies. 

 

The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the 

management direction for the Wheeler Complex. The Service, as a whole, and the Complex staff, in 

particular, are very grateful to each one who has contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the 

planning process. The staff remains impressed by the passion and commitment of so many 

individuals for the lands and waters administered by the Wheeler Complex. 

In September 2002, the planning process began with a biological review to assess the status of current 

biological information and programs, identify information gaps and needs, and gather input on potential 

management goals and objectives for each refuge in the Complex. A public use review was conducted in 

October 2003 to provide guidance for managing the education and visitor services programs and resulted 

in the development of short- to long-term recommendations to improve the quality of visitor experiences 

and understanding of each refuge in the Complex. 

Public input to the development of the CCP was initiated when the notice of intent to prepare a 

comprehensive conservation plan was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2005 (70 FR 

42084). A CCP mailing list was developed that consisted of individuals from the general public, 

landowners, state agencies, organizations, governments, Native Americans, and others. On 

August 30, 2005, over 400 public meeting notices and comment sheets were mailed to those on the 

mailing list. Comment packets were also available at the public meeting, the Complex office, and 

Visitor Center, and could be requested via mail or e-mail. Input obtained from all of these meetings 

and correspondence was considered in developing this CCP and Final Environmental Assessment. 
Final Environmental Assessment 153

In September 2005, three public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and 

concerns from the public in the communities surrounding the four refuges. Meetings were held in 

Decatur, Florence, and Scottsboro, Alabama, in coordination with a variety of Federal, State, and 

local agencies. Announcements were sent to everyone on the CCP mailing list. Articles were written 

and press releases were distributed to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television stations in 

advance of the meeting. A total of 48 people attended the meetings. 

Refuge maps, comment sheets, planning brochures, and exhibits were available at the meeting. A 

brief presentation on the planning and environmental compliance processes, an overview of wildlife 

management activities, and public use opportunities were given. Following the formal presentations, 

attendees were given the opportunity to express their thoughts and ideas through either verbal or 

written comments. As of September 30, 2006, 64 comments had been received by the Service. 

In November of 2006, an internal review was conducted by the Service and the Wheeler Complex 

Planning Team. Edits and corrections were made to the document and in April of 2007 the Draft 

CCP was released for public review. Public comments on the draft document were accepted from 

April 5 to May 21, 2007. On May 1, 2007, a public meeting was held to provide the public an 

opportunity to comment on the Draft CCP to the Complex staff. 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. Many issues that are important to the public often fall outside the scope of the 

decision to be made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot resolve 

issues that some people have communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout our 

planning process, and have developed a CCP that attempts to balance the competing opinions 

regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns and the Service’s response to comments from the 

draft CCP public review are provided in Appendix D: Public Involvement - Summary of Public Scoping 

Comments. These issues are also summarized in Chapter III of the CCP. 
154 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Final Environmental Assessment 155

Chapter II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
156 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Final Environmental Assessment 157

Chapter III. Description Of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the Complex’s purpose and vision and the goals identified in the CCP; the 

priorities and goals of the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge 

System; and the mission on the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the 

priority issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

To be valid, each alternative must meet all laws, regulations, and Service policies. One aspect of this 

is that all public use activities will be evaluated for compatibility, using the Service’s compatibility 

determination process. Any current or proposed public use activity that is determined to not meet the 

requirements of appropriateness and compatibility will be eliminated from any alternative and 

prohibited on refuge lands. 

The four alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the Complex’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Complex staff 

assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting each refuge in 

the Complex. This information contributed to the development of Complex goals and, in turn, helped 

to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives for 

reaching Complex goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how much progress it would 

make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat 

management, resource protection and conservation, visitor services, and Complex administration. A 

summary of the four (4) alternatives is provided in Table 13. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the Complex’s purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into four 

alternatives. These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the 

Wheeler Complex over a 15-year time frame, while still meeting the purposes and goals of each 

individual refuge. The four (4) alternatives are summarized below. 

ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

This alternative, required by NEPA, is the no-action alternative, and provides a baseline against 

which to compare the three action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D). Management practices 

already underway or currently funded would continue and no major changes would be initiated by the 

Service. Alternative A represents the anticipated conditions of each refuge for the next 15 years, 

assuming current policies, programs, and activities continue. 

Management emphasis would continue to focus on maintaining biological integrity of habitats found 

on each refuge in the Complex. Current management for migratory birds would continue to provide 

4,800 – 5,900 acres of habitat capable of meeting forging objectives for an over-wintering population 

of 53,000 ducks and 17,000 geese and cranes, partially contributing to the objectives of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan. 
158 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Low-intensity surveying and incidental management of colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, neotropical 

migratory birds, scrub-shrub birds, grassland birds, and other resident birds would continue, with no 

additional management. Only low-intensity monitoring of reptiles and amphibians with incidental 

management would occur and the main objective for game species management would be to sustain 

healthy populations through current habitat management and hunting programs. Conservation of 

federally listed threatened and endangered species would continue to be accomplished through 

established partnerships. Other wildlife management programs would continue to be developed and 

implemented with little baseline biological information on most species or groups of species. 

Complex staff would continue efforts to slow the spread of exotic, invasive, and/or nuisance animal 

species on the Complex, such as feral hogs, beavers, resident geese, feral dogs, and feral cats. If 

these species were not controlled they would continue to destroy habitat and interfere with other 

wildlife. Feral hogs would continue to be taken during Wheeler NWR’s white-tailed deer hunting 

season and through limited trapping. Complex staff would continue to remove beaver dams and 

nuisance beavers at Wheeler NWR. In addition, a contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) would continue to be funded for removing nuisance beavers. 

Existing wetlands, open waters, grasslands, old fields, and bottomland hardwood forest habitats 

would continue to be managed under current management. An extensive system of levees, water 

control structures, and pumps would continue to be maintained to provide crucial habitat for migratory 

waterfowl. Control of invasive and/or exotic plant species would remain sporadic. Treatment of 

problem areas would only occur when budget and work force would allow. Other habitat 

management programs would remain intact with no major changes. 

 

The cooperative farming program would remain unchanged. Farmers would continue to plant 

between 3,500 and 4,000 acres each year through a cooperative farming agreement in which a 

portion of the crop (shares) would remain in the fields as rent. Crops planted would include 

soybeans, winter wheat, and corn. Supplemental foods (milo, millet, winter wheat and corn) would 

continue to be planted by either force account (using Complex staff and equipment) or by negotiating 

(share swapping) with the cooperative farmers. 

Current levels of law enforcement (LE) would continue with emphasis on resource protection and 

public safety. Current policy governing rights-of-way (ROW) easements would remain unchanged. 

Any land acquisition efforts would continue to be addressed in accordance with current service policy. 

Water quality and quantity information would continue to be limited with only semi-annual water 

sampling being conducted at nine designated water quality monitoring sites. Twenty-five-foot buffer 

zones would continue to be placed around any agricultural fields that are adjacent to refuge waters. 

Public hunting would continue to be permitted on approximately 18,000 acres at Wheeler NWR and 

hunting regulations would be published each year in the refuge’s hunting permit. White-tailed deer, 

feral hog, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and northern bobwhite are currently hunted at Wheeler 

NWR within the State’s hunting season framework. 

At Key Cave NWR, small game hunting is allowed on 1,060 acres through a permitting program in 

conjunction with the state’s Seven Mile Island Wildlife Management Area. Squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, 

opossum, mourning dove, and northern bobwhite are hunted within the state hunting season 

framework. The refuge hunting season runs concurrently with the state hunting season and hunting 

is allowed on Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday. 
Final Environmental Assessment 159

At Sauta Cave NWR, public hunting is allowed on 264 acres through a permitting program in 

conjunction with the State’s North Sauty Wildlife Management Area. White-tailed deer (archery only), 

squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum are hunted within the state’s season framework. Hunting is 

not currently allowed on Fern Cave NWR. 

Sport fishing on Wheeler and Fern Cave NWRs, including method of take, daily creel limits, 

possession limits, and size limits, would continue in accordance with State regulations. Under this 

alternative, approximately 14,000 surface acres of water within the Wheeler NWRs boundary would 

remain available for fishing. However, special refuge regulations would apply to posted areas. 

Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation would 

continue at current levels. However, at Wheeler NWR a wildlife drive (auto tour) would be developed 

and horseback riding would continue to be limited to open gravel and/or paved roads. Horses are not 

permitted to enter closed areas. The area surrounding Garth Slough would continue to remain closed 

to all public entry from November 15 through January 15 and Wheeler NWR would continue to be 

open at night to the general public. 

Administration plans would continue to stress the need for the maintenance and rehabilitation of 

existing infrastructure. Current staffing levels would remain inadequate to meet additional public use 

and habitat management needs. 

Section A, Chapter II, contains more details about the current situation at Wheeler Complex. 

ALTERNATIVE B - MAXIMIZE COMPATIBLE WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

Alternative B would provide for more public use opportunities, while maintaining current habitat and 

wildlife management programs. Additional staff and resources would be dedicated to increasing 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities. All habitat management programs, including the 

cooperative farming program, water level management, moist-soil production, old field maintenance, 

grassland establishment, and forestry management would continue; however, habitat improvement 

projects that would benefit compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities would be given a higher 

priority. Law enforcement (LE) activities to provide visitor safety would be intensified. 

Under this alternative, hunting and fishing opportunities would be expanded. At Wheeler NWR, the 

number of hunting days for small game would be increased within the State hunting season 

framework and an additional youth fishing rodeo would be held annually. The 2,000-acre area 

around Garth Slough, presently closed to all public entry from November 15 through January 15, 

would be evaluated for the possible opening of portions of the upland areas to public access under 

existing gate closure policy; thereby providing additional hunting and other public use opportunities. 

In addition, the hunting of feral hogs would be allowed during both the large game and small game 

seasons. At Key Cave NWR, feral hogs would be added to the hunting permit and other hunting 

opportunities would be explored annually. 

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of 

nine new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (three photo blinds, three wildlife observation towers, a 

wildlife viewing platform, a nature trail, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and 

interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs with local schools 

in Lauderdale and Jackson Counties, and by constructing a new environmental education center at 

Wheeler NWR. New informational brochures would be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and 

Fern Cave NWRs and visitor access would be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. 
160 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Administration plans would stress the need for increased maintenance of existing infrastructure and 

construction of new facilities that would benefit public use activities. An additional staff of 12 would 

be required to accomplish the goals of this alternative. Personnel priorities would include employing 

additional environmental education specialists, a LE officer, and an education coordinator. 

ALTERNATIVE C - MAXIMIZE WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Alternative C would provide for the restoration of native wildlife, fish, and plant communities and the health 

of those communities by maximizing wildlife and habitat management, while maintaining current 

compatible public use opportunities. Federally listed species would be of primary concern, but the needs 

of other resident and migratory wildlife would also be considered. At each refuge, extensive wildlife, plant, 

and habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological information needed to implement and 

monitor management programs. Studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, 

and plants would be developed and a Complex-wide litter control program would be initiated. Research 

would also be initiated to explore methods for increasing conservation efforts for threatened and 

endangered species on the Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

Habitat management and maintenance programs for impoundments, old field, cropland, and grasslands 

would be re-evaluated and step-down management plans would be developed or updated to meet the 

foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species, particularly migratory birds. 

Cooperative farming would be eliminated and all farming activities would be conducted via contracts or 

force account (using Complex staff and equipment). Nuisance animal control would be increased by 

expanding the contract with USDA and forestry management would be increased. 

Law enforcement (LE) activities to protect trust resources would be intensified. Additional LE officers 

would be required. A study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way (ROW) on refuge 

resources would be initiated and results would determine if current Complex policy concerning 

easements should be altered. Coordination with local planning and zoning departments would be 

increased to help minimize encroachment. 

Under this alternative, the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on 

acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Based on recommendations from 

the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS), the Wheeler Complex would 

explore methods to protect lands within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks close to 

Wheeler NWR and lands within the Key Cave high risk water recharge zone close to Key Cave NWR 

within the 15-year life of the plan. 

The Service would work with partners to explore various methods to protect these resources (e.g., 

through conservation easements, through technical assistance and advice from the Service to the 

landowner, and through other methods). No Land Protection Plan would be developed as part of this 

CCP. However, if in the future Service acquisition of these lands was determined to be the most 

appropriate conservation measure, the Service would undertake all required planning activities (e.g., 

development of appropriate documents and involvement of interested and potentially affected parties, 

governmental agencies, and landowners in the process). 

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities would continue as currently scheduled, but only 

when and where they would not detract from, or conflict with, wildlife management activities and 

objectives. All Complex lands (including Wheeler NWR) would be closed at night to the general 

public and select areas of high waterfowl use on Wheeler NWR would be closed from November 

through March, slightly reducing acreages for public hunting and eliminating all night bank fishing. 
Final Environmental Assessment 161

Administration plans would stress the need for increased maintenance of existing infrastructure and 

construction of new facilities, benefiting wildlife conservation. An additional staff of 18 would be 

required to accomplish the goals of this alternative. Personnel priorities would include employing 

additional wildlife biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, a LE officer, a 

contamination specialist, and a forester. 

 

ALTERNATIVE D - (PROPOSED ACTION) BALANCE WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT WITH 

COMPATIBLE WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

 

The proposed action (Alternative D) was selected by the Service and determined to be the alternative 

that best serves the vision, goals, and purposes of the Wheeler Complex. This alternative strives for 

a balanced approach for addressing key issues and refuge mandates, while improving wildlife and 

habitat management on each refuge in the Complex. It is designed to optimize habitat management 

for the restoration and protection of the Complex’s biological diversity, while providing a balance of 

appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs for visitors. 

 

Under this preferred alternative, existing management activities would continue or would be 

expanded. Studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to fish, wildlife, and plants would be 

developed and a Complex-wide litter control program would be initiated. Research would also be 

initiated to explore methods for increasing conservation efforts for threatened and endangered 

species on Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. 

A large majority of Complex lands (including Wheeler NWR) would be closed at night and select 

areas of high waterfowl use on Wheeler NWR would be closed from November 1 to March 1, slightly 

reducing acreages for both public hunting and night bank fishing. However, all six improved boat 

launching facilities and several other designated night bank fishing areas would remain open at night. 

A night fishing permit would be required. These actions would help reduce illegal activities and 

human disturbance to wildlife. 

Habitat management programs for waterfowl impoundments, old field, cropland, grassland, and forests 

would be re-evaluated and step-down management plans would be developed or updated to meet the 

foraging, resting, and breeding requirements for a variety of species, particularly migratory birds. 

Cooperative farming would continue and areas with water control capabilities would be managed for 

moist-soil vegetation or would be force-account farmed (with100 percent of crops left standing) to 

benefit migratory waterfowl. Nuisance animal control would be increased by expanding the contract 

with U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Law enforcement (LE) activities to protect resources and provide visitor safety would be intensified. 

Additional LE officers would be required. A study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way 

(ROW) on resources would be initiated and results would determine if current Complex policy 

concerning easements should be altered. Coordination with local planning and zoning departments 

would be increased to help minimize encroachment. 

Under this alternative, the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on 

acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Based on recommendations from the 

Alabama CWCS, the Wheeler Complex would explore methods to protect lands within the lower reaches 

of Piney and Limestone Creeks close to Wheeler NWR and lands within the Key Cave high risk water 

recharge zone close to Key Cave NWR within the 15-year life of the plan. 
162 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

The Service would work with the partners to explore various methods to protect these resources (e.g., 

through conservation easements, through technical assistance and advice from the Service to the 

landowner, and through other methods). No Land Protection Plan would be developed as part of this 

CCP. However, if in the future Service acquisition of these lands was determined to be the most 

appropriate conservation measure, the Service would undertake all required planning activities (e.g., 

development of appropriate documents and involvement of interested and potentially affected parties, 

governmental agencies, and landowners in the process). 

Hunting and fishing would continue with greater emphasis on the quality of the experience and 

more diverse opportunities, including those for youth and disabled hunters/anglers. At Wheeler 

NWR, the number of hunting days for small game would be increased within the State hunting 

season framework and an additional youth fishing rodeo would be held annually. Feral hogs 

would be hunted during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, the 

hunting program would be evaluated annually. Results would dictate if the hunting program 

should be expanded, reduced, or remain the same. 

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of 

four new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (a photo blind, a wildlife observation tower, a wildlife 

viewing platform, and a wildlife drive) and the maintenance of existing visitor facilities. Environmental 

education and interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs 

with local schools and by constructing an environmental education center at Wheeler NWR. New 

informational brochures would be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and 

visitor access would be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. 

Administration plans would stress the need for increased maintenance of existing infrastructure and 

construction of new facilities. Funding for new construction projects would be balanced between 

habitat management and public use needs. An additional staff of 19 would be required to accomplish 

the goals of this alternative. Personnel priorities would include employing additional wildlife 

biologists, biological technicians, maintenance workers, assistant managers, an education 

coordinator, a LE officer, and a contamination specialist. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Some management programs would occur regardless of the alternative selected for implementation. 

Features or actions common to all four alternatives are identified and summarized below. 

Fish and Aquatic Species - Cooperation with the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater 

Fisheries (ADWFF) for fisheries monitoring, implementing aquatic habitat improvement projects, 

and conducting game and non-game fish surveys would continue and increase as opportunities 

become available. 

Monitoring - Existing migratory bird monitoring, including waterfowl surveys, bald eagle surveys, 

Christmas Bird Counts, call counts, and breeding bird surveys would continue. More specific 

monitoring activities may increase to meet other objectives under the various alternatives. 

Fire Management - Suppression of all wildland fires would continue. Prescribed fire may be 

used, in conjunction with other refuge management tools, to reduce hazard fuels, restore natural 

processes and vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or reduce non-native 

species, and conduct research. 
Final Environmental Assessment 163

Research - Special use permits would be issued on a case-by-case basis to universities, partners, 

and other interested parties to perform compatible, appropriate wildlife-related research and/or 

surveying. Research would continue to be encouraged to evaluate contaminant levels and their 

impacts on wildlife. 

Cultural Resource Protection - Current cultural resource protection efforts would continue, including a 

partnership with the Tennessee Valley Authority to conduct bank stabilization projects at Wheeler NWR. 

Efforts to increase cultural resource protection through education and inventories would be explored. 

Partnerships - To aid and promote refuge management programs, currently established partnerships 

with agencies, organizations, and individuals would continue. Additional partnerships would be 

welcomed. 

Volunteers Program - The volunteer program would continue and would likely grow as more 

individuals become interested in volunteering. 

Private Lands Management - Technical assistance for private land management would continue to 

be offered through the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Efforts to expand the 

program would be explored. 

Farm Service Agency (FSA) Tracts - Current management would continue on all five FSA tracts. 

Restrictions/Limitations and Prohibitions – All-terrain vehicle (ATV) would continue to be 

prohibited on Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs. On Wheeler NWR, ATVs would 

continue to be restricted, except by special permit in the designated handicapped accessible hunting 

area. All lands on Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs would continue to be closed at night 

and horseback riding would continue to be prohibited. 

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE 

Each alternative is different in the type and level of land management and protection it would 

offer to achieve long-term wildlife and habitat goals. However, each is similar in its approach to 

managing refuges in the Wheeler Complex. Each alternative would pursue the goals outlined in 

the CCP; would acquire, protect, and enhance a diverse assemblage of habitat; and would 

pursue the recovery plans for those threatened and endangered species occurring on the 

refuges. Each alternative would be consistent with the purpose(s) of each refuge and with the 

mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Table 12 identifies and compares the management actions under each alternative as a means of 

responding to the issues raised by Service managers, governmental partners, and the public. These 

management actions were summarized under the four alternatives previously described to 

accomplish the Refuge System mission and the purpose(s), vision, and goals of the refuges and to 

address the priority threats and issues raised by governmental agencies, private citizens, local 

businesses, and interested organizations. The action alternatives (i.e., B, C, and D) are compared to 

Alternative A--the no-action alternative. 
164 Wheeler National Wild

Table 12. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Comp

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Fish and Wildlife Populations Management 

Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Cranes)Wheeler Each year the refuge 

provides 28,000 acres of habitat for waterfowl. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

except 3,000 - 5,000 acres of the waterfowl habitat would be closed to public entry to help minimize disturbance to waterfowl. 

Same excepof the would entry tdisturb

Key Cave Low-intensity monitoring 

and incidental management. 

Same as Alternative A. Efforts to provide suitable 

waterfowl habitat would be increased. 

Same 

Waterbirds (Colonial Waterbirds, Marsh Birds, and Shorebirds - including the American Woodcock) Wheeler Low-intensity monitoring 

and incidental management. 

Same as Alternative A. Waterbird management 

would be initiated in three refuge impoundments and waterbird monitoring increased with bi-weekly surveys. In addition, a woodcock management study would be initiated. 

Same excepmanagbe initimpouwaterbcondu

Key Cave Low-intensity monitoring 

and incidental management. 

Same as Alternative A. Efforts to provide suitable 

waterbird habitat would be increased. 

Same 
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Landbirds (Forest Birds, Grassland Birds, and Scrub-Shrub Birds) Wheeler and Key Cave 

Low-intensity monitoring and incidental management. 

Same as Alternative A. A minimum of 10 point 

counts would be established in 12 forested blocks (6 > 1,000 acres and 6 < 1,000 acres in size) and “soft” edges would be created along all of agricultural field borders not needed to fulfill waterfowl management goals. 

Same exceppoint cestablblocks and 6 size) awould along agricunot newaterfgoals. 

Game Species Wheeler Populations managed to 

provide a quality hunting experience. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus white-tailed deer herd health checks would be conducted every 3 years and methods to improve the collection of deer harvest data would be explored. 

Same excepherd hbe conyears. 
166 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Amphibians and ReptilesWheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

Low-intensity monitoring and incidental management. 

Same as Alternative A. Effective methods to 

monitor populations and provide additional habitat for herps would be explored. 

Same 

Threatened, Endangered, and Imperiled SpeciesWheeler Gray bat and aquatic 

species are protected by following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus threatened and endangered species/habitats would be inventoried and recovery efforts fully supported. 

Same 

Key Cave Gray bat and Alabama 

cavefish are protected by following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus threatened and endangered species/habitats would be inventoried and recovery efforts fully supported. Efforts to monitor the Alabama cavefish would increase. 

Same 
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Sauta Cave Gray bats, Indiana bats, 

and Price’s potato-bean are protected by following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus threatened and endangered species/habitats would be inventoried and recovery efforts fully supported. 

Same 

Fern Cave Gray bats, Indiana bats, 

and the American Hart’stongue fern are protected by following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus threatened and endangered species/habitats would be inventoried and recovery efforts fully supported. Management efforts for conserving the American Hart’s-tongue fern would be increased. 

Same 

Invasive/Nuisance AnimalsWheeler Population management 

of problem species is conducted through the established staff trapping and hunting program. 

Same as Alternative A, except feral hogs would also be hunted during the small game seasons. 

Same as Alternative B, plus beaver control would be intensified by expanding the current USDA contract. 

Same 

Key Cave Population management 

of feral hogs is conducted by limited trapping by staff. 

Same as Alternative A, plus feral hogs would be added to the hunting permit. 

Same as Alternative A, plus cooperation with partners would be increased. 

Same 
168 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Habitat Management 

Impoundments and Shallow-Water Areas (including Moist-Soil Production)Wheeler Impoundments are 

maintained by following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Additional water control 

structures and pumping stations would be installed. 

Same 

Key Cave Three established shallow 

water areas do not currently hold water. 

Same as Alternative A. Synthetic liners would be 

used to improve the water holding capacity in three shallow water areas. 

Bentoused tholdinshallo

Old FieldsWheeler Old fields are managed by 

following current management. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, 

plus additional old field habitats would be established. 

Same 

Croplands Wheeler and Key Cave 

Farmers plant ≈ 3,500-4,000 acres at Wheeler and ≈ 290 acres at Key Cave through a cooperative agreement. Supplemental force account farming is also conducted. 

Same as Alternative A, plus funds would be allocated to pay for additional crops, which would be left to benefit game species. 

The cooperative farming program would be converted to contract farming. Unused farmland would be converted to other beneficial habitats. 

Same excepcontraaccouexplorfarmlaconvebenefi
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Grasslands (Native Warm Season Grasses)Wheeler Grasslands are 

maintained on ≈ 2 acres. 

Additional grasslands would be established. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Key Cave Grasslands are 

maintained on ≈ 350 acres. 

Additional grasslands would be established. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Forest ManagementWheeler and Key Cave 

No active management. Same as Alternative A. Forest management would 

be increased. 

Forest would 

Sauta Cave Forest management of 

264 acres is limited. 

Same as Alternative A. Research would be 

initiated on Price’s potatobean response to different forest management techniques. 

Same 

Fern Cave Forest management of 

199 acres is limited. 

Same as Alternative A. Forest management would 

be increased. 

Forest would 

Invasive Plant Species Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave and Fern Cave 

Control of invasive and exotic plant species is limited and only conducted when resources allow. 

Control of invasive/exotic plant species would be kept to a minimum unless impacting wildlife -dependent recreational activities or species. 

A comprehensive invasive and exotic plant species control program would be implemented and documented with the use of GPS and GIS. 

Same 
170 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Resource Protection 

Law Enforcement Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

Current levels of law enforcement are inadequate. 

Additional law enforcement resources would be required to increase visitor safety. 

Additional law enforcement resources would be required to increase resource protection. 

Additioenforcwould increaresour

Rights-of-Way and Encroachment Wheeler Refuge policy governing 

rights-of-way is used to manage easements and new easement requests. 

Same as Alternative A. Impacts of existing 

easements on refuge resources would be analyzed to determine if the current refuge policy should be altered. Coordination with local planning and zoning departments would be increased. 

Same 

Land AcquisitionWheeler Options to protect lands 

outside the current refuge boundary within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks would be explored. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Key Cave All lands within the 

approved acquisition boundary have been acquired by the Service. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Options to protect lands outside the current refuge boundary within the high risk areas of the Key Cave water recharge zone would be explored. 

Same 

Sauta Cave All lands within the 

approved acquisition boundary have been acquired by the Service. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Fern Cave Four hundred and eightythree (483) acres within 

the approved acquisition boundary have not been acquired by the Service. 

Same as Alternative A. Complex management 

would focus acquisition efforts on acquiring the land that surrounds the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). 

Same 

Water Quality and Litter ControlWheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

Water quality information is limited or non-existent and litter control is only conducted when resources allow. 

Same as Alternative A. Complex-wide 

comprehensive water monitoring program and litter control/reduction programs would be developed. 

Same 
172 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Public Use Opportunities 

HuntingWheeler White-tailed deer, feral 

hog, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and northern bobwhite are hunted on ≈ 18,000 acres within the State hunting season frame work. Regulations are updated each year within the current refuge hunting permit. 

Same as Alternative A, except the number of days available for hunting would be increased by aligning the refuge hunting seasons with the State's seasons. Uplands surrounding Garth Slough would be examined for opportunities to lengthen the hunting dates and feral hogs would be hunted during both the small game and large game hunting seasons. 

Same as Alternative A, except some areas currently open for hunting would be closed to provide protection to waterfowl from human disturbance. 

Same excepavailahuntinincreaconsehuntinhogs wduring large gseaso

Key Cave Squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, 

opossum, dove, and northern bobwhite are hunted on 1,060 acres through a permitting program with the State’s Seven Mile Island Wildlife Management Area. 

Same as Alternative A, except hunting seasons would be aligned with State seasons and feral hogs would be added to the hunting permit. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

plus thwould annuadictate prograexpanremain 
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Sauta Cave Squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, 

opossum, deer, dove, and quail are hunted on 264 acres through a permitting program with the State’s North Sauty Wildlife Management Area. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Fern Cave Hunting is not allowed. Hunting opportunities 

would be explored. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

Fishing Wheeler Fishing on ≈ 11,250 

surface acres of refuge waters are conducted in accordance with State regulations. Special regulations apply to posted areas. 

Same as Alternative A, plus youth fishing opportunities would be increased by adding two (2) additional youth fishing rodeos annually. 

Same as Alternative A, except bank fishing at night would be eliminated and boat access restrictions within Crabtree Slough would be expanded. 

Boat awithin would availafishing reduceadditiorodeo annua

Fern Cave Fishing along the banks of 

the Paint Rock River would continue in accordance with State regulations. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 
174 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Wildlife Observation and PhotographyWheeler Current facilities and 

opportunities are maintained. 

Same as Alternative A, plus three (3) additional observation towers, three (3) additional photo blinds, a wildlife viewing platform, and a wildlife drive (auto tour) would be constructed. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

excepadditiotower additiowould 

Key Cave and Sauta Cave 

Current facilities and opportunities are maintained. 

Same as Alternative A, plus a photo blind would be constructed at each refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

additiowould 

Fern Cave Opportunities are limited 

but would be maintained. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

additiowould 

Environmental Education and Interpretation Wheeler On and off-refuge 

environmental education is provided to local schools and other groups. Existing interpretive signs on nature trails are maintained for interpretation. 

Environmental education and interpretation would be increased by offering more off-site programs, updating displays and interpretive signs along nature trails, and constructing a new environmental education center. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

excepwould within WheeHeadq
Final Environmental Assessment 

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

On- and off-refuge environmental education programs are not currently available. 

Off-refuge environmental education programs would be offered and refuge informational brochures would be published. 

Same as Alternative A. Refug

brochupublis

Visitor AccessWheeler The refuge is currently 

open at night for public use. 

Same as Alternative A. All refuge lands would be 

closed at night to the public with the exception of (1) any night hunting as provided in the hunting permit; and (2) activities covered under a special use permit. 

All refclosed excepdesignfacilitiedesignfishing permit night hin the (4) actunder permit
176 Wheeler National Wild

Issues Raised During Scoping Listed by Refuge(s) How the issues were addressed? 

Range of 

Alternatives 

Alternative A: Current 

Management 

Alternative B: Maximize 

Compatible WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Alternative C: Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

W

M

Com

Depe

Refuge Administration

Staffing RequirementsWheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

The Complex utilizes 16.0 FTEs to maintain and protect current refuge lands and programs. 

An additional 12.0 FTEs would be required to maximize public use opportunities. 

An additional 18.0 FTEs would be required to maximize wildlife/habitat programs. 

An adwould balancwildlife

Maintenance/Facilities/Infrastructure Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave 

Maintenance levels are maintained to meet both public use and habitat management needs. 

Maintenance on public use facilities, infrastructure, and programs would be maximized. 

Maintenance on wildlife/habitat management facilities would be maximized. 

Maintebe incpublic wildlifemanag
Final Environmental Assessment 177

Chapter IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the four alternatives described in Chapter III of 

this environmental assessment. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through 

the 15-year life of the CCP. Implementation of any of the action alternatives (i.e., alternatives B, C, 

and D) is anticipated to have positive impacts to area land values, related employment and income, 

and outdoor recreational and environmental education opportunities. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects would be similar under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice; climate change; land acquisition; cultural resources; water quality, 

wetlands, and floodplains; aesthetics; visitor services; socioeconomic environment; refuge revenue 

sharing payments; public health and safety; and other management. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this environmental assessment will 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority 

and low-income populations. Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and 

environmental education is anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the 

surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies under 

its direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts 

as part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 
178 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—

grasslands, forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing 

carbon emissions and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The 

conclusions of the Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to 

carbon sequestration and may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the 

terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would conserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to 

mitigate human-induced global climate changes. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the Complex’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources, would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, 

any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge 

would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the same. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary of Fern 

Cave NWR would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund; Corps of Engineers mitigation programs; Alabama Department of Transportation 

mitigation programs; donations from conservation and private organizations, and/or other appropriate 

funding mechanisms. Conservation easements and leases can be used to obtain the minimum 

interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately manage uses of the 

areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate management agreements with local, State 

and Federal agencies, and can accept conservation easements. Some tracts within the refuge's 

acquisition boundary may be owned by other public or private conservation organizations. The 

Service would work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and 

provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for managing archaeological and historical sites 

found on refuge lands. Since cultural resource surveys on the refuge have been limited, 

additional surveys would be conducted prior to any new construction or excavation on refuge 

lands in order to fully satisfy provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and all 

applicable cultural resource laws and policies. Potentially negative impacts from construction of 

trails, impoundments, or facilities would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist 

and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural resources in 

the public trust and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. Determining whether a 

particular management action has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process 

that would occur during the detailed planning stages of every project. 
Final Environmental Assessment 179

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides three 

major types of protection for these resources – protection from private development (e.g., into singlefamily homes), protection from damage by Federal activities, and protection from vandalism or theft. 

Service policy is to preserve these resources in the public trust, avoiding impacts whenever possible. 

Land acquisition, within the current acquisition boundary for Fern Cave NWR, by the Service would 

provide some degree of protection to significant cultural and historic resources. If acquisition of 

private lands does not occur and these lands remain under private ownership, the landowner would 

be responsible for protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has 

the potential to destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing 

opportunities for cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING PAYMENTS 

 

Annual refuge revenue sharing payments to Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan 

Counties would continue at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to 

an individual refuge, the payments would increase accordingly for the affected county or counties. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Under any of the alternatives, the Service would consult with local and State officials and the public 

during detailed planning for and construction of any new facilities. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Each of the alternatives is anticipated to positively impact socioeconomic factors of the surrounding 

communities. Although refuge properties do occupy lands that might provide income to the local tax 

base, those lost tax revenues are offset by enhanced property values on adjacent lands and improved 

aesthetics related to conservation lands and open space. And, conservation lands require less 

expenditure of local taxes to fund infrastructure and other services than required by developed lands. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

The maintenance and operation of the Complex’s administrative facilities would continue, regardless 

of the alternative selected. Periodic updating of facilities is necessary for safety, accessibility, and to 

support staff and management needs. Funding needs have been identified for several projects, 

including providing additional facilities and equipment to support refuge operation and maintenance. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on soils, water 

quality and quantity, noise, transportation, human health and safety, children, hazardous materials, 

waste management, aesthetics and visual resources, and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Each alternative is anticipated to result in either net neutral or net positive 

environmental benefits. Impacts under each alternative are summarized for soils; air quality; 

hydrology and water quality; and biological resources. Table 13 summarizes and addresses the likely 

outcomes for the specific issues, and is organized by broad issue categories. 
180 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

ALTERNATIVE A: NO ACTION (CURRENT MANAGEMENT) 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in net neutral environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net neutral to positive 

impacts on soils. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to hydrology and water quality. Minor restoration activities of impounded wetlands are anticipated to 

positively impact hydrology and water quality. Positive impacts would also result from the acquisition, 

protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

ALTERNATIVE B: MAXIMIZE COMPATIBLE WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

Implementation of Alternative B is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils. Restoring impounded wetlands and managing habitats would positively impact soils and soil 

formation processes. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on hydrology and water quality. Restoration activities of impounded wetlands are anticipated to 

positively impact hydrology and water quality. Positive hydrology and water quality impacts would 

result from the acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts on 

biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats supporting 

increased numbers of threatened and endangered species and native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

ALTERNATIVE C: MAXIMIZE WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Implementation of Alternative C is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils. Improving habitat management, restoring impounded wetlands, and restoring natural 

habitats positively impact soils and soil formation processes. 
Final Environmental Assessment 181

The management activities outlined under Alternative C would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive 

impacts on hydrology and water quality. Restoration activities of impounded wetlands and native 

warm season grasslands are anticipated to positively impact hydrology and water quality. 

Positive hydrology and water quality impacts would result from the acquisition, protection, and 

management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting increased numbers of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and native 

wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

 

ALTERNATIVE D: BALANCE WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND COMPATIBLE WILDLIFEDEPENDENT PUBLIC USE (PROPOSED ACTION) 

Implementation of Alternative D is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative D are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils. Managing habitats, restoring impounded wetlands, and restoring native warm season 

grasslands would positively impact soils and soil formation processes. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative D would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative D are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on hydrology and water quality. Restoration activities of impounded wetlands and native grasslands 

are anticipated to positively impact hydrology and water quality. Positive hydrology and water quality 

impacts would result from the acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative D are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting increased numbers of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and native 

wildlife and wildlife diversity. 
182 Wheeler National Wild

Table 13. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Migratory and Resident Birds Waterfowl (Ducks, Geese, and Cranes) 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Waterfowl populations and species diversity would not change substantially, modestly contributing to NAWMP habitat and population objectives. Most species would continue to benefit from current Complex management. 

Negative Impacts. Would adversely affect populations due to disturbance from increased activity. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Modest increase in waterfowl populations likely in response to increases in habitat and reduced disturbances. 

NeuImpPopincrmay 

Waterbirds (Colonial Waterbirds, Marsh Birds, and Shorebirds) 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Waterbird populations expected to remain stable; most species would continue to benefit from current Complex management. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Waterbird populations expected to increase somewhat with increased management and habitat restoration. 

PosSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Landbirds (Forest Birds, Grassland Birds, and Scrub-Shrub Birds) 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Populations would be expected to remain stable and relatively low; most species would continue to benefit from current Complex management. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Populations would be expected to increase with additional acreages of old field, grassland, and oak savanna habitat. 

PosSam

Other Resident Wildlife (Threatened, Endangered, and Imperiled Species) Game Species Neutral Impacts. 

Populations of game species are expected to remain at current levels. Limited monitoring. 

Negative Impacts. Populations of game species are expected to decrease with increases in hunting. 

Positive Impacts. Populations of game species are expected to increase with active management. 

PosSam

Amphibians & Reptiles Neutral Impacts. 

Reptile and amphibian populations likely to remain stable. Limited amounts of baseline data are available to help determine population levels. Current management includes incidental management. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Reptile and amphibian populations expected to increase with active management. Information from inventories and assessments of current populations expected to have a positive effect for future planning. 

PosSam
184 Wheeler National Wild

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Control of Invasive/ Nuisance Animals (Feral Hogs and Beavers) 

Negative Impacts. Populations of feral hogs would likely increase at Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs and the beaver population at Wheeler NWR would likely increase. 

Neutral Impacts. Populations of feral hogs would likely decrease but the beaver population would likely increase. 

Positive Impacts. Populations of feral hogs and beavers would likely decrease. 

PosSam

Gray and Indiana Bats Neutral Impacts. 

Bat populations would likely remain stable with current protection. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Bat populations may increase slightly. 

NeuImpSam

Alabama cavefish Unknown Impacts. 

Alabama cavefish population trends would remain unknown. 

Unknown Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Alabama cavefish population trends may be determined. 

NeuImpSam

Mussels Neutral Impacts. 

Mussel populations likely to remain stable. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Mussel populations may increase slightly. 

NeuSam

Snails Neutral Impacts. 

Snail populations likely to remain stable. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Snail populations may increase slightly. 

NeuSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Habitats and Plants of Interest Impoundments and Shallow Water Areas (including Moist Soil) 

Neutral Impacts. Current levels of management and maintenance would continue providing modest habitat for waterfowl. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Levels of management and maintenance would increase providing improved habitat for waterfowl. 

PosLevand slig

Croplands for Waterfowl and Wildlife 

Neutral Impacts. Areas, acreages, and crops cultivated would not change. 

Negative Impacts. Acreages would decrease and crops cultivated would not change, however areas planted would be altered. 

Negative Impacts. Acreages would decrease and crops cultivated would not change. 

NeuImpSam

Old Fields Neutral Impacts. 

Current acreages would be maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Old Field habitat would increase in area and abundance. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative B. 

NeuImpSamplus acreplan

Grasslands (Native Warm Season Grasses) 

Neutral Impacts. Current acreages would be maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Grasslands habitat would increase in area and abundance. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative B. 

NeuImpSamplus acreplan
186 Wheeler National Wild

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Bottomland Hardwood Forests 

Neutral Impacts. Current levels of acreages would be maintained. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Forest management for birds would create healthier forests. 

PosSam

Oak Savanna Forests Neutral Impacts. 

Current acreages would be maintained. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Acreages would increase. 

PosSam

Open Water, Marsh, Creeks and Sloughs 

Negative Impacts. Acreage would not change, but habitat quality would change due to sedimentation and invasive aquatic plant species would continue to proliferate. 

Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Acreage would not change, but quality may improve with increased land protection and increased invasive aquatic species management. 

NeuImpSam

Hydric Drains or Swamps 

Neutral Impacts. Acreage and habitat quality would not change. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Acreage would not change, but habitat quality may improve with increased land protection and increased invasive aquatic species management. 

NeuImpSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

American Hart’s-tongue fern 

Negative Impacts. Active management of American Hart’s tongue fern populations lacking. 

Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. American Hart’s-tongue fern populations may increase with increase in protection and management. 

PosSam

Price’s potato-bean Neutral Impacts. 

Price’s potato-bean populations likely to remain stable. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Price’s potato-bean populations may increase with increase in forest management. 

NeuImpSam

Resource Threats Control of Invasive Plant Species 

Negative Impacts. Both aquatic and terrestrial invasive plant species remain problematic; control efforts are limited. 

Negative Impacts. Invasive plant species would be expected to increase at an alarming rate. 

Positive Impacts. Under a comprehensive and well-funded control program; invasive plants are identified and controlled or eradicated. Habitats would improve. 

PosSam

Contaminants (in water, sediments, fish) 

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Contaminant issues would be expected to stay the same or increase. 

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Extent of problem would be more closely assessed and monitored, and if needed, addressed. 

NeuImpSam
188 Wheeler National Wild

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Siltation Negative Impacts. 

Would likely stay the same or increase. 

Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. May decrease due to increase in soil conservation measures. 

NeuImpSam

Urbanization (including rights-of-way and easements) 

Negative Impacts. Urbanization problems would continue to increase as populations of nearby cities continue to grow at an alarming rate. 

Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Negative Impacts Some urbanization and encroachment problems or issues may be avoided by developing partnerships with local planning and zoning departments. 

NeuImpSam

Land Protection Land Acquisition Neutral to Negative 

Impacts. Four hundred and eighty-three (483) acres within the approved acquisition boundary for Fern Cave NWR have not been acquired by the Service. 

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Complex management would focus acquisition efforts on acquiring the land that surrounds the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit) at Fern Cave NWR. 

PosSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Farmer Service Agency Conservation Easements 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Continue limited management of five tracts for habitat, game species, and nongame species. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

NeuImpSam

Partners, Volunteers, Friends Group, and Interns 

Positive Impacts. Maintain and increase as approached by interested partners. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Private Lands Positive Impacts. 

Assistance to and cooperation with neighboring private landowners would continue. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Litter Control Negative Impacts. 

Litter problems would continue as control and reduction of trash would only occur when budgets and work force availability would allow. 

Negative Impacts. Litter problems would continue to increase with more people using Complex lands and the increase in population of local communities. 

Positive Impacts. Litter problems would decrease with the addition of a comprehensive litter control and reduction program. 

PosSam
190 Wheeler National Wild

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Law Enforcement Negative Impacts. 

Current levels of enforcement and protection are maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Increase in protection of visitor safety with little to no impact on resource management and maintenance programs would occur. 

Positive Impacts. Increase in protection of resources with little to no impact on resource management and maintenance programs would occur. 

PosIncrresosafeimpmanmaiwou

Cultural Resources Positive Impacts. 

Current levels of cultural resource protection are maintained. Partnerships with Redstone Arsenal and TVA are maintained to increase awareness and protection. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Public Use Hunting Neutral Impacts. 

Hunting opportunities are maintained at current levels. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Hunting opportunities for small game and feral hogs would be increased. 

Positive Impacts. Hunting opportunities for feral hogs would be increased. 

NeuImpSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Fishing Neutral Impacts. 

Fishing opportunities are maintained at current levels. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Fishing opportunities would be increased. 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Fishing opportunities at night may decrease due to night time closure of many parts of Wheeler NWR. 

NeuImpFishnighto nmanNWeve

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Positive Impacts. Environmental education and interpretation levels would continue. 

Positive Impacts. Environmental education and interpretation would be expanded through an increase in on-site and off-site activities, programs, and facilities.

Positive Impacts Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Positive Impacts. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities are maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Increased opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would occur. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

 PoSam

Visitor Access Neutral to Positive 

Impacts. Current levels of access for visitors are maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Visitor access would be increased. 

Negative Impacts. Visitor access would be decreased at night and in waterfowl sanctuary areas. 

NeuImpVisislig
192 Wheeler National Wild

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Lack of Awareness and Visitation by Nearby Residents and Communities 

Neutral to Positive Impacts. Current levels of awareness and visitation maintained. 

Positive Impacts. Awareness, understanding, and visitation would be increased with new facilities, environmental education outreach, exhibits, trails, and other opportunities for the public. 

Positive Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Complex Administration Facilities Neutral to Negative 

Impacts. Current facilities and level of maintenance are maintained. 

Positive Impacts. A new environmental education center would increase the ability to provide the public with a satisfying and educational experience.

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

PosSam

Other Human Dimensions Human Health and Safety 

Neutral Impacts. Acceptable, typical risks to visitors, motorists, and nearby residents from accidents and wildfires would continue. 

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Same as Alternative A, expect an increase in visitors may lead to an increase in incidents. 

Neutral Impacts. Same as Alternative A. 

NeuImpSam
Final Environmental Assessment 

Resource Affected 

Alternative A 

(Current Management 

– No Action 

Alternative) 

Alternative B: 

Maximize Compatible 

Wildlife-Dependent 

Public Use 

Alternative C: 

Maximize 

Wildlife/Habitat 

Management 

Alte

M

Co

Dep

(Pro

Socioeconomic Effects Positive Impacts. 

Modest beneficial socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities would continue to be generated from spending, incomes, taxes, refuge revenue sharing, and visitation/tourism, as well as assistance to local farmers for cooperative farming. 

Neutral to Negative Impacts. Modest beneficial socioeconomic impacts on surrounding communities would continue to be generated from spending, incomes, taxes, refuge revenue sharing, and visitation/tourism. However, local farmers would lose income from eliminating the cooperative farming program. 

Negative Impacts. Modest decrease in socio-economic benefits to surrounding communities. 

PosImpSamexcmay moracc
194 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A—the No-Action Alternative—there are numerous unavoidable impacts, including 

law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting both natural resources and visitor safety; 

continued degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat due 

to the invasion of exotic plants and nuisance animals; and a continued decrease in biodiversity. Over 

time, if these issues are not addressed, they would continue to impact resources on each refuge in 

the Wheeler Complex. 

Alternative D, the proposed alternative, also has some unavoidable impacts. These impacts are 

expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the Complex would attempt to 

minimize these impacts whenever possible. The following section describes the measures the 

Complex would employ to mitigate and minimize the potential impacts that would result from 

implementation of the proposed alternative. 

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE AND USE OF HERBICIDES 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and levee maintenance; 

farming; the construction of observation towers, boat ramps, and nature trails; and the rehabilitation 

of the headquarters administrative building and the Visitors Center are expected to be minor and of 

short duration. To further reduce potential impacts to water, the Complex would use best 

management practices to minimize the erosion of soils into water bodies. 

Foot traffic on new and/or extended nature trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil 

erosion. To minimize the impacts of soil erosion on nature trails, the Complex would install 

informational signs that request nature trail users to remain on the trails, in order to reduce potential 

erosion problems. 

Long-term herbicide use for exotic/invasive plant control could result in a slight decrease in water 

quality in areas prone to exotic/invasive plant infestation. Through the proper application of 

herbicides, however, this is expected to have a minor impact on the environment, with the benefit of 

reducing or eliminating exotic/invasive plant infestations, resulting in net positive benefits. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of 

the activity involved or the location in which the activity occurs. While some activities, such as 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography, may be less disturbing than others, all of the public 

use activities outlined under the proposed alternative would be planned to avoid unacceptable 

levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered to 

be significant. Nevertheless, the Complex would manage public use activities to reduce impacts. 

Providing access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without 

adversely impacting other resources. Hunting would also be managed with restrictions that ensure 

minimal impacts on other resources. General wildlife observation and photography may result in 

minimal disturbance to wildlife. If the Complex determines that impacts from the expected additional 

visitor uses are above the levels that are anticipated, those uses would be discontinued, restricted, or 

rerouted to other less sensitive areas. 
Environmental Assessment 195

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of nature trails that 

require the clearing of nonsensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a minor 

short-term impact. 

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new exotic species into areas 

when visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the boat ramps and other access points, or 

with requests to stay on nature trails. The Complex would minimize this impact by enforcing the 

regulations for access to the Complex’s water bodies and by installing informational signs that 

request users to stay on the trails. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the Complex would adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any 

public use issues. The Complex would use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or 

eliminating public use conflicts. These methods include establishing separate use areas; different 

use periods; and limits on the numbers of users, in order to provide safe, quality, appropriate, and 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to each refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property 

values, less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, increased knowledge about water quality, and 

increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands and noise associated with increased traffic. To minimize these potential 

impacts, the Complex would provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; 

maintain existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; and increase educational efforts at the 

Complex's Visitor Center. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use patterns. 

However, most of the non-Service-owned lands within the approved acquisition boundary of Fern Cave 

NWR are currently undeveloped. If these lands are acquired as additions to Fern Cave NWR, they would 

be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, and opened to appropriate and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public uses, where feasible. 

Since all of the approved acquisition boundaries for the other refuges in the Wheeler Complex have been 

acquired, any additional expansions would have to be conducted through a Minor Expansion Proposal, a 

Land Protection Plan, or a change in Service policy. As with the case at Fern Cave NWR, any lands 

acquired as additions would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, and 

opened to appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent public uses, where feasible. 
196 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Potential development of the Complex’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to 

minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building the 

observation towers, efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally 

sensitive treated lumber. The Visitor Center would be maintained to be aesthetically pleasing to 

the community and to avoid any additional impacts to native plant communities. All construction 

activities would comply with the requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the National 

Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and other applicable 

regulatory requirements. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. 

Impacts can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same 

resource. They can also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the 

present, and the future. Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially 

canceling out each other’s effect on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with 

each additional action contributing an incremental impact on the resource. In addition, 

sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the sum of the individual effects, such as 

when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of reproductive sustainability, and 

threatens to extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

Under the proposed action, environmental education would receive increasing emphasis both on and 

off-refuge lands. These enhanced efforts would likely lead to a concomitant cumulative, beneficial 

impacts on the level of environmental knowledge and awareness in the citizens of northern Alabama. 

In addition, increased cooperation with local governments, the implementation of a contaminants 

monitoring and prevention program, and the development of a comprehensive invasive species 

control program would result in fewer negative cumulative impacts to the environment. 

Furthermore, increased public use activities on the refuges would cumulatively result in increased 

demand for water, electricity, roads, lodging and other infrastructure. The combined impacts of all 

these activities would affect the surrounding communities and the ability of the local government to 

provide services. Similarly, other human activities such as farming must use best management 

practices to minimize negative cumulative effects on water quality in the Tennessee River Valley. 

Implementation of any of the four alternatives described in this Final Environmental Assessment, 

including actions relating to site development, fish and wildlife habitat and population management, 

and recreational use programs, would have both direct and indirect effects. However, the Wheeler 

Complex staff does not expect the cumulative effects of these actions over the 15-year period of this 

plan to be significant. 
Environmental Assessment 197

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include facility development; 

wildlife and population management; resource protection; public use; and administrative programs. 

These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. Facility development, for example, 

would most likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in turn, could lead to indirect 

effects, such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

Other indirect effects that may result from implementing the proposed alternative include minor 

impacts from siltation due to the disturbance of soils and vegetation while expanding and 

rehabilitating the water control structures, as well as expanding or creating new nature trails; 

construction of the observation tower and the new environmental education center; and providing 

greater visitor access through improvements to the road network and boat launching facilities. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions outlined under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of 

observation towers and an environmental education center or the maintenance of roads. While these 

activities would cause short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public 

support gained from the improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the entire 

Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the Complex's long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the natural resources at each refuge. The plans 

proposed under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. 

Therefore, implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife 

protection and land conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
198 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Environmental Assessment 199

Chapter V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

Final Environmental Assessment (EA) have been written with the participation of Service staff, refuge 

visitors, governmental partners, the local community, non-profit organizations, and the general public. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) participated as a cooperating agency in the development of 

this Final EA. This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date 

in identifying the issues, developing alternatives, and choosing the proposed alternative, which are 

presented in the CCP. It lists the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of these documents. 

A core writing team and a planning team led the process, a biological and habitat review team helped 

develop wildlife and habitat needs, a visitor service team helped develop public use needs, and the 

public contributed to the process during the scoping period. Please refer to Section A, Chapter III 

and Appendix D of this CCP for more information and a description of public involvement and input 

into this planning process.

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The core planning team consisted of select members from the Wheeler NWR Complex staff. This 

team served as the primary authors and editors of this document. The team members included: 

y John Beck, Natural Resource Planner 

y Emery Hoyle, Deputy Project Leader 

y Bill Gates, Refuge Biologist 

y Steve Seibert, Assistant Refuge Manager 

y Teresa Adams, Supervisory Public Use Specialist 

PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The planning team consisted of key members from the Complex staff and select individuals from the 

Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (ADWFF), Redstone Arsenal Military Base, 

and TVA. Initially, this team focused on identifying issues and concerns pertinent to Complex 

management. The planning team held its initial meeting on July 28, 2005, to develop a vision, outline 

management goals, and provide direction for organizing public meetings. This team met on several 

occasions from July 2005 through February 2006. Additional tasks of the team involved refining the 

vision; reviewing and filtering issues; redefining the goals; and outlining the alternatives. The team 

members included: 

y Dwight Cooley, Project Leader, Wheeler NWR Complex 

y Emery Hoyle, Deputy Project Leader, Wheeler NWR Complex 

y John Beck, Natural Resource Planner, Wheeler NWR Complex 

y Bill Gates, Refuge Biologist, Wheeler NWR Complex 

y Steve Seibert, Assistant Refuge Manager, Wheeler NWR Complex 

y Teresa Adams, Supervisory Public Use Specialist, Wheeler NWR, Complex 
200 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

y Ron Eakes, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Keith Hudson, Non-game Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Jeff Garner, Supervisor, Mussel Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Keith McCutcheon, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Danny Dunn, Chief, Cultural and Natural Resources Branch, Directorate of Public Works, 

Redstone Arsenal Military Base 

y Rob Hurt, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y J. Ralph Jordan, Process Specialist for Resource Management and Recreation, Tennessee 

Valley Authority 

BIOLOGICAL AND HABITAT REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Preplanning activities for the CCP development began with a biological and habitat review in 

September 2002. The biological review team, comprised of a diverse group of experts from State 

and Federal agencies and non-profit organizations, was invited to review the biological programs for 

the Wheeler Complex. The invited participants included both local and regional experts, researchers, 

and individuals with intimate knowledge of and expertise in the biological resources of the Wheeler 

Complex. The objective of this team was to provide input regarding the best ways to manage and 

conserve Wheeler Complex’s natural resources by conducting a critical examination of all aspects of 

the biological and habitat programs. Members of this team produced a final report that summarized 

their recommendations to be considered while developing the CCP for the Wheeler Complex. 

Members of the review team included: 

y Frank Bowers, Chief, Division of Migratory Birds, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Frank Dukes, Manager, Eufaula NWR, (former Deputy Project Leader Wheeler NWR) 

y Chuck Hunter, Chief, Division of Planning and Resource Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y Rob Kelsey, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Division of Resource Management, Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y Don Orr, Migratory Bird Field Coordinator, Wildlife and Habitat Management Office, Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

y Keith Hudson, Non-game Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Scott Atkins, Regional Biologist, Resource Stewardship, Tennessee Valley Authority 

y Jeff Garner, Supervisor, Mussel Management, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Keith McCutcheon, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y Danny Dunn, Chief, Cultural and Natural Resources Branch, Directorate of Public Works, 

Redstone Arsenal Military Base 

y Keith Tassin, Director of Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy of Alabama 
Environmental Assessment 201

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 

Preplanning activities continued with a visitor services (public use) review in October 2003. The Visitor 

Services Team (Table 15), consisting of public use specialists, made recommendations about the best 

ways to provide the public with opportunities to enjoy appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent 

activities and facilities to help bring these activities to fruition. The team was comprised of Wheeler 

Complex staff, staff from other Region 4 refuges, and a Regional Office representative from the 

Visitor Services and Outreach program. This group reviewed the existing public use programs, 

facilities, and opportunities that are available on the Wheeler Complex. Emphasis was placed on the 

priority six wildlife-dependent public uses. A Public Use Review Report that provided 

recommendations for the short- and long-term public use program was developed and 

recommendations were taken into consideration in the development of the CCP. 

y Gary Tucker, Regional Chief of Visitor Services, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Joan Stevens, Supervisory Park Ranger, Tennessee NWR 

y Kathy Whaley, Deputy Refuge Manager, Alligator River NWR 

y Mike Esters, Refuge Manager, Bayou Cocodrie NWR 

In addition, to the planning teams, the Service sought the contributions of experts from various fields 

to assist the development of this CCP. Their recommendations provided valuable information for the 

authors of this plan. 

y Jason Duke, GIS Specialist, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Darrin Speegle, Law Enforcement Officer, Wheeler NWR 

y Jason Vehrs, Law Enforcement Officer, Wheeler NWR 

y Mike Dawson, Senior Planner, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist, Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Pete Tuttle, Contaminants Specialist, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service 
202 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 203

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within 

a framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions 

and assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results 

help managers determine whether current management should 

continue as is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired 

conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by 

flowing water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the 

stated need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of 

objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes 

and goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving 

issues (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Aquifer: An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel, or porous stone that 

yields water. 

Biological Diversity: 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 (USFWS Manual 

052 FW 1. 12B). The system’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological processes. Also referred to as 

biodiversity. 

Buffer: A multi-use transitional area designed and managed to protect core 

reserves and critical corridors from increased development and human 

activities that are incompatible with habitat and/or wildlife values. In this 

document, agricultural lands are also considered buffer lands. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a 

habitat or area. 

Categorical Exclusion (CE, 

CX, CATEX, CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Colluvium: A loose deposit of rock debris accumulated through the action of 

gravity. 
204 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any 

other use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound 

professional judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract 

from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or 

the purpose(s) of the national wildlife refuge [50 CFR 25.12 (a)]. A 

compatibility determination supports the selection of compatible uses 

and identifies stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP): 

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge 

or planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the 

mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, 

restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; helps achieve the goals of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System; and meets other mandates (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue 

Conservation Easement: A legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust (a private, 

nonprofit conservation organization) or government agency that 

permanently limits a property’s uses in order to protect its 

conservation value. 

Cooperative Agreement: A legal instrument used when the principle purpose of the 

transaction is the transfer of money, property, services or anything of 

value to a recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose 

authorized by Federal statute. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource Inventory: A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for 

the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 

(Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 
Appendices 205

Cultural Resource Overview: A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that 

discusses, among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the 

nature and extent of known cultural resources, previous research, 

management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, 

and a general statement on how program objectives should be met 

and conflicts resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate 

information from a field offices background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management 

Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the 

past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area: 

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed 

as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft 

Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural (e.g., 

fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal 

communities and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Management: Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act 

that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

Endangered Species (State): A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated 

in the State within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant 

degree. 

Environmental Assessment 

(EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose 

and need for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No 

Significant Impact (40 CFR 1508.9). 
206 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by Section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental 

impacts of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that 

cannot be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of 

the environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment 

of resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Feral: A wild, free-roaming domestic animal which has become established 

as a breeding population. 

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 (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Geographic Information 

System (GIS): 

A computer-based system for the collection, processing, and 

managing of spatially referenced data. GIS allows for the overlay of 

many data layers and provides a valuable tool for addressing 

resource management issues. 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define 

measurable units (Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism 

for survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically 

lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Hydric: A term used to define a habitat based on soil moisture conditions. 

Hydric habitats are those which regularly flood for at least a portion 

of a typical year. 

Hydrology: The scientific study of the properties, distribution, and effects of 

water in the atmosphere, on the earth’s surface, and in soil and 

rocks. 

Karst: A geological term for an area of limestone formations characterized 

by sinkholes and underground streams. 

In-holding: Privately owned land inside the boundary of the refuge. 
Appendices 207

Invasive exotic species: Non-native species which have been introduced into an ecosystem, 

and, because of their aggressive growth habits and lack of natural 

predators, displace native species. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other 

presence of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.6K). 

Listed species: Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that has been determined to be 

“at risk” by a State or the Federal Government. 

Malacologist: A person who studies the science which relates to the structure and 

habitat of mollusks. 

Management Alternative: See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management Opportunity: See Issue 

Marshbirds: A term that encompasses non-colonial, non-waterfowl aquatic 

species, including loons, bitterns, non-colonial grebes, rails, 

gallinules, coots, limpkin and cranes. They are often secretive and 

feed primarily in fresh waters. 

Memorandum of 

Understanding: 

A voluntary agreement between two partnering agencies. 

Mesic: Pertaining to habitat requiring moderate amounts of moisture in the 

soil. Moisture is readily available for use by vegetation and the sites 

may flood in short duration. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 
208 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): 

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate 

NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate 

NEPA documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making 

(40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-57): 

Under the Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required 

to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all national 

wildlife refuges. The Act also describes the six public uses given 

priority status within the National Wildlife Refuge System (i.e., 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission: 

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, 

restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats 

within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened 

with extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management 

areas; or waterfowl production areas. 

National Wildlife Refuge: A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water 

within the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Neotropical migratory birds: Birds that migrate from North America back and forth to South or 

Central America. These birds usually breed in the United States or 

Canada and “winter” in Mexico, the Caribbean, or Central or South 

America. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive 

or difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or 

his environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 
Appendices 209

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want 

to achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is 

responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide 

the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge 

accomplishments, and evaluating the success of strategies. Making 

objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6N). 

Partnership: A mutually beneficial, joint relationship between two or more entities 

(e.g., two agencies or an agency and a landowner). 

Petrolglyphs: A carving or line drawing on rock, especially one made by prehistoric 

people. 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site, such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

and denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that require protective measures and/or 

management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. Priority 

species include the following: (1) state-listed and candidate species; 

(2) species or groups of animals susceptible to significant population 

declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their 

inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of 

recreation, commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement Plan: Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the 

comprehensive planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to 

express their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the 

process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful 

consideration of public views is given in shaping decisions for refuge 

management. 
210 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, 

and local government agencies; Native American tribes; and foreign 

nations. It may include anyone outside the core planning team. It 

includes those who may or may not have indicated an interest in 

Service issues and those who do or do not realize that Service 

decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the Refuge: “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 sub-unit.” For refuges that 

encompass congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of 

the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service 

Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended Wilderness: Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both 

the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Secretary of the 

Department of the Interior, and recommended for designation by the 

President to Congress. These areas await only legislative action by 

Congress in order to become part of the Wilderness System. Such 

areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision (ROD): A concise public record of decision prepared by the Federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were 

not), and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where 

applicable for any mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Operating Needs 

System (RONS): 

A national database which contains the unfunded operational needs 

of each refuge. Projects included are those required to implement 

approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Service Asset Maintenance 

and Management Systems 

(SAMMS): 

A national database and accounting system used by refuges to 

document expenditures for the maintenance and management of 

facilities and equipment. 
Appendices 211

Shorebirds: Any of a large group of birds commonly called sandpipers and 

plovers, but also including others, such as gulls, terns, skimmers, 

oystercatchers, avocets, and stilts. Typically found along the 

shorelines of oceans, rivers, and lakes, they are commonly 

characterized by long bills, legs, and toes. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching landbirds. 

Most are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down Management 

Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects 

(e.g., habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, 

and techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use 

potential. For purposes of this CCP/EA, the study area includes the 

lands within the currently approved refuge boundary and potential 

refuge expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species (State): A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the State 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Trust Resources Trust resources are those resources for which the Service has been 

given specific responsibilities under Federal law. These include 

migratory birds, interjurisdictional fishes (fish species that may cross 

State lines), federally listed threatened or endangered species, some 

marine mammals, and lands owned by the Service. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with 

others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Vegetation Type, Habitat 

Type, Forest Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 
212 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 

Wading birds: Long-legged birds that wade in fresh or brackish water in search of 

food, including herons, egrets, bitterns, ibis, storks, spoonbills, 

flamingos, and cranes. 

Waterfowl: Ducks, geese, and coots. 

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 do support under natural conditions, plants and 

animals that require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wilderness Study Areas: Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the 

definition of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study 

area must meet the following criteria: Generally appears to have 

been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; has outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; and has 

at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size as to 

make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition 

(Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5) 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other 

than prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 

FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 

Wildlife-dependent 

recreation: 

The public uses of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Wildlife management: The art and science of producing, maintaining, benefiting, and/or 

enhancing wildlife populations and their associated habitats. 
Appendices 213

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACES - Alternative Choices through Educational Systems 

ADA - Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADCNR - Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

ADWFF - Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

ANHP - Alabama Natural Heritage Program 

APHIS - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ATVs - All Terrain Vehicles 

AWF - Alabama Wildlife Federation 

BCC - Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT - Biological Review Team 

BMPs - Best Management Practices 

CCP - Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CHBCR - Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region 

CHJVCP - Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan 

CHJVEP - Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Evaluation Plan 

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations 

Cfs - cubic feet per second 

CRP - Conservation Reserve Program 

CWCS - Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

DDT - Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane 

DOI - Department of the Interior 

DU - Ducks Unlimited 

EA - Environmental Assessment 

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA - Endangered Species Act 

EQIP - Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

F – Fahrenheit 

FAWN - Forestry Awareness Week Now 

FTE - full-time equivalent 

FSA - Farm Service Agency 

FY - Fiscal Year 

GCN - Greatest Conservation Need 

GIS - Geographic Information System 

GPS - Global Positioning Systems 

GRP - Grassland Reserve Program 

IPM - Integrated Pest Management 

LEO - Law Enforcement Officer 

LMRJCEP - Lower Mississippi River Joint Venture Evaluation Plan 

LMVJV - Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture 

LTCE - Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem 

LTCEBMP – Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Bird Management Plan 

LPP - Land Protection Plan 

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding 

MSL - Mean Sea Level 

NABCI - North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAWMP - North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act 
214 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

NPL - National Priorities List 

NRCS - Natural Resource Conservation Service 

NRHP - National Register of Historic Places 

NWRS - National Wildlife Refuge System 

PAH - Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PARC - Partners for Amphibian and Reptile Conservation 

PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

PFT - Permanent Full Time 

RM - Refuge Manual 

ROD - Record of Decision 

ROW - Rights-Of-Way 

RONS - Refuge Operating Needs Survey 

RRP - Refuge Roads Program 

SAMMS - Service Asset and Maintenance Management System 

SCEP - Student Career Experience Program 

SCWDS - Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study 

Service - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

SHPO - State Historical Preservation Officer 

SPMD - Semipermeable Membrane Device 

TNC - The Nature Conservancy 

UM/GLJV - Upper Mississippi/Great Lakes Joint Venture 

USACE - United States Corp of Engineers 

USC - United States Code 

USFWS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

WCS - Water Control Structures 

WHIP - Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program 

WRP - Wetland Reserve Program 

WWRA - Wheeler Wildlife Refuge Association 
Appendices 215

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel. 2005. Economic Impact: Alabama Travel Industry 2004. 

Available online at http://www.800alabama.com/info/news/report.cfm 

Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel. 2004. Tours and Trails. Available online at 

http://touralabama.org/tours-trails. 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2004. Outdoor Alabama. Available 

online at http://www.dcnr.state.al.us. 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management. 2006. Alabama’s 2006 Integrated Water 

Quality Assessment and Monitoring Report. Available online at 

http://www.adem.state.al.us/WaterDivision/WQuality/305b/WQ305bReport.htm 

Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2005. Conserving Alabama’s Wildlife: A 

Comprehensive Strategy. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 

Montgomery, AL 322 pp. 

Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. 2006. Alabama Hunting Survey 

2005 – 2006 Season. Wildl. Restoration Prog. Grant # W-35, Study 6. Montgomery, AL. 28 pp. 

Aley, T. 1990. Delineation and hydrogeologic study of the Key Cave aquifer Lauderdale County, 

Alabama. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contract no. 14-16-0004-88-073. 114 pp. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1954. The value of waterfowl refuges in Illinois. Journal Wildlife Management 

18:160-169 

Boschung H.T. Jr. and Mayden R. L. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, W.W. Norton 

and Company. 960 pp. 

Brown, S., C. Hickey and B. Harrington, Editors. 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

Manomet Center for conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 2nd ed. 60 pp. 

Campbell, P. 1997. Population projections: states, 2000-2025. P. 25-1131. U.S. Census Bureau. 

City of Huntsville, Alabama. 2004. Air Quality Report. Data Summaries/Trend Analysis and Program 

Activities (1999 – 2003). City of Huntsville, Natural Resources and Environmental Management 

Division, AQR / 07-04. 49 pp. 

Conover, M.R., and G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose problems in the eastern United 

 States. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 13(3):228-233. 

Cooper, J.A., and T. Keefe. 1997. Urban Canada goose management polices and procedures. 

Transactions of the 62nd North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, 412-416.
216 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Cote S.D., T.P. Rooney, J.P. Tremblay, C. Dussault and D.M Waller. 2004. Ecological impacts of 

deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35: 113-147. 

Dimmick, R. W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The Northern Bobwhite Conservation 

Initiative. Misc. publ. of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South 

Carolina. 96 pp. 

Dolton, D.D. and R.D. Rau. 2006. Mourning dove population status, 2006. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 460 pp. 

Dycus, D.L. and T. F. Baker. 2000. Aquatic ecological determinations for TVA reservoirs—1999. An 

informal summary of 1999 vital signs monitoring results and ecological health determination 

methods. September 2000. Tennessee Valley Authority, River Operations, 1101 Market St. 

(CST 17-D), Chattanooga, TN. 

Feret, M., G. Gauthier, A. Bechet, J. F. Giroux, and K. A. Hobson. 2003. Effect of a spring hunt on 

nutrient storage by greater snow geese in Southern Quebec. Journal of Wildlife Management 

67:796-807. 

Fitzgerald, J. A., G. Wathen, M. D. Howery, W. P. Lisowsky, D. F. McKenzie, D. N. Pashley. 2003. 

 The Central Hardwoods Joint Venture Concept Plan. Tennessee Wildlife Resources 

 Agency 114 pp. 

Futato, E. M. 1979. Cultural resources reconnaissance in the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, 

Alabama. Report of Investigations No. 6, Office of Archaeological Research, The University of 

Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL. 113 pp. 

Hailu, K., B. Harrington., and M. S. Bisesi. 2007. Risk of Occupational Exposure to 

Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and Campylobacter Associated with the Feces of Giant Canada 

Geese. Applied Occupational Health & Environment, 16:9, 905 – 909. 

Harper, C.A., G.E. Bates, and M.J. Gudlin. 2004. A Landowner’s Guide to Native Warm-Season 

Grasses in the Mid-South. Tennessee Cooperative Extension Service, The University of 

Tennessee, Knoxville, TN. 25 pp. 

Havera, S. P., L. R. Boens, M. M. Georgi, and R. T. Shealy. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl 

 on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:290-298. 

Hunter, W.C., D.A. Buehler, R.A. Canterbury, J.L. Confer, and P.B. Hammel. 2001. Conservation of 

 disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440-455. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, NY. 250 pp. 

Johnson, R., Dixon S., and B. Wehrl. 1995. Threatened and Endangered Species of Alabama: A 

Guide to Assist with Forestry Activities. A cooperative publication of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Daphne, Alabama Field Office, Champion International Corporation, and Canal Wood 

Corporation. 80 pp. 
Appendices 217

Joiner, Harry M. 1987. Alabama: Then and Now. Southern Textbook Publishers, Inc., Athens, AL. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating disturbance of canvasbacks during migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:242-248. 

Kidd, R. E., Taylor C.J. and V.E. Stricklin. 2001. Use of ground-water tracers to evaluate the 

hydraulic connection between Key Cave and the proposed industrial site near Florence, 

Alabama, 2000 and 2001. U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-

4228. 20 pp. 

Kingsbury, B. A., and J. Gibson. 2002. Habitat management guidelines for amphibians and reptiles 

of the Midwest. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (PARC). 

Kushlan J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. 

Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. 

Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, 

Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington, D.C. 78 pp. 

Laughland A. and J. Caudill. 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. 118 pp. 

McDonald, W. L. 1989. Lore of the River. The Shoals of Long Ago. Florence, AL. 

Moser, P. H. and L. W. Hyde. 1974. Environmental geology; an aid to growth and development in 

Lauderdale, Colbert, and Franklin Counties, Alabama. Atlas Ser. 6, Geol. Surv. Of Ala. 

Tuscaloosa, AL. 45 pp. 

Mount, R. H. 1975. The reptiles and amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University Agricultural 

Experiment Station., Auburn, AL. 

Munro, D. 1964. Waterfowl Tomorrow- Survival of the Species in Canada. Page 537. Bureau of 

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, US Department of the Interior. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 2004. The North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan – Strengthening the biological foundation. NAWMP, Washington DC. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2003. The Central Hardwoods joint venture concept 

plan. Available online at http://www.abcbirds.org/nabci/chjv plan.htm 

Olin Corporation. 2001. Huntsville Remedial Action Project: Triana/Tennessee River Superfund Site. 

Availability unknown. 5 pp. 

Olin Corporation. 2004. Huntsville DDT Remedial Action Huntsville Spring Branch Indian 

Creek Long-Term Monitoring Program Annual Report No. 16. 2004. 

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 2004. What is PARC? Available online at 

http://www.parcplace.org/publications.html#about 
218 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga and D., Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs 

associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52:273-288. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. 

Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. 

Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. 2005. 

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight website. http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ (VERSION: 

March 2005). 

Rosenberg. 2002. Partners In Flight: Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. Published 

by: American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA. 91 pp. 

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and 

Analysis 1966-2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, MD. 

Shaw, S.S. 2000. Cultural Resources in the Wheeler Reservoir. Office of Archaeological Research, 

The University of Alabama. Tuscaloosa, AL. 378 pp. 

Sherard, H. 1971. Soil Survey for Lauderdale County, Alabama, United States Department of 

Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Gov’t Printing Off. 47 pp. 

Simberloff, D. 2001. Biological invasions - How are they affecting us, and what can we do about 

them? Western North American Naturalist 61:308-315. 

Swenson, G.A, R. Wildermuth, B.H. Williams, H. Sherard, C.L. McIntyre, H.P. Thomas, A. Baxter, D. 

McCall, and R.S. Farhnham. 1954. Soil Survey for Jackson County, Alabama, United States 

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Gov’t Printing Off. 101 pp. 

Swenson, G.A, H. Sherard, A. Baxter, R.S. Farhnham, H.J Wesson, and B.E. Young. 1958. Soil 

Survey for Madison County, Alabama, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil 

Conservation Service, U.S. Gov’t Printing Off. 101 pp. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2003. How clean is the air? Air Quality in the Tennessee Valley Region. 

TVA, Knoxville, TN 29 pp. 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 2006. Reservoir Ratings. Available online at 

http://www.tva.gov/environment/ecohealth/index.htm 

Tolleson, D. R., D. Rollins, W. E. Pinchak, M. Ivy, and A. Heirman. 1993. Impact of feral hogs on 

ground-nesting gamebirds. Pages 76-83 in C. W. Hanselka and J. F. Cadenhead, editors. Feral 

swine: a compendium for resource managers. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, 

San Angelo, TX. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000a. County Population Estimates. 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/popest.html>. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

Population Division. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000b. U.S. Census 2000 Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171). 

<http://www.census.gov> and <http://factfinder.census.gov>. 
Appendices 219

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005a. Alabama QuickFacts. Updated May 2007. Available online at 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/01000.html. 

U.S. Department of Defense. 1998. FY97 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual 

Report to Congress March 31, 1998. Available online at 

https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/Cleanup/CleanupOfc/arc/Reports/FY1997/index 

U.S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration Research and Development. 

Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2003. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 

Recreation: Alabama. Revised 2003. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1944. Wheeler Habitat Management Plan. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995 Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Service Trust Resources in 

the Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem. Available online at 

http://www.fws.gov/ltce/Ltcplan.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated 

Recreation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Conserving America's Fisheries: Fisheries Program Vision for 

the Future. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 27 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Service Manual. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/policy/manuals/ 

Yarrow, G.K. 1987. The potential for interspecific resource competition between white-tailed deer 

and feral hogs in the post oak savannah region of Texas. M.S. Thesis. Stephen R. Austin State 

University. 222 pp. 
220 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 221

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

National Wildlife Refuge System Authorities 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary 

Federal agency responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine 

mammals, and anadromous fish. This responsibility to conserve our nation’s fish and wildlife resources is 

shared with other Federal agencies and State and tribal governments. As part of this responsibility, the 

Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System. This system is the only nationwide system of 

federal land managed and protected for wildlife and their habitats. The mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge 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. 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex is managed as part of this system in accordance with the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 

12996 (Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), Biological 

Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy, and other relevant legislation, executive orders, 

regulations, and policies. 

Key Legislation/Policies for Plan Implementation 

The Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan describes and 

illustrates management-area projects with standards and guidelines for future decision-making and 

may be adjusted through monitoring and evaluation, as well as amendment and revision. The plan 

approval establishes conservation and land protection goals, objectives, and specific strategies for 

the Complex and its expansion. Compatible recreation uses specific to the refuge have been 

identified and approved by the refuge manager. This plan provides for systematic stepping down 

from the overall direction as outlined when making project- or activity-level decisions. This level 

involves site-specific analysis (e.g., Habitat Management Plan) to meet National Environmental Policy 

Act requirements for decision-making. 

The legal mandates supporting the National Wildlife Refuge System are as follows: 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by Federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 
222 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American Society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with States and other non-Federal interest 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the Federal share of the 

cost of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish 

are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

This Act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with Federal funds, or leased by a Federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on Federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on Federal lands. 
Appendices 223

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge Federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “sir quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate State 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of State programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered species 

and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This Act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

Federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

Federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which Federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of Federal lands. 
224 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the Federal Government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of Federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the use 

of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other Federal, State 

and local agencies, farmers associations, and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each Federal land-managing 

agency, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, to designate an 

office or person to coordinate a program to control such plants on 

the agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

States, including integrated management systems, to control 

undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment, and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such 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. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 
Appendices 225

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

State fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under Federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This Act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary 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 

volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

Federal and State officials, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

It provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing 

permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all Federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15 c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign 

species, this Act prohibits interstate and international transport and 

commerce of fish, wildlife or plants taken in violation of domestic or 

foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America of foreign 

species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

Federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the 

Outer Continental Shelf, and other sources for land acquisition 

under several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be 

used for matching grants to States for outdoor recreation projects 

and for land acquisition by various Federal agencies, including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 
226 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the "Duck Stamp Act,” it requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, and export or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg, or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over Federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of Federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be 

considered in environmental impact statements, and requires that 

Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related 

decision-making and develop means to ensure that unqualified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along 

with economic and technical considerations. 
Appendices 227

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic, and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single Federal law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority wildlife-dependent public uses, 

establishes a formal process for determining compatible uses of 

Refuge System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as 

responsible for managing and protecting the Refuge System, and 

requires the development of a comprehensive conservation plan for 

all national wildlife refuges. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires Federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, the United States, and 

Mexico. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council is 

created to recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be 

expended for up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United 

States (or 100 percent of the cost of projects on Federal lands). 
228 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use, when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife-dependent recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging of fees for public 

uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund, to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

State fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 Federal funds, at least 1/3 Foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 State funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of Federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

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. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted 

by the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable 

waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It 

requires the Secretary of each military department to use trained 

professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his 

jurisdiction, and requires Federal and State fish and wildlife 

agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife 

activities on military reservations. 
Appendices 229

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the 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. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

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. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also 

established a grant program to assist states in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every 

roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and to recommend suitability of each such area. 

The Act permits certain activities within designated Wilderness 

Areas that do not alter natural processes. Wilderness values are 

preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which 

requires refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, 

equipment, and facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

programs within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
230 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

historic preservation officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that 

the use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this executive order is to prevent 

Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling 

their respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall 

take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize 

the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains." 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977) Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and 

enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring Federal agencies to use the State process to 

determine and address concerns of State and local 

elected officials with proposed Federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires Federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
Appendices 231

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s and other actions in 

connection with transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private 

sector applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National 

Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), which is 

the adopted, standard for vegetation mapping. Using 

NVCT facilitates the compilation of regional and 

national summaries, which in turn, can provide an 

ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with state and 

tribal governments. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on Federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers Initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Initiative directs Federal 

agencies to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and 

their associated resources important to our history, 

culture, and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of Federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
232 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs Federal agencies to conserve migratory 

birds by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
Appendices 233

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING 

This appendix summarizes all public comments (both oral and written) that were received pertaining 

to the public scoping meetings, the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Preparation for the 

CCP development process for the Wheeler Complex began with a Biological Review in September 

2002 and a Public Use Review in October 2003, to provide recommendations for the future 

management direction of the Complex. The following section briefly summarizes the efforts taken to 

solicit public input and presents the results of the public consultation process. 

On June 8, 2005, the Wheeler Complex Planning Team was formed to identify issues and concerns 

regarding the refuges and their wildlife, habitats, and management. This team consisted of key 

members from Wheeler Complex staff and select individuals from Alabama’s Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, 

Redstone Arsenal Military Base, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Members from the 

Wheeler NWR staff included: the refuge manager, the deputy manager, the refuge planner, the 

assistant refuge manager, the wildlife biologist, and the supervisory park ranger. Ecological services 

also provided a Fish and Wildlife biologist. Outside agency participants included: a cultural resource 

and environmental specialist from Redstone Arsenal, a resource management and recreation 

specialist from TVA, a state non-game wildlife biologist, a state mussel biologist, and two state district 

wildlife supervisors. The planning team held its initial meeting on July 28, 2005, to develop a vision, 

outline management goals, and provide direction for organizing public meetings. 

A CCP mailing list was developed for the Wheeler Complex that consisted of individuals from the 

general public, landowners, State agencies, organizations, governments, Native American Indian 

tribes, and other interested agencies. On August 30, 2005, more than 400 public meeting notices 

and comment sheets were mailed. Meeting notices provided a short explanation of the 

comprehensive conservation planning process and comment sheets requested permission from 

individuals to remain on the mailing list. The comment sheets were designed to allow for “freehand” comments on values, issues, and concerns related to the Complex. Comment packets 

were also available at the public meeting, the Complex office and Visitor Center, and could be 

requested via mail or e-mail. 

In September 2005, three public scoping meetings were conducted to obtain information and 

concerns from the public in the communities surrounding the four refuges. Meetings were held in the 

cities of Decatur, Florence, and Scottsboro, Alabama, in coordination with a variety of Federal, State, 

and local agencies. Announcements were sent to everyone on the CCP mailing list. Two (2) articles 

were written for the Wheeler Wildlife Association Newsletter and press releases were distributed to 

newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations in advance of the meeting. A total of 48 

people attended the meetings. 

Refuge maps, comment sheets, planning brochures, and exhibits were available at the meeting. A 

brief presentation on the planning and environmental compliance processes was given by the Natural 

Resource Planner for Wheeler Complex. The assistant refuge manager provided the audience with 

an overview of wildlife management activities and the supervisory park ranger outlined the public use 

opportunities available at Wheeler Complex. 
234 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Following the formal presentations, attendees were given the opportunity to express their thoughts 

and ideas on refuge management. Many written comments were turned in after the meeting, others 

indicated that they would mail in their comments at a later date. As of December 31, 2006, 64 

comment sheets had been received by the Service. The CCP and Final EA considered all input 

obtained from the meetings and the correspondence. 

The biological and public use reviews and the public scoping meetings provided a list of priority issues 

that participants believed needed to be addressed in the CCP. A list of alternatives to address identified 

issues was developed. The proposed action formed the basis for development of objectives and 

strategies that are expected to achieve the goals identified by the Planning Team. This process ensured 

that the most important issues would be resolved or given priority over the life of the CCP. The 

summaries of the priority issues, along with some discussion on their impacts to the resource, follow. 

MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

The planning team identified a number of issues relating to fish and wildlife protection, habitat 

restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered species. Additionally, 

Federal and State mandates, plus applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans were 

considered during the planning process. 

INTERNAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

Protect threatened and endangered species; enhance native habitats for migratory birds; intensify 

invasive species control; survey habitat and wildlife populations; restore wetland habitat; improve 

outreach and environmental education programs; evaluate contamination in surface water; monitor 

urban encroachment; facilitate appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent recreation; increase 

law enforcement; and address inadequate facilities and staffing. 

STATE REQUESTS 

Develop and strengthen partnerships related to environmental education and visitor use programs; 

control invasive and exotic plant species; manage and protect migratory birds; manage and protect 

threatened and endangered species; and increase law enforcement. 

TRIBAL ISSUES 

Protect cultural resources by preventing even small-scale excavations and continue to enforce laws 

and regulations that prohibit the removal of artifacts. 

PARTNERSHIPS' REQUESTS 

Cooperate with partners, including other Federal agencies, State agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and universities to conduct research on the various resources and habitat restoration 

programs being carried out on the Complex. Continue close coordination with the ADCNR on hunting 

and fishing programs on the refuges; on managing and protecting the endangered Alabama cavefish, 

gray bat, and Indiana bat; on promoting the Alabama Birding Trail; and on expanding the State's 

participation in refuge planning activities. 
Appendices 235

Continue the interagency agreement with Alabama Forestry Commission to provide initial response in 

wildfire situations. Continue to coordinate with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

(ADEM) on monitoring water contamination on the refuge. Develop a partnership with the cities of 

Decatur and Huntsville Convention and Visitors bureaus to promote compatible, sustainable, natureoriented recreation and experiences for visitors to the Decatur-Huntsville area. Coordinate with ADCNR 

and Alabama’s Department of Transportation (ALDOT) to maintain and improve boat launch areas as 

needed. Coordinate with Redstone Arsenal in preserving cultural resources, monitoring water pollution, 

and managing hunting programs. 

 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMMENTS 

Wheeler NWR – Consider increasing the number of hunting days for small game, specifically 

squirrels. Increase regulation and monitoring of deer hunting and improve efforts to control beavers. 

Implement a more aggressive program to eliminate the feral hog population through the use of 

modern firearms and provide additional hunting opportunities to the public. Consider a youth duck 

hunt and provide more handicapped accessible hunting areas. 

Some citizens were concerned about having alligators on the refuge, while others were excited about the 

presence of alligators. Expand opportunities for wildlife photography enthusiasts by constructing 

photography blinds. Protect wildflowers such as Trillium pucillum and develop a downed wood 

management program for removing fallen trees of commercial value. Eliminate invasive and exotic species. 

Several citizens felt that the amount and type of agricultural crops needed to support migratory birds 

need further definition and evaluation by Complex staff. Some citizens were in favor of increasing the 

acreage of prescribed burning, while others were concerned about particulates being released into 

the air from burning and were opposed to all forms of burning. Several negative comments were also 

recorded about the use of pesticides on the refuge. An encroachment issue from urban sprawl was a 

major concern for many adjacent landowners. 

While citizens had no specific comments on land acquisition, they did comment on refuge 

administration issues, such as the management of gate openings and closings, and suggested that 

refuge roads be improved and maintained for easier access and for erosion control. 

Among the issues identified during the scoping meeting, several were outside of the scope of the plan and 

the authority or the policy of the Service to address. The public was complimentary about the many 

opportunities for public use available on Wheeler NWR; however, several requests to increase the 

number of nature trails and reduce the number of motorized vehicles on the refuge were noted. 

Other written comments stressed the following: the need for acquiring baseline data on waterfowl and 

shorebird usage; a comparison of research data and current water level management are needed to 

optimize moist-soil habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, and fish; breeding habitat and rookery surveys 

for non-game birds should be conducted on a regular basis; and inventories are needed for 

freshwater mussels, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Sauta and Fern Cave NWRs - Attendees of the public meeting in Scottsboro, Alabama, requested that 

current management and access polices for Sauta and Fern Cave NWRs be maintained and unchanged. 

Written comments indicated the following: continue to monitor and survey gray and Indiana bats; acquire 

baseline data on the American Hart’s-tongue fern and Price’s potato-bean; control and eliminate invasive 

and exotic species; and protect the archaeological resources in both caves. 
236 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Key Cave NWR - Attendees of the public meeting in Florence, Alabama, requested that current 

management and access polices for Key Cave NWR be maintained and unchanged. However, 

several written comments were received that requested more hunting opportunities, increased 

cooperative management of resources with adjacent landowners, and an opportunity to conduct bird 

dog hunting trials with horses. Other written comments stressed the following: continue to monitor 

and survey the gray bat; attempt to acquire baseline data on the Alabama cavefish; control and 

eliminate invasive and exotic species; and protect the archaeological resources in Key Cave. 

PRIORITY ISSUES ADDRESSED BY ALTERNATIVES: 

y Expanding hunting and fishing opportunities 

y Providing wildlife observation and photography opportunities 

y Developing a balanced wildlife-dependent recreation program 

y Controlling sedimentation and contamination affecting refuge lands 

y Controlling beavers to protect bottomland hardwoods 

y Managing reforested lands 

y Providing habitat for upland game birds 

y Managing croplands for waterfowl 

y Managing water levels and moist soil for waterfowl and shorebirds 

y Providing technical assistance to private landowners 

Further discussion of these issues and concerns can be found in Chapter III of the CCP (Section A). 

DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

Public comments on the draft document were accepted from April 5 to May 21, 2007. A total of ten 

individuals from the general public, 22 individuals from the Birmingham Audubon Society, two nongovernmental organizations, one federal government organization, one state government agency, 

and one Native American tribe submitted comments on the Draft CCP and EA, either in writing or at 

the public forum that was held on May 1, 2007. No comments were submitted by other federal 

agencies. Twenty-eight individuals expressed support for the proposed action (Alternative D), one 

individual supported Alternative C, five individuals stated “that the Draft CCP was excellent” but did 

not specifically mention the alternatives, one individual supported most of Alternative D but wanted 

more opportunities for horseback riding, and two individuals did not support the plan at all. 

Under NEPA, the Service must respond to substantive comments. For purposes of this CCP, a 

substantive comment is one that was submitted during the public review and comment period which 

is within the scope of the proposed action (and the other alternatives outlined in the EA), is specific to 

the proposed action, has a direct relationship to the proposed action, and includes reasons for the 

Service to consider it. (For example, a substantive comment might be that the document referenced 

500 individuals of a particular species, but that current research found 600. In such a case, the 

Service would likely update the plan to reflect the 600, citing the current research. While a comment 

that would not be considered substantive would be: “We love the refuge.”) 

The comments submitted during the public review and comment period were evaluated, summarized, 

and grouped into several categories: Fish, Wildlife, and Plant Populations; Habitat Management; 

Resource Protection; Education and Visitor Services; Refuge Administration; and from the 

Environmental Assessment. The Service’s responses to the comments are provided in the following 

section and are arranged by category. 
Appendices 237

PUBLIC FORUMS 

During the April 5 – May 21, 2007, public review period, the Complex and planning staffs hosted one 

public forum on May 1 at the Wheeler NWR Visitors Center, Decatur, Alabama (the town in which the 

Complex headquarters is located). The forum began at 6:00 p.m. and concluded at 9:00 p.m. The 

forum started as an open house with the Complex staff available to discuss the draft plan and refuge 

operations with the attendees. A 30-minute formal presentation on the draft plan was then given, 

followed by a facilitated discussion to solicit open-floor comments on the plan. A total of two 

individuals offered oral comments during this public forum. Four individuals also submitted written 

comments. 

AFFILIATIONS OF RESPONDENTS 

 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of respondents who commented on the Draft 

CCP and EA, either in writing or at the public forum. 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Andrew Page Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) 

Colonel (Ret.) John A. Neubauer State of Alabama Historical Commission 

Wesley L. Andrews Seminole Tribe of Florida 

Ray Vaughan Wildlaw 

Jon M. Loney Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Terry Slaton Public Citizen 

B. Sachau Public Citizen 

Jane A. Rowe Public Citizen 

Leo Rowe Public Citizen 

Greg Smith Public Citizen 

Tim Jones Public Citizen 

Linda Jones Public Citizen 

Nita Woodson Public Citizen 

Charles Howell Public Citizen 

Bill Thrasher Public Citizen 

Frank Farrell Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Ann A. Sweeny Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Peg McGowan Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Peggy King Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Mark Nelson Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Nancy Nelson Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Jean Folsom Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 
238 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Kay Kinnear Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Bianca Allen Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Ellen McLaughlin Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Dianne Clark Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Ann Tate Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Edith Hunt Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Ethel Owen Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Mr. H.D. Burnum Jr. Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Mrs. H.D. Burnum Jr. Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Harriet Wright Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Mary Frances Slayton Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Susan Patton Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Hans Paul Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Lori Oswald Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

Maureen Shaffer Birmingham Audubon Society (BAS) 

The number of affiliations represented in the above table can be summarized as follows: federal government agency, 1; 

state agency, 1; non-governmental organization, 3; Native American tribe, 1; and public citizens (general public), 10. 

COMMENT MEDIA 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: oral (given at the public forum), 2; written letter, 30; and e-mail, 5. 

GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF RESPONDENTS 

The geographic origins of the individual respondents who submitted comments are Alabama, 33; 

Florida, 1; Tennessee, 1; Washington D.C., 1; and New Jersey, 1. 

 

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

The public comments received address the following concerns. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

responses to each concern are also summarized. 

Fish and Wildlife Populations – Invasive, Exotic and Nuisance Animal Control 

Comment: Make control of beavers a priority. I lease about 400 acres of land adjacent to Wheeler 

NWR in Madison County near the airport for hunting and fishing. We have to fight the beavers 

consistently to keep them from ruining the marsh, creeks, and timber. 
Appendices 239

Service Response: Under the proposed action (Alternative D), the Service proposes to increase 

efforts to control and minimize the damage caused from overpopulated beavers. 

Comment: The Complex is using Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, which addresses 

invasive species, in order to justify the hunting of feral hogs. This order also calls for accurate and 

reliable population monitoring. The draft CCP states that there are no formal data of feral hog 

populations in the Complex. “It is unlikely that these feral hog hunts will serve to control or reduce 

feral hog populations as implied in this CCP.” 

Service Response: Feral hogs are an extremely invasive non-native species that are known to occur 

on Wheeler NWR and Key Cave NWR. They can harbor several infectious diseases, some of which 

can be fatal to other wildlife. By rooting and wallowing, feral hogs destroy wildlife habitat. Damage 

includes erosion along waterways and wetlands and the loss of native plants. Additionally, feral hogs 

compete directly for food with deer, squirrels, and many other birds and mammals. They are 

predators of small mammals and deer fawns as well as ground-nesting birds. 

Although no official or formal data exists that document feral hog populations, recent observations of 

destroyed habitat indicate that the populations of feral hogs are increasing both at Wheeler and Key 

Cave NWRs. Current efforts to control feral hogs by refuge staff and volunteers have been 

unsuccessful. Under the proposed action, the feral hog hunting program at Wheeler NWR would be 

expanded by increasing the season. At the present time, no feral hog hunting is planned at Key Cave 

NWR, however if feral hog densities increase, a feral hog hunt may be considered in the future.

Comment: The commenter disagrees with the Draft CCP that beavers are destroying habitat on the 

refuge and that “the destruction of dams and the killing of beaver are not the only solution available to 

deal with beaver conflicts”. Using more socially acceptable methods such as oversize culverts that 

cannot be plugged, exclusion fencing, the mechanical protection of tree trucks, and pond leveling 

devices may prove to be cost effective. 

Service Response: The Service disagrees with the comment. Beavers kill and damage stands of trees 

when dam and lodge construction holds water in areas longer than normal that results in prolonged 

flooding. These events can cause massive die-offs of large tracts of mature bottomland hardwoods, 

which take decades to recover. In addition, water can back up and flood adjacent landowners' properties. 

Problems associated with the impounding of water by beavers are proving to be the single greatest threat 

to timber resources and dewatering operations at Wheeler NWR. Attempts are made each year to 

develop culverts that cannot be plugged. These attempts have been unsuccessful. 

Comment: “The CCP fails to take into account the effects that lethal beaver removal and dam destruction 

may have on the visitor experience of those who visit the refuge to view and photograph wildlife.” 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: Geese don’t bring on any of the fake diseases mentioned on page 78 of the draft CCP. 

“You are listing fake diseases of geese, trying to find reasons to murder them.” 

Service Response: The Service disagrees. Resident Canada geese refer primarily to local breeding 

Canada geese which nest and raise their young in northern Alabama, and more specific near 

Wheeler NWR. Resident Canada geese are currently adversely affecting the purpose(s) for which 

Wheeler NWR was established. They are seriously affecting moist-soil plant production in the 

refuge's impoundment system, and are also responsible for damaging agricultural crops planted to 

provide critical forage for migrating and wintering waterfowl. In addition, their fecal droppings 
240 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

concentrate in pools of water created during impoundment drawdowns, and thereby may degrade 

overall water quality and may increase the potential for human and avian diseases transmitted by 

fecal material, such as cryptosporidiosis, giardiasis, and chlamydiosis (Conover & Chasko, 1985; 

Cooper & Keefe, 1997, and Hailu Kassa et al., 2007). 

Fish and Wildlife Populations – Species of Concern 

Comment: Pages 104-105 - Objective 1.20 discusses strategies for conserving the gray bat and 

Alabama cavefish populations in Key Cave. This discussion should note that TVA owns a portion of 

this cave, including the cave entrance. TVA should be listed as a partner agency in this effort. 

Service Response: The Service agrees with this comment and has reworded Objective 1.20 to reflect 

TVA’s ownership of the cave and mentions the valuable partnership that already exists between the 

Service and TVA. 

Habitat Management – Farming Program 

Comment 1: Leave a portion of each planted crop on each field. 

Comment 2: Consider re-evaluating and improving the food plot program. It seems that the farmer 

co-op program has too many corn and bean fields that are not used much by wildlife. Keep food 

plots where you need them and make the farmers bid and contract to plant crops on the refuge land. 

Make a profit for the farming leases and use the revenue to accomplish more of above. 

Service Response: Farming is an integral part of Wheeler NWR’s management program and has been 

used for over 50 years to meet refuge goals. It provides food, browse, cover, and resting areas for 

waterfowl and other wildlife species. As the number of migratory Canada geese has declined from an 

average population of 35,000 in the late 1950s through the late 1980s to current averages below 5,000, 

the need for a large upland farming program has diminished. The use of cooperative farming requires a 

minimum of approximately 1,500 acres to meet refuge waterfowl objectives and provide shares for 

cooperative farmers. To allow for crop rotation, the cooperative farming program requires twice the above 

acreage. However, more corn and corn acreage may be required to fulfill these goals as the refuge 

refines acreages available for production of good moist-soil plants. Due to this situation, the refuge 

cannot leave a portion planted crops in every field, but only in areas of high waterfowl us. 

Comment: No farming should be allowed at a NWR. Get the agribusiness out of this NWR. It is 

clear that the farm service is free loading its budget on NWR activities. The farm service budget 

should be paid for by the U.S. Dept of Agriculture and it should not be in a NWR. Get these 

freeloaders out of there. A NWR is not a farm. 

Service Response: The cooperative farming program is a critical component of management for 

migratory birds, and, thus, a key objective of the Complex, and benefits a variety of other wildlife. 

Agriculture is used to produce “hot” foods, which helps the refuges in the Complex achieve the goals set 

out in the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

and the Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. These goals cannot be achieved without agriculture in 

combination with moist-soil and other natural foods. The Wheeler Complex staff does not have the 

budget or equipment to plant its own crops. Therefore, cooperative farming is currently the best method 

to achieve the purpose(s) for which the refuges were established. 

Comment: Why doesn’t your management staff get behind banning of fertilizer use instead of 

tolerating this contamination of the refuge? 
Appendices 241

Service Response: The production and widespread use of commercial fertilizers have resulted in the 

development of a very stable and productive agricultural system in the United States and worldwide. 

Farm managers routinely achieve levels of productivity that would have seemed improbable a few 

decades ago. On Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs, cooperative farmers use fertilizers to increase the 

production of food for wildlife. Fertilizers help increase the productivity of the soils for producing highquality crops in smaller acreages. 

The Service, through the development and issuing of farm management plans, require cooperative 

farming to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) when applying fertilizers on Complex lands. 

BMPs are cost-efficient operation methods that ensure that fertilizers are used effectively with 

minimal impact on the environment. By using BMPs, proper management of soils, water, crops, and 

fertilizer application can ensure that nutrients are available when it is most needed and least likely to 

be lost to the environment. 

Comment: “Isn’t it time Wheeler Refuge makes farms stop using toxic chemicals”? 

Service Response: The Service does not have jurisdiction over farmers on their own private land. 

Habitat Management – Invasive Plant Species Control 

Comment: Attack invasive weeds like alligator weed and parrot feather. They are right behind the 

beaver as an enemy to the habitat. 

Service Response: Under the proposed action (Alternative D), the Service proposes to increase 

efforts to control and minimize alligator weed, parrot feather, and any other exotic and/or invasive 

plant species. 

Habitat Management – Prescribed Burning 

Comment: No prescribed burning. Burning releases fine particulate matter which can travel 

thousands of miles. It settles in the human body, causing lung cancer, pneumonia, heart attacks, 

strokes, asthma and allergies, especially for babies and seniors, hardly fair. This should be avoided 

entirely. It is air pollution, and exacerbates global warming. Why isn’t this refuge moving into the 

twenty-first century? 

Service Response: Under the Service’s biological integrity policy (see 601 FW 3), refuges are 

charged with maintaining and restoring biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health. And 

under fire policies (see 621 FW 1 and 621 FW 3) refuges are to employ prescribed fire whenever it is 

an appropriate tool for managing resources. Many of the habitats in Alabama evolved with the 

natural and regular occurrence of fire, requiring fire to maintain these natural communities. However, 

due to a variety of factors, naturally occurring fire has been excluded from many areas (increasing the 

threat to public health and safety from wildfires). 

Prescribed fire is one of many management tools that helps fulfill the purposes of Wheeler and Key Cave 

NWRs and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, including helping restoration and 

maintenance of biological integrity of refuge habitats and management for threatened and endangered 

species and wildlife diversity. Prescribed fire offers two primary benefits: providing for habitat 

management and reducing threats to public health and safety from wildfires. Helping to protect public 

health and safety, prescribe fire maintains healthy levels of fuel loads, limits the occurrence of 

catastrophic fire, and provides for the direction of smoke (e.g., away from population centers). 
242 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Complex staff coordinates with local emergency management services and fire departments on all 

prescribed fires and wildfires. The Complex notifies the public when prescribed burns are planned to 

allow neighbors to take any needed precautions. All prescribed fire is conducted using sound 

professional judgment under Service and Department of Interior policy and specified conditions, 

including under an approved plan, which minimizes smoke impacts, helping to protect public health 

and safety. Currently, the prescribed fire activities conducted and anticipated to be conducted on the 

Complex are generally small and infrequent. 

Comment: The Air Quality discussion in Chapter II - Refuge Overview, pages 30-31, was adequate 

at the time it was initially written. Since then the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter 24-hour primary standard metric has been changed from 65 to 35 micrograms per 

cubic meter. A pending change in the ozone NAAQS will also subject the region to greater scrutiny 

from an air quality perspective. The final Environmental Protection Agency staff paper on this 

NAAQS recommends a primary ozone standard in the range of 0.080 to 0.060 ppm. It also 

recommends that the secondary ozone standard be a cumulative, weighted total of daily 12-hour 

exposures over a three-month period within the growing season in the range of 21 to 7 ppm-hours. 

While the Wheeler NWR area is presently in attainment with current standards, it is very close to the 

threshold for ozone and fine particle standards and potentially vulnerable to non-attainment. While 

few of the activities proposed in the plan would affect ozone levels, activities such as prescribed 

burning can affect particulate matter levels. We recommend that the Unavoidable Impacts and 

Minimization Measures section of the EA (pages 188-189) include a discussion of coordinating fire 

management activities with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the 

Alabama Forestry Commission in order to minimize the potential air quality impacts. 

Service Response: The Service agrees with the comment and has added an additional section 

entitled “Air Quality” to the Unavoidable Impacts and Minimization Measures section of the EA. 

Habitat Management – Forestry Management 

Comment: Timber management (fake use of the word "management") when logging is what is meant 

by management. This use is not consistent at all and this use should be banned because of the 

negative anti environmental effects of logging. 

Service Response: Forest management activities, such as timber harvest, are one of many 

management tools that help fulfill refuge purposes, goals, and objectives. Logging, chemical 

treatment, and prescribed burning are all biologically sound practices that benefit wildlife. All forestry 

management techniques will follow Alabama’s Best Forestry Management Practices, which lessen 

negative impacts due to forestry management activities. All of the forestry management techniques 

that the Service would use on the Complex would promote hard and soft mast trees. These trees 

produce much of the food for native wildlife and migratory birds. Without sound forest management, 

these food-producing trees would be out-competed by less favorable species. Specific forest 

management activities will be addressed in greater detail in the Habitat Management step-down 

plans for individual refuges. 

Resource Protection – Land and Visitor Protection 

Comment 1: We support Alternative D because it would improve wildlife and habitat management as 

well as promote educational programs for visitors. We strongly support a Complex-wide litter control 

program and efforts to limit urban encroachment. 
Appendices 243

Comment 2: Increase litter patrol on refuge property, especially roadsides and fence lines by using 

the prisoners like the State DOT does on Highway 20. 

Comment 3: I agree with your Alternative D plan to hire an additional law enforcement officer and to 

initiate a litter control program. My family enjoys having access to Wheeler NWR and would like to 

see it maintained without urban sprawl interference. 

Service Response: Under the proposed action (Alternative D), the Service proposes to increase 

efforts to control and minimize litter. 

Comment: Do whatever it takes to stop the illegal and perverted activities such as that at Beaverdam 

Boardwalk. I have not been able to take my family to Beaverdam or other similar Wheeler trails in 

years because of this horrible activity. 

Service Response: Under the proposed action (Alternative D), the Service proposes to increase law 

enforcement efforts to control and minimize illegal activities. Efforts would be increased with an 

additional law enforcement officer. 

Comment: Page 141 - Project 9E: Conduct a Study to Analyze Existing Rights-of-Way - We are 

interested in this study because we have several transmission line rights-of-way on Wheeler NWR. 

We would like to work with you on this study and would appreciate the opportunity to comment on a 

draft of its results. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Resource Protection – Cultural Resources 

Comment: Upon review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment 

for Wheeler NWR Complex, the Office of the State Historic Preservation Officer for Alabama agrees with 

the document with the stipulation that all undertakings are coordinated with its office prior to 

commencement of project activities, as indicated in the text (per Section 106 regulations) 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Hunting 

Comment 1: I'm a voting hunter and fisherman. I would like to see MORE opportunities for both in 

the Wheeler Management Areas. 

Comment 2: Be careful about increasing hunting on the refuge except to control deer and hogs. As 

much as I would love to be able to hunt more places, I would not want to jeopardize the enjoyment of 

non-hunters and cause a public misperception about the definition of a "refuge." 

Service Response: Under the proposed action (Alternative D), the Service proposes to balance 

efforts to provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities with other uses. 

Comment: Leave gates closed from the first day and last day of any scheduled hunting season on 

the refuge. (24/7 October – March) 
244 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Service Response: Gate opening/closing schedules are determined by addressing the needs of 

wildlife first, more specifically to limit disturbance to waterfowl during peak migration. Secondly, gate 

opening/closing schedules are designed to accommodate all of the activities shared by the large 

public use program at Wheeler NWR. 

Comment: Do not overlap squirrel season to the first day of bow season. Give them extra days in 

February. It’s unconscionable and dangerous. 

Service Response: Wheeler NWR attempts to set its early squirrel season during the first two weeks 

of October. These dates are a direct result from public comments during the CCP scoping meetings. 

When October 15 falls on a Sunday or Monday, the State opens its deer season on the Saturday 

before, resulting in the season opening on October 13 or 14 in some years. In those years, this will 

result in a one-day overlap of the squirrel and deer seasons. Many national wildlife refuges and all 

State management areas routinely have hunting seasons that run concurrently for multiple species 

with few hunter safety concerns or user conflicts. Hunter safety programs have resulted in an 

increased awareness of the potential safety concerns. Fortunately, this situation arises on an 

average of only two of every 15 years. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Opposition to Hunting 

Comment: Eliminate all hunting on Wheeler NWR. 

Service Response: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses specified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Service allows hunting as long as it is compatible with 

the mission of the Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the purposes of Wheeler NWR. 

Comment: I question the accuracy of SE cooperative wildlife disease study, which in my opinion is 

not competent to estimate deer populations. Biased science is junk science. Hunting means the 

strongest deer are killed and the weakest of species continue to live. Hunting means the herd keeps 

expanding because a deer herd will not overpopulate over its food supply and fetuses can be 

reabsorbed by pregnant deer. Hunting means more food and more fawns. Biologists are well aware 

of this and yet never mention it to allow gun psychopaths to continue hunting. When deer are killed, 

the birth rate of fawns soars. Stop the hunting which guarantees herd increase. 

Service Response: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the 1997 Refuge 

Improvement Act, and hunting has been found to be compatible with the purpose for which Wheeler, 

Sauta Cave, and Key Cave NWRs were established. The Service supports improving hunting 

opportunities on theses refuges and will try to balance the needs of all users. Hunting of white-tailed 

deer is necessary to keep deer from becoming overpopulated, which leads to disease, starvation, and 

increase in Lyme disease infections in humans, and increased vehicle/deer collisions. 

Thirteen million Americans hunted in 2001 across the country, spending 20 billion dollars. Each year 

nearly 200 million dollars from federal excise taxes on hunting equipment are distributed to state 

conservation agencies to support wildlife management programs and purchase lands for wildlife 

conservation, which directly benefit both game and non-game wildlife. Over five million acres have 

been purchased for the National Wildlife Refuge System using Federal Duck Stamp proceeds. 
Appendices 245

Comment: Fox hunting is not a compatible use. 

Service Response: The Service agrees that “Tally-Ho Fox hunting” as described on page 267 of the 

draft CCP is not compatible. The Compatibility Determination for Tally-Ho Fox hunting will be marked 

as NOT COMPATIBLE. 

Comment: We are opposed to the Draft CCP and believe it violates the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), given that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has failed to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on its national wildlife refuge sport-hunting program, or more 

broadly, its overall refuge recreational program. The FWS has failed to explain the status of Refuges 

2003 or why it has apparently elected to halt the process. 

Service Response: Comment is noted. This comment is outside the scope of this document. 

Comment: The Refuge Improvement Act does not “relieve the [Service] of its obligations to consider 

the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the agency’s decisions with regard to hunting...” 

Service Response: Comment is noted. The Service is proud of the more than 300 world-class 

hunting programs on national wildlife refuges that not only fulfill the Refuge Improvement Act’s 

mandate to provide opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation to Americans, but the 

decades-old hunting program is also a fulfillment of America’s deeply rooted outdoor heritage that 

has, at its very core, the conservation mission that is the foundation of the Refuge System and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition to its recreational value, hunting gives resource managers an 

important tool in controlling populations of some species that might otherwise exceed the carrying 

capacity of their habitat. In 1966 and again in 1997, Congress expressly recognized the legitimacy of 

hunting on units of the Refuge System and directed the Service to facilitate these opportunities 

whenever they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. The Service 

currently considers hunting impacts through required refuge plans and environmental assessments, 

as well as annual national migratory bird population and harvest studies. 

Comment: Sport hunting is not compatible with the purposes for which many refuges were created. 

Moreover, the HSUS states that there is no indication that the Service ensured the availability of 

sufficient funds before approving hunting initially on the refuges in the Complex. This comment refers 

to the Refuge Recreation Act. 

 

Service Response: Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the 1997 Refuge 

Improvement Act, and hunting has been found to be compatible with the purpose for which Wheeler, 

Sauta Cave, and Key Cave NWRs were established. The Service supports improving hunting 

opportunities on these refuges and will try to balance the needs of all users. Sufficient funds are 

available to implement the hunting programs for the refuges in the Wheeler Complex. These issues 

will be addressed more specifically in step-down management plans. 

Comment: “The proposed CCP must take into account not only the effects of hunting on other wildlife 

species in the Complex, but also the cumulative impacts of hunting on wildlife, migratory birds, and 

non-hunting visitors to refuges throughout the Refuge System before permitting hunting.” 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is outside the scope of this document. 

Comment: “The FWS has failed to adequately study, develop and describe alternative uses to the 

available refuge resources.” The FWS must consider alternatives that are “focused on nonconsumptive uses of the Complex, and their economic and other benefits.” 
246 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Service Response: Since hunting is a priority public use, the Service has included hunting in all 

alternatives presented in the Draft CCP and EA for the Complex.

Comment: The Service must complete a Section 7 evaluation. In addition, the HSUS states that “an 

agency must prepare a Biological Assessment which contains the information that is provided to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service at the inception of formal consultation.” 

Service Response: The Service disagrees with the comment. Wheeler NWR Complex completed an 

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation as part of the Draft CCP and EA. Based on the review, 

the Ecological Services Office issued a letter or concurrence on December 27, 2006. 

Comment: The Service has compromised the biological integrity of refuges by allowing hunting and 

that the Service does not consider impacts of hunters on non-consumptive users. Hunting and the 

number of hunters is decreasing and the Service has not capitalized on potential economic gain that 

would come from non-consumptive users. 

Service Response: Comment noted. This comment is outside the scope of this document. 

Comment: The Service “must begin to realize the revenue potential of non-consumptive wildlife 

patrons and begin to reform their revenue base around this rapidly increasing segment of the 

population.” In addition, Wheeler NWR should conduct a survey of consumptive vs. non-consumptive 

visitors to the refuge to assess the economic input of each group. Use this study to determine 

“whether hunting is an economically viable option for the refuge or if it is simply retained as a means 

to appease a vocal minority.” 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: The commenter wants Wheeler NWR to stop white-tailed deer hunting. “Proving that 

deer, do, in fact, eat vegetation is a “far cry from definitively proving that they are endangering the 

continued survival of an ecosystem.” 

Service Response: The Service disagrees with the comment. Based on the best biological 

information available and refuge staff expertise, the Service holds to the view that overpopulated deer 

have negative impacts on vegetation. Numerous studies have been published on the negative 

impacts of overpopulated deer on native vegetation and plant communities. 

Comment: The very purpose and need for dove hunting should be called into question. 

 

Service Response: The Service relies on the Migratory Bird Sport Hunting Frameworks to set hunting 

regulations of migratory birds annually. The Frameworks are based on the best biological information 

available. The current migratory bird hunts on the Wheeler Complex are limited to hunting doves on 

Key Cave NWR. Doves are locally abundant and dove hunting is popular in this area. Dove hunting 

occurs throughout the refuge, but is primarily conducted on the 295 acres of refuge cropland. The 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater 

Fisheries (AWFF), records dove harvest rates on the adjacent 5,745-acre Seven Mile Island Wildlife 

Management Area (SMIWMA). During the last four years 2002-2005 an average of 913 doves per 

year was harvested during this period. Using harvest rates of 2 doves per man-day (AWFFSMIWMA data) and the statewide average of 5.5 doves per man-day during this time (AWFF 2006), 

an estimated range of man-days per year, and with 35 total dove hunting days on the refuge, the 

estimate for annual dove harvest on Key Cave NWR is presented below. 
Appendices 247

Under the proposed action, Key Cave NWR estimates a maximum of 250–300 doves would be 

harvested each year. This harvest represents 0.0002 percent of Alabama’s four-year average 

harvest of 1,629,275 doves (AWFF 2006) and 0.00003 percent of the Eastern Mourning Dove 

Management Unit harvest in 2005-06 (Dolton and Rau 2006). Dove hunting at Key Cave NWR is 

only allowed on four days each week, which is more restrictive than regulations set forth by the 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater 

Fisheries (AWFF). Dove hunting at Key Cave NWR should not have cumulative impacts on 

mourning dove populations. 

Comment: The “continent-wide decline of the bobwhite is well known, however, this knowledge has 

not halted the hunting of this species.” In fact, even the CCP admits that the potential exists for the 

over-harvesting of northern bobwhite quail on Wheeler and Key Cave NWRs, but does not even 

consider the option of halting quail hunting on the Complex. 

Service Response: Alternative D, states that the hunting program at Key Cave NWR will be 

evaluated annually. Results would dictate if the hunting program should be expanded, reduced, or 

remain the same. One method the Service uses to evaluate the hunting of northern bobwhite is to 

conduct surveys. Summer call count surveys for quail have been part of Key Cave NWR 

management since 1998. In 2001, fall bobwhite quail covey counts were initiated and during 2004 

breeding bird point count surveys were also initiated. All three of these different surveys indicate 

abundant bobwhite quail populations on Key Cave NWR. 

The early successional habitat that quail favor is abundant on Key Cave NWR and quail populations 

have increased as early successional habitat has been restored and managed (based on annual 

survey data 1998-2006). Quail populations have increased from an estimated two coveys in 1998 to 

a four-year average (2003-2006) of 16 coveys under the current hunting program. Under the 

proposed action, Key Cave NWR estimates a maximum of 50–75 quail would be harvested each 

year. This harvest impact represents 0.0002 percent of Alabama’s four-year average harvest of 

326,075 quail (AWFF 2006). 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Public Access, Horseback Riding, Field Trials 

Comment: Improve the public access to the refuge, but in a controlled and non-disturbing manner. 

Too many acres, especially those close to river are not accessible to folks like me. I like your driving 

tour idea. 

Service Response: Comment noted.

Comment: I was pleased to attend your public forum last week at the Visitor Center. As expressed at 

the meeting, I am concerned how increased hunting days will affect horseback riders. Also, I request 

you to consider allowing compatible use of horse trails/hiking trails or riding behind gated roads at 

certain times of the year. Some automobile drivers are courteous by slowing down, but others drive 

dangerously fast, making it difficult to find areas to get out of the drivers way. 

Service Response: Horseback riding is not a priority public use under current Service policy. 

Wheeler NWR is allowing historical use at present policy and usage rates. The refuge is not looking 

to expand horseback riding or to open more areas of the refuge to horseback riding. 
248 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comment: Raccoon chasing (page 265 and 284) – Killing use is not compatible at all. 

Response: Many local field trial clubs do not have adequate lands to conduct field trials. Chase 

open field trials are a low impact activity that have no long-term or cumulative effects and can be 

managed within existing refuge resources. They do not materially interfere with, or detract from, 

refuge goals, objectives, or refuge management activities; adversely affect refuge biological 

resources; or, conflict with wildlife-dependent priority public uses. Therefore, they are an acceptable 

form of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge lands are used for chase-only field trials for raccoon by organized 

field trial clubs. Field trials are conducted for 1-2 days each year by obtaining a refuge special use 

permit. Approximately 5 field trials are conducted each year by clubs in northern Alabama and 

southern Tennessee. Participants are required to conform to State laws and refuge regulations. No 

firearms, saws, or axes are allowed to be carried or used on the refuge and raccoons are to be left in 

trees unharmed. Dogs are not allowed to come in contact with raccoons or foxes. 

Comment: Retriever trials should not be compatible. 

Service Response: The Service disagrees. Retriever trials are a low impact activity that have no 

long-term or cumulative effects and can be managed within existing refuge resources. They do not 

materially interfere with or detract from refuge goals, objectives, or refuge management activities; 

adversely affect refuge biological resources; or, conflict with wildlife-dependent priority public uses. 

Therefore, they are an acceptable form of wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Retriever clubs are required to obtain a refuge special use permit. Trials must be conducted in 

accordance with State regulations. Retriever club officials and trial participants must take care to 

avoid disturbance to waterfowl and other wildlife. Refuge gates must remain closed and an attendant 

on duty at gates to allow participants and observers to enter and exit and to prevent unauthorized 

entry. Pen-raised birds must be certified as disease free by the supplier and these birds must be 

inspected by refuge personnel prior to their use during field trials. No live birds may be released on 

the refuge. All birds must be removed from the refuge at the end of each day. Live ammunition must 

not be used or brought onto the refuge. 

Administration – Planning 

Comment: The Draft of the Comprehensive Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge shows thoroughness and care. It is an excellent plan for the Wheeler 

Complex and the satellite refuges: Key Cave NWR, Sauta Cave NWR, and Fern Cave NWR, all in the 

Lower Tennessee-Cumberland Ecosystem. Though in a different ecosystem, the Watercress Darter 

National Wildlife Refuge in Bessemer, Alabama, is also a satellite administered by the Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge. Please include in your draft plan for its conservation and maintenance, as it 

surrounds Thomas Creek, home of the rare Watercress Darter. 

Service Response: Although Watercress Darter NWR is currently under the administrative umbrella 

of Wheeler Complex, a separate CCP and EA will be developed under the direction of the Refuge 

Manager of Mountain Longleaf National Wildlife Refuge. Currently the planning phase is underway, 

with the draft CCP and EA scheduled to be released in 2008. 
Appendices 249

Comment: The notice and amount of time for commenting on the document should be expanded. 

 

Service Response: Comment noted, however the Service disagrees. Current Service and NEPA 

policies provide for a 30-day comment period. Wheeler Complex management extended the 

review and comment period to 45 days to allow additional time for public review and comment. 

The public review and comment period extended from April 5, 2007 through May 21, 2007. 

Announcements of the public review period were placed in two (2) newspapers and copies of the 

document were placed in three (3) libraries. 

Comment: Core team members - national taxpayers pay the freight for the costs of this area. But 

planners don’t consider them important enough to have even ONE seat on planning. 

Incomprehensible and certainly a stupid set up. Put government employees in charge of projects and 

costs are rapidly out of control. Most have never had to meet a profit and loss statement. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: By cutting this entire area into tiny pockets, the budget has morphed into far too high an 

amount. The areas should all be managed as one, staff and budget together. 

 

Service Response: The Wheeler Complex is currently managed as four separate units; however it 

conducts all management activities with one staff, and with one budget. 

Environmental Assessment – Cumulative Effects 

Comment: We have reviewed quite a few Draft EAs and CCPs for other NWRs in the Southeast; all 

of them fell short in a certain areas. Many of the EAs failed to discuss land acquisition opportunities, 

direct and indirect impacts to refuge lands from air and water pollution and cumulative impacts. Many 

failed to acknowledge gaps in their information, such as a lack of data on certain species, water 

quality, and impacts of pollution. Your CCP readily admits where you do not have sufficient 

information on certain issues and subjects. This is a good thing to do; NEPA does not require perfect 

knowledge but the best knowledge available, and acknowledging information gaps is vital to an 

honest assessment and to planning where and how to gather additional information. Your CCP also 

sets out good goals and plans for gathering the information you lack but need. You and your staff are 

to be congratulated on doing a great job on these NEPA tasks and for producing the best EA/CCP we 

have yet seen from any NWR in the South. 

Service Response: Comment noted. 

Comment: The section of the EA entitled “Cumulative Impacts” is quite sparse and makes the odd 

statement, “The Service is not aware of any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future planned 

actions that would result in a significant cumulative impact when added to the Complex’s proposed 

actions, as outlined in the proposed alternative.” (Page 202) Yet, the EA and the CCP especially are 

filled with discussions of the cumulative impacts occurring on and near the Complex and how the 

proposed management actions would interface with those impacts. These impacts include increasing 

development, contamination from DDT and agricultural practices, alterations to cave hydrology from 

private lands above the refuges, increased illegal activities, increased impacts from invasive species, 

and many more. You really do a good job of setting forth and considering these cumulative impacts, 

but the EA fails to recognize that fact. In the “Cumulative Impacts” section, you do not need to 

rehash all the information previously set out, but we wish you would reference it instead of stating that 

you don't know of any such actions, when you really do. The test for cumulative impacts is NOT 

“planned” actions but “past, present and reasonably foreseeable” actions, whether “planned” or not. 
250 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

You have done a very good job of discussing those other actions and how they interact with your 

proposals. Use that section to state and emphasize that. 

Service Response: To address this comment the Service has changed the Cumulative Impacts 

section of the EA to read as follows: “Under the proposed action, environmental education would 

receive increasing emphasis both on- and off-refuge lands. These enhanced efforts would likely lead 

to concomitant cumulative, beneficial impacts on the level of environmental knowledge and 

awareness in the citizens of northern Alabama. In addition, increased cooperation with local 

governments, the implementation of a contaminants monitoring and prevention program, and the 

development of a comprehensive invasive species control program would result in fewer negative 

cumulative impacts to the environment surrounding the Tennessee River Valley.” 

 

“Furthermore, increased public use activities on the refuges would cumulatively result in increased 

demand for water, electricity, roads, lodging and other infrastructure. The combined impacts of all 

these activities would affect the surrounding communities and the ability of the local government to 

provide services. Similarly, other human activities, such as farming throughout the Complex, would 

result in alterations to the wildlife and habitats available. Best management farming practices must 

be used to minimize negative cumulative effects on water quality in the Tennessee River Valley.” 

“Implementation of any of the four alternatives described in the Environmental Assessment, including 

actions relating to site development, fish and wildlife habitat and population management, and 

recreational use programs, would have both direct and indirect effects. However, the Complex staff does 

not expect the cumulative effects of these actions over the 15-year period of this plan to be significant.” 
Appendices 251

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find a use 

appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and expands 

on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should deny a 

proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find that a proposed use is not appropriate, we 

will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are listed. 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate for refuges. However, the refuge manager 

must still determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. The Service considers the take of wildlife 

under such regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the 

activity is compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, 

including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular 

use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible 

and “under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses 

that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states 

“. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate 

and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge 

planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlifedependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated . . . 

the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced 

consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within the System . . . .” 

This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority 

general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, 

wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
252 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation when in his 

judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While the Recreation Act 

authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an “appropriate 

incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and includes 

specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of off-highway 

vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to off-highway 

vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among the 

various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or rescind 

any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, Executive 

Order 11989 requires us to close areas to off-highway vehicles when we determine that the use 

causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural 

or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use - A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the listed four 

conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals or 

objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 

Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11. 

Native American - American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use - A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

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

Quality - The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 
Appendices 253

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use - As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
254 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge(s) Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex – (Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWR’s) 

Use: Caving 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 255

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge(s) Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex – (Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWR’s) 

Use: Research 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
256 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Berry, Fruit, and Nut Picking 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 257

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge(s) Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Bicycling 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
258 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge(s) Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge and Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Cooperative Farming 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 259

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Tree Harvest (Firewood) 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
260 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Horseback Riding 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 261

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge(s) Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex – (Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWR’s) 

Use: Picnicking 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
262 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Retriever Trials 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 263

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Right-of-Way Permits 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
264 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Special Fishing Events 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 265

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Timber Management 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
266 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Chase Only Field Trials (Raccoon) 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
Appendices 267

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex – (Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWR’s) 

Use: Hiking, Walking, and Jogging 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 
268 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Tally-Ho Fox Hunting 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses; take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO 

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, Tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has been 

proposed? X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural or 

cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses or 

reducing the potential to provide quality (see Section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), compatible, 

wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

 X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate__ X___ Appropriate____ 
Appendices 269

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex Compatibility Determinations 

Uses: The following uses were considered for compatibility determination reviews: hunting; fishing; 

wildlife observation and photography; environmental education and interpretation; hiking, walking, 

and jogging; bicycling; and chase only field trials. A description and anticipated biological impacts for 

each use are addressed separately in these compatibility determinations. Prior to this planning effort, 

compatibility determinations were conducted and approved in 2004 for non-wildlife dependent uses 

such as berry, fruit, and nut picking; bicycling; caving; cooperative farming; tree harvesting (firewood); 

horseback riding; picnicking; research; retriever trials; right-of-way permits; special fishing events and 

timber management. These uses were not re-evaluated in this plan. The following table lists the 

uses, refuges involved, approval dates, and re-evaluation dates. 

 

Use Location Date Approved Re-evaluation Date 

Berry, Fruit, and Nut Picking Wheeler 2004 2014 

Bicycling Wheeler 2004 2014 

Caving Wheeler Complex 2004 2014 

Cooperative Farming Wheeler 2004 2014 

Cooperative Farming Key Cave 2004 2014 

Tree Harvest (Firewood) Wheeler 2004 2014 

Horseback Riding Wheeler 2004 2014 

Picnicking Wheeler 2004 2014 

Research Wheeler Complex 2004 2014 

Retriever Trials Wheeler 2004 2014 

Right-of-Way Permits Wheeler 2004 2014 

Special Fishing Events Wheeler 2004 2014 

Timber Management Wheeler 2004 2014 
270 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Refuge(s) Names: Wheeler National Wildlife NWR Complex (for the purposes of this document it 

includes Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs) 

Date(s) Established: Wheeler NWR - July 7, 1938; Key Cave NWR - January 3, 1997; Sauta Cave 

NWR - September 15, 1978; and Fern Cave NWR - October 27, 1981 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, located in Madison, Morgan, and Limestone Counties of Alabama, 

was established by Executive Order 7926 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Additional authority 

includes the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929) and the Refuge Recreation Act (1962). 

Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge, located in Lauderdale County, Alabama, was established under 

the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, not including 742d-l), and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544). 

Fern Cave and Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuges, located in Jackson, County, Alabama, were 

both established under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.1531-1544). 

Refuges' Purpose(s): 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

 “... as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife: ...” Executive 

Order 7926, dated July 7, 1938 

“... 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-460k4), as amended). 

Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

“... 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) 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 

Fern Cave and Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuges 

“... to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened 

species .... or (B) plants ...” 16 U.S.C. § 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) 
Appendices 271

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

The mission of the 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.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by 

Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year 

(50 CFR Subchapter C; 43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

Compatibility determinations for each description listed were considered separately. Although for 

brevity, the preceding sections from “Uses” through “Other Applicable Laws, Regulations and 

Policies” are only written once within the plan, they are part of each descriptive use and become part 

of that compatibility determination if considered outside of the comprehensive conservation plan. 
272 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Description of Use: Hunting – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Opportunities for small game (i.e., squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, northern bobwhite, feral hog, and 

opossum) and either sex white-tailed deer hunts (archery and flintlock) on Wheeler NWR. The small 

game hunts are generally two-week seasons within the State hunting season framework. The either 

sex white-tailed deer season consists of the State’s archery season and a two-week flintlock season 

within the State season framework. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Additionally, conservation law enforcement officers from the Alabama Department of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist Service officers when needed. 

The hunting program will cost approximately $25,000 annually, which includes cost for publishing the 

hunting permits, conducting law enforcement patrols, and maintaining roads. Participation in the 

hunting program is estimated to be between 1,000 and 2,000 visitors annually. No offsetting 

revenues for hunting are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: None of the hunts are anticipated to have any significant effects on the overall 

refuge populations being hunted. Impacts, such as incidental take of other wildlife species, either 

illegally or unintentionally, may occur with any consumptive use program. At the current and 

anticipated public use levels, incidental take would be very small and would not directly or 

cumulatively impact current or future populations of wildlife either on this refuge or in the surrounding 

areas. Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of site-specific 

refuge regulations/special conditions would eliminate most incidental take problems. Littering, minor 

vegetation damage and wildlife disturbance can also be anticipated on an infrequent base. 

Long-term Impacts: Monitoring of harvest would be accomplished through a volunteer call in 

system and data collection from refuge staff. Monitoring would provide a way to measure the health 

(population density relative to carrying capacity) of the impacted wildlife. If wildlife populations 

significantly change, that difference would be reflected in the overall harvest. The long-term impacts 

of hunting would be monitored on a yearly basis. As of this date, current utilization of these uses is 

incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or 

are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated that the current levels and 

expected future levels of hunting or other wildlife-dependent recreation activities would not directly, 

indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological surveys regarding the importance or potential 

importance of the refuge to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (or proposed threatened 

species, endangered species, or critical habitat), could result in changes to public use activities across 

time; however, these changes would have no effect on listed species. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 
Appendices 273

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Annual review of this activity will be conducted 

to minimize over-harvest of a particular species, assure public safety, assure that wildlife disturbance 

does not become a factor in critical wildlife use areas, and provide protection of overall refuge 

resources. Refuge hunting seasons will be set within the season constraints set forth by the State of 

Alabama. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will remain on file at the refuge headquarters as part 

of the Hunting Plan. Participants are required to obtain a refuge hunting permit and conform to State 

laws and refuge regulations. Certain areas are closed seasonally for wildlife purposes and for public 

safety due to urban development around the refuge boundary. Users must observe refuge 

regulations and note that certain areas are closed seasonally for wildlife purposes. Law enforcement 

efforts will be conducted to ensure compliance with State laws and refuge regulations. 

Justification: Hunting is a wildlife-dependent activity that is compatible with refuge purposes and is 

identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an activity that should be 

provided and expanded on refuges, where compatible. Hunting provides a quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreation activity to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. Providing this 

type of recreation is an objective of Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. Many hunters travel to north 

Alabama to experience a quality and enjoyable hunting experience. As public hunting lands become 

less available, the use of national wildlife refuges for public hunting will increase. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2022____ 

Description of Use: Hunting – Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge offers opportunities for small upland game (i.e., squirrel, rabbit, 

raccoon, northern bobwhite, and opossum) and migratory bird (i.e., mourning dove) hunting in 

partnership with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The hunts are 

limited to four hunting days per week (Monday, Tuesday, Friday, and Saturday) for the length of the 

statewide season for that particular game species. The hunting program will be evaluated annually. 

Results will dictate if the hunting program should be expanded, reduced, or remain the same. 
274 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Additionally, conservation law enforcement officers from the Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist Service officers when needed. 

The hunting program will cost approximately $25,000 annually, which includes cost for publishing the 

hunting permits, conducting law enforcement patrols, planting dove fields, and maintaining parking 

lots. Participation in the hunting program is estimated to be between 30 and 100 visitors annually. 

No offsetting revenues for hunting are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: None of the hunts are anticipated to have any significant effects on the overall 

refuge populations being hunted. Impacts such as incidental take of other wildlife species, either 

illegally or unintentionally, may occur with any consumptive use program. At the current and 

anticipated public use levels, incidental take would be very small and would not directly or 

cumulatively impact current or future populations of wildlife either on this refuge or in the surrounding 

areas. Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of site specific 

refuge regulations/special conditions would eliminate most incidental take problems. Littering, minor 

vegetation damage and wildlife disturbance can also be anticipated on an infrequent base. 

Long-term Impacts: The long-term impacts of hunting will be evaluated on a yearly basis. As of this 

date, current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no long-term 

adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated that the current levels and 

expected future levels of hunting or other wildlife-dependent recreation activities would not directly, 

indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological surveys regarding the importance or potential 

importance of the refuge to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (or proposed threatened 

species, endangered species, or critical habitat), could result in changes to public use activities across 

time; however, these changes would have no effect on listed species. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below):

 _ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 275

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Annual review of this activity will be conducted 

to minimize over-harvest of a particular species, assure public safety, assure that wildlife disturbance 

does not become a factor in critical wildlife use areas, and provide protection of overall refuge 

resources. Refuge hunting seasons will be set within the season constraints set forth by the State of 

Alabama. An Environmental Assessment will remain on file at the Complex headquarters as part of 

the Hunting Plan. Participants are required to obtain a refuge hunting permit and conform to State 

laws and refuge regulations. Users must observe refuge regulations. Law enforcement efforts will be 

conducted to ensure compliance with State laws and refuge regulations. 

Justification: Hunting is a wildlife-dependent activity that is compatible with refuge purposes and is 

identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an activity that should be 

provided and expanded on refuges, where compatible. Hunting provides a quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreation activity to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. Providing this 

type of recreation is an objective of Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge. Many hunters visit north 

Alabama to experience a quality and enjoyable hunting experience. As public hunting lands become 

less available, the use of national wildlife refuges for public hunting will increase. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: ____ July 1, 2022_____ 

Description of Use: Hunting – Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge offers opportunities for small game (i.e., squirrel, rabbit, 

raccoon, northern bobwhite, and opossum) and either sex white-tailed deer hunts (archery only) in 

partnership with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Additionally, conservation law enforcement officers from the Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist Service officers when needed. 

The hunting program will cost approximately $1,000 annually, which includes cost for publishing the 

hunting permits and conducting law enforcement patrols. Participation in the hunting program is 

estimated to be between 50 and 100 visitors annually. No offsetting revenues for hunting are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: None of the hunts are anticipated to have any significant effects on the overall 

refuge populations being hunted. Impacts such as incidental take of other wildlife species, either illegally 

or unintentionally, may occur with any consumptive use program. At the current and anticipated public 

use levels, incidental take would be very small and would not directly or cumulatively impact current or 

future populations of wildlife either on this refuge or in the surrounding areas. 
276 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Implementation of an effective law enforcement program and development of site-specific refuge 

regulations/special conditions would eliminate most incidental take problems. Littering, minor 

vegetation damage and wildlife disturbance can also be anticipated on an infrequent base. 

Long-term Impacts: Monitoring of harvest will be accomplished through a volunteer call in system 

and data collection from refuge staff. Monitoring will provide a way to measure the health (population 

density relative to carrying capacity) of the impacted wildlife. If wildlife populations significantly 

change, that difference will be reflected in the overall harvest. The long-term impacts of hunting will 

be monitored on a yearly basis. As of this date, current utilization of these uses is incidental to 

overall refuge programs and no long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated 

to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. It is anticipated that the current levels and 

expected future levels of hunting or other wildlife-dependent recreation activities would not directly, 

indirectly, or cumulatively impact any listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated/proposed 

critical habitat. Data gathered from future biological surveys regarding the importance or potential 

importance of the refuge to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat (or proposed threatened 

species, endangered species, or critical habitat), could result in changes to public use activities across 

time; however, these changes would have no effect on listed species. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Annual review of this activity will be conducted 

to minimize over-harvest of a particular species, assure public safety, assure that wildlife disturbance 

does not become a factor in critical wildlife use areas, and provide protection of overall refuge 

resources. Refuge hunting seasons will be set within the season constraints set forth by the State of 

Alabama. An Environmental Assessment will remain on file at the Complex headquarters as part of 

the Hunting Plan. Participants are required to obtain a refuge hunting permit and conform to State 

laws and refuge regulations. Users must observe refuge regulations. Law enforcement efforts will be 

conducted to ensure compliance with State laws and refuge regulations. 

Justification: Hunting is a wildlife-dependent activity that is compatible with refuge purposes and is 

identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an activity that should be 

provided and expanded on refuges, where compatible. Hunting provides a quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreation activity to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. Providing this 

type of recreation is an objective of Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge. Many hunters visit north 

Alabama to experience a quality and enjoyable hunting experience. As public hunting lands become 

less available, the use of national wildlife refuges for public hunting will increase. 
Appendices 277

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2022______

Description of Use: Fishing – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Sport fishing on Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge of game fish including method of take, daily creel 

limits, possession limits, and size limits is conducted in accordance with State of Alabama 

regulations. Approximately 14,000 surface acres of water are available for fishing. Special refuge 

regulations apply to posted areas. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Additionally, conservation law enforcement officers from the Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist Service officers when needed. 

 

The fishing program will cost approximately $25,000 annually, which includes costs to provide the 

fishing brochure, conduct law enforcement activities and patrols, and maintaining access to roads, 

parking areas and trails. Participation in the fishing program is estimated to be between 250,000 and 

300,000 visitors annually. No offsetting revenues for fishing are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: This activity might result in low-level impacts to vegetation due to trampling 

and removal during bank fishing activities. Temporary disturbance to wildlife species may also result 

from this activity. Other anticipated problems such as littering, vandalism, removal of artifacts, and 

other violations of refuge regulations may result from this activity. No adverse impacts are expected 

as a result of this use. Area closures will be established with the objective of preventing disturbance 

to migratory waterfowl. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 
278 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Determination (check one below): 

 __ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Bank fishing is permitted only during daylight hours, 

except in special designated night bank fishing areas. Designated night bank fishing areas include all six 

improved boat launching facilities (Arrowhead Landing, Bluff City, Hickory Hills, Sharp's Ford/Cotaco 

Creek, Talucah Landing, and Triana) plus U.S. 31 Causeway north/east to White Springs #1 water control 

structure, Arrowhead Landing Road, Rockhouse Pump station west to Rockhouse Road, Crabtree Slough 

Road from Alabama 67 to end of road, and the Handicapped Fishing Pier located on Highway 67 near 

Decatur. Fishing from boats is permitted 24 hours a day. 

 

Law enforcement efforts will ensure compliance with State of Alabama laws and refuge-specific 

regulations. All or parts of the refuge may be closed to fishing at any time if necessary for public safety, to 

provide wildlife sanctuary, or for administrative reasons. Periodic review of these activities will help 

assure that wildlife disturbance does not become a factor in critical wildlife use areas. Users must 

observe refuge regulations and note that certain areas are closed seasonally for wildlife purposes. 

Justification: Fishing is a low impact wildlife-dependent activity that is compatible with refuge 

purposes and is identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an 

activity that should be provided and expanded on refuges, where compatible. Fishing provides a 

quality, wildlife-dependent recreation activity to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable 

resource. Providing this type of recreation is an objective of Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2022______

Description of Use: Fishing – Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Sport fishing on Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge of game fish including method of take, daily creel 

limits, possession limits, and size limits is conducted in accordance with State of Alabama 

regulations. Approximately 300 feet of bank fishing is available for fishing along the Paint Rock River. 

Availability of Resources: Enforcement of refuge regulations to protect trust resources and provide 

for a quality recreational opportunity will occur via regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers. 

Additionally, conservation law enforcement officers from the Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries will patrol the refuge and assist Service officers when needed. 

 

The fishing program will cost approximately $1,000 annually, which includes costs to provide the 

fishing brochure, conduct law enforcement activities and patrols, and maintain access to roads, 

parking areas, and trails. Participation in the fishing program is estimated to be between 10 and 50 

visitors annually. No offsetting revenues for fishing are collected. 
Appendices 279

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: This activity might result in low-level impacts to vegetation due to trampling 

and removal during bank fishing activities. Temporary disturbance to wildlife species may also result 

from this activity. Other anticipated problems such as littering, vandalism, removal of artifacts, and 

other violations of refuge regulations may result from this activity. No adverse impacts are expected 

as a result of this use. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Bank fishing is permitted only during daylight 

hours. Law enforcement efforts will ensure compliance with State of Alabama laws and refugespecific regulations. All or parts of the refuge may be closed to fishing at any time if necessary for 

public safety, or for administrative reasons. Periodic review of these activities will help assure that 

wildlife disturbance does not become a factor. Users must observe refuge regulations. 

Justification: Fishing is a low impact wildlife-dependent activity that is compatible with refuge 

purposes and is identified in the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as an 

activity that should be provided and expanded on refuges, where compatible. Fishing provides a 

quality, wildlife-dependent recreation activity to the public and the opportunity to utilize a renewable 

resource. Providing this type of recreation is an objective of Fern Cave National Wildlife Refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: ____ July 1, 2022____ 
280 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (includes Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs) 

Each year many visitors come to the refuges in the Wheeler Complex to see and photograph wildlife. 

During the winter months at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, thousands of waterfowl are easily seen 

from the observation building, observation tower, and photography blinds. Other opportunities exist 

for enjoying theses activities by boating, by walking, or by driving the public roads. During the 

summer months at Sauta Cave National Wildlife Refuge, many bat enthusiasts come to witness the 

wildlife emergence of bats from cave openings. 

Wildlife observation and photography by walking; by using motorized vehicles, motorized/nonmotorized boats, bicycles, or horses; or from using refuge observation/photography facilities have 

occurred on the refuges in the Wheeler Complex since their inceptions. 

More recently, wildlife photography, including image-capturing activities such as videography, has become 

extremely popular. Professional photographers and semi-professional photographers also use the refuges 

to capture wildlife photos. Temporary photo blinds are sometimes used to enhance the experience. 

To support these uses, foot travel is generally allowed on refuge roads, dikes, and trails. At Wheeler 

NWR, motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses are restricted to open graveled roads. However, 

boats are permitted year-round. 

Availability of Resources: Wildlife observation and photography programs cost approximately 

$10,000 annually. Minor amounts of personnel time associated with administration activities, facility 

maintenance, habitat management, and law enforcement patrols are required. Continued 

maintenance, construction, and rehabilitation of the following facilities must continue: observation 

buildings, observation towers, photography blinds, access roads, wildlife drive (auto tour), kiosks, and 

brochures. No offsetting revenues for wildlife observation and photography activities are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: This activity might result in low-level impacts to vegetation due to trampling 

and removal. Temporary disturbance to wildlife species may also result from this activity. 

Occasionally, animals are killed or injured by vehicles while crossing refuge roads. Other anticipated 

problems such as littering, vandalism, removal of artifacts, and other violations of refuge regulations 

may result from this activity. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 
Appendices 281

Determination (check one below): 

 ____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrols of public use area and 

refuge roads should continue to minimize the above-mentioned types of violations. Periodic review of 

these activities will help assure that wildlife disturbance does not become a factor in critical wildlife 

use areas. Users must observe refuge regulations and note certain areas are closed seasonally for 

wildlife purposes. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are important and preferred public uses on 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1997 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act identified wildlife observation and photography as 

a priority public recreational use to be facilitated on refuges, where compatible. It is through 

permitted, compatible public uses such as this, that the public becomes aware of and provides 

support for our national wildlife refuges. Providing this type of recreation is an objective of Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2022______

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex (includes Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs) 

Environmental education and interpretation are those activities which seek to increase the public’s 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife, national wildlife refuges, ecology, and land management, as well 

as contribute to the conservation of natural resources. Current activities include traditional environmental 

education activities such as staff-led or teacher-led on- and off-site programs to interpret wildlife resources 

using refuge educational facilities. Other methods would include on-site teacher/student workshops and 

off-site exhibits/presentations. While Wheeler NWR includes on- and off-site environmental education 

and interpretive programs and activities, Fern Cave, Sauta Cave, and Key Cave NWRs only conduct offsite environmental education and interpretive programs. 

Environmental education and interpretation reach approximately 10,000 and 75,000 visitors 

respectively on Wheeler Complex and provides them with the awareness of the following specific 

resource problems that are in need of resolution: (1) protection of fragile wetlands and other natural 

resources; (2) protection of habitat for threatened and endangered species; (3) awareness of refuge 

management techniques and why the refuges use them; and (4) the development of pride in public 

lands to reduce littering, poaching, and vandalism. Environmental education and interpretation reach 

a large and diverse audience of visitors that otherwise would not be well-informed of issues on 

national wildlife refuges. 
282 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Wheeler Complex uses environmental education and interpretation to motivate citizens of all ages to 

action and to help them understand their role in protecting a healthy ecosystem. Environmental education 

and interpretation is a tool Wheeler NWR uses to build a land ethic; develop political support; lessen 

vandalism, littering, and poaching; and to become visible in the community in a positive way. 

Availability of Resources: Current staffing at the Wheeler Complex is limited with only three park 

rangers dedicated to public use programs. The management of a volunteer program will be essential to 

successfully implement the education and visitor use program. Volunteers are recruited and trained to 

assist staff in developing and implementing environmental education and interpretive programs. 

Environmental education and interpretation programs at Wheeler Complex will cost approximately 

$20,000 annually. Continued maintenance, construction, and rehabilitation of the following facilities 

must continue: Visitor Center, observation building, observation tower, access roads, wildlife drive 

(auto tour) kiosks, brochures, and interpretive trails. No offsetting revenues for environmental 

education and interpretation are collected. 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: The use of on-site, hands-on, action-oriented activities to accomplish 

environmental education and interpretive tours may impose a low-level impacts on the sites used for 

these activities. These low-level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary 

disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate area. It is not anticipated, however, that such impacts 

would be permanent or long-lasting. Educational activities conducted off refuge lands will not create 

any biological impacts on the resource. 

 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 283

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Zoning of visitor activities by time and space, 

clustering public use facilities, proper monitoring, educating visitors, and law enforcement will ensure 

compatibility with the purposes of the Refuge Complex and mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Through periodic evaluation of trails and visitor contact points, the visitor services program 

will assess impacts to ensure the resource is not be degraded. If future human impacts are 

determined through evaluation to be detrimental to important natural resources, actions will be taken 

to reduce or eliminate those impacts. 

On-site outdoor activities should be held where minimal impact to refuge resources would occur. If 

evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begin to appear, it may be necessary to rotate the location 

of outdoor classroom activities. Regulations to ensure the safety for all participants should be 

reviewed with the teacher(s) responsible for the activities before students begin the activities. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses that should be 

provided and expanded if they are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Educating and informing the public through structured environmental education courses, interpretive 

materials, and guided tours about migratory birds, endangered species, wildlife management, and 

ecosystems will lead to improved support of the Service’s mission to protect our natural resources. 

Providing this type of activity is an objective of Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

Education facilities at Wheeler NWR, such as the Visitor Center, nature trails, environmental 

education classrooms, and the wildlife observation building, obviously take funding to maintain. The 

expense should be weighed against the program objectives. At the Wheeler Complex, the expense 

of the environmental education and interpretation program is well worth its accomplishments. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2022______

Description of Use: Hiking, Walking, Jogging – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex (includes 

Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs) 

The road and trail systems located on refuges within the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

provide a unique setting for hiking, walking, or jogging. There are more than 100 miles of roads and 

dikes, as well as six nature trails use for this activity. Hiking, walking, and jogging facilitate wildlife 

observation and photography. 

Availability of Resources: The hiking, walking, and jogging uses at the Wheeler National Wildlife 

Complex will cost approximately $5,000 annually. Minor amounts of personnel time associated with 

administration activities, road maintenance, habitat management, and law enforcement patrols are 

required. No offsetting revenues for hiking, walking, and jogging are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 
284 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Short-term Impacts: Impacts such as free roaming pets, littering, vegetation disturbance, and wildlife 

disturbance can be anticipated, but not on a frequent basis. The refuge roads and dikes are maintained 

for refuge management purposes. It is not anticipated that the overall impacts would be long-lasting. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Short-term Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Law enforcement patrol of public use area and 

refuge roads should continue to minimize the above mentioned types of violations. Periodic review of 

these activities to assure that wildlife disturbance does not become a factor in critical wildlife use 

areas. Users must observe refuge regulations and note certain areas are closed seasonally for 

wildlife purposes. 

Justification: Hiking, walking, and jogging are low impact activities. They are deemed wildlifeoriented recreational activities as wildlife or wildlands observation is an expected or anticipated part 

of the hiking, walking, and jogging experience on refuge lands. Providing this type of recreation is an 

objective of the Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: ____ July 1, 2017_____ 

Description of Use: Chase Only Field Trials (Raccoon) – Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge lands are used for chase only field trials for raccoon by organized 

field trial clubs. Field trials are conducted for 1-2 days each year by obtaining a refuge special use 

permit. Approximately 5 field trials are conducted each year by clubs in northern Alabama and 

southern Tennessee. 
Appendices 285

Availability of Resources: The Chase Only Field Trial program at Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge 

costs approximately $2,000 annually. Minor amounts of personnel time associated with the issuing of 

permits and law enforcement activities would be required. No offsetting revenues for Chase Only 

Field Trials are collected. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: Low level impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance 

to wildlife species in the area during the activity. Other impacts include littering and impacts from free 

roaming dogs that were not retrieved immediately after the cast. These dogs are usually retrieved within 

24 hours. It is not anticipated that these impacts would be permanent or long-lasting. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

____ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Field trial clubs are required to obtain both a 

refuge special use permit and a State field trial permit. Special use permits will contain specific 

conditions to ensure compatibility. Participants are required to conform to State laws and refuge 

regulations. No firearms, saws, or axes will be carried or used on the refuge and raccoons will be left 

in trees unharmed. Dogs are not allowed to come in contact with raccoons or foxes. This activity will 

not be permitted during certain times of the year and areas are closed seasonally for wildlife 

purposes. Law enforcement efforts will be conducted to ensure compliance with State laws and 

refuge regulations. Periodic review of these activities will assure that wildlife disturbance does not 

become a factor in critical wildlife use areas. 

Justification: Many local field trial clubs do not have adequate lands to conduct field trials. Chase 

open field trials are a low impact activity that have no long-term or cumulative effects and can be 

managed within existing refuge resources. They do not materially interfere with, or detract from, 

refuge goals, objectives, or refuge management activities; adversely affect refuge biological 

resources; or, conflict with wildlife-dependent priority public uses. Therefore, they are an acceptable 

form of wildlife-dependent recreation. 
286 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _____July 1, 2017______

Description of Use: Bicycling – Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge 

Bicycle riding is not one of the six priority public wildlife-dependent uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, but is a popular activity at national wildlife refuges. Bicycle riding can occur 

year-round on a limited basis on refuge gravel roads. Bicyclists travel refuge gravel roads as a 

chance to observe nature in relative safety away from fast moving cars and trucks. 

Availability of Resources: A bicycling program at Key Cave National Wildlife Refuge would not cost 

any additional funds. No additional resources are required to administer this use. Monitoring and 

compliance can be handled within existing resources, programs, and staff time. This use does not 

require any special facilities or improvements to any existing facilities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The following anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated 

based on professional judgment. 

Short-term Impacts: Short-term impacts associated with this use involve littering, minor vegetation 

disturbance on roadsides, and wildlife disturbance caused by the passage of bicyclists. On rare 

occasions, riders may illegally leave roadways and cause short-term habitat degradation as a result of 

trampling of vegetation and soil compaction. And, occasional collisions with wildlife are possible. Since 

riding is confined to existing gravel roadways open to public access, it is not anticipated that this use 

would significantly impact refuge resources. No long-term or cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Long-term Impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced or are anticipated to be experienced. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination was part of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, which was announced in the Federal Register on April 5, 2007 (72 FR 16811) and 

made available for public comment for 45 days until May 21, 2007. Methods used to solicit public 

review and comment included posted notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of 

the draft comprehensive conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, 

state, and federal agencies; public meetings; and news releases to area newspapers. Appendix D 

summarizes the public comments. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
Appendices 287

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Bicycling is restricted to gravel roads open to 

public access. Users must observe refuge regulations. 

Justification: Bicycling on refuge gravel roads is a low impact activity that can be managed within 

existing refuge resources. Bicycling, in fact, is less deleterious to refuge roads and infrastructure than 

vehicles. It is deemed a wildlife-oriented activity by virtue of the fact that observation of wildlife is an 

expected or anticipated part of the experience. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 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: _ July 1, 2017______
288 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
Appendices 289

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

Originating Person: John Beck 

Telephone Number: 256/353-7243, Ext. 32 

E-Mail: john_beck@fws.gov 

Date: 09/30/06 

PROJECT NAME: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 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: Alabama/Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Wheeler Complex) 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Wheeler Complex by adopting the proposed alternative, Alternative D, which will provide guidance, 

management direction, and operation plans for the next 15 years. The CCP for the Wheeler 

Complex covers four national wildlife refuges: Wheeler, Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which each refuge in the 

Complex was established. Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and 

public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is 

compatible with, or does not detract from, the mission and purposes of each refuge. 

Individual consultations will occur under Section 7 for projects related to endangered species 

and are not intended to be covered in this document. This CCP prioritizes wildlife and habitat 

management, and proposes wildlife-dependent, compatible recreational opportunities. 

Chapter IV4 of the CCP outlines specific goals, objectives, and strategies to achieve an expanded 

wildlife and habitat management approach, while optimizing (making the best use of) public use 

and environmental education opportunities. While seeking concurrences on the general 

management direction of the Wheeler Complex, as stated previously, individual consultations will 

occur for projects specifically related to endangered species and critical habitat. 
290 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Wheeler NWR - Historical records indicate that the Ring Pink (Obovaria retusa) (1904), Slabside 

Pearlymussel (Lexingtonia dolabelloides), and the Fine-rayed Pigtoe (Fusconaia cuneolus) 

(1925) occurred within the boundaries of the Wheeler NWR. More recent surveys have shown 

that these species have been extirpated and will not be covered in this biological evaluation. 

 The following species have been documented on or in close proximity to Wheeler NWR: gray 

bat (Myotis grisescens), Anthony’s riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi), armored snail (Pyrgulopsis 

pachyta), pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta), rough pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum), slender 

campeloma (Campeloma decampi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and American 

Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). 

 Gray bats use Cave Springs Cave as a maternity colony and have averaged 12,500 bats 

since 1997. Anthony’s riversnail and the armored snail have been documented in Limestone 

and Piney Creeks. The pink mucket and rough pigtoe are found in the Tennessee River and 

the slender campleloma has been documented just outside the refuge boundary. 

 Bald eagles utilize Wheeler NWR mostly during the winter months for foraging. Usually only 

one or two are seen annually in open fields, moist-soils unit, and along the shores and 

mudflats of the Tennessee River. In July 2006, two active nests were found near an area 

called Suzie Hole along the Tennessee River. The entire Wheeler NWR is potential foraging 

and/or nesting habitat for the bald eagle. 

 The American alligator, which is listed as "Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance to the 

American Crocodile" is also found on the refuge. Evidence of reproduction has been seen in 

five of the last seven years. 

 Key Cave NWR: Key Cave NWR is the only known location of the Alabama cavefish 

(Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni), a small blind colorless fish which inhabits the underground pools 

in Key Cave. The cave is also a priority one maternity cave for the endangered gray bat. 

Gray bat emergence counts are conducted annually at Key Cave and have averaged 33,400 

gray bats since 1997. Approximately 5,000 young gray bats are produced annually by this 

maternity colony. 

 Sauta Cave NWR: Sauta Cave provides crucial habitat for gray and Indiana bats. The cave 

provides a summer roosting site for about 300,000 - 400,000 gray bats and a winter 

hibernaculum for both bats. In addition, a relatively large (>250 individuals) population of 

Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana) is found on the refuge. 

 Fern Cave NWR: Fern Cave contains the largest wintering colony of gray bats in the United 

States with over one million bats hibernating there in the winter. Bat experts also think that as 

many as one million Indiana bats may be using the cave. However, in the most recent survey 

of 2003, no Indiana bats were observed. The American’s Harts-tongue fern (Phyllitis 

scolopendrum var. americana) has been documented on Fern Cave NWR. 
Appendices 291

Table 1. Listed species found on the Wheeler Complex 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1 

Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens)2,3,4,5 E 

Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis)4,5 E 

Anthony’s Riversnail (Athearnia anthonyi) 2 E 

Armored Snail (Pyrgulopsis pachyta) 2 E 

Pink Mucket (Pearlymussel) (Lampsilis abrupta) 2 E 

Rough Pigtoe (Pleurobema plenum) 2 E 

Slender Campeloma (Campeloma decampi) 2 E 

Alabama cavefish (Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni)3 E/CH 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 2 T 

American Hart’s-Tongue Fern (Phyllitis scolopendrum var. americana)5 T 

Price’s Potato-Bean (Apios priceana)4 T 

American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis)2 S/A 

1

Status: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 

 2Location: Wheeler NWR 

 3Location: Key Cave NWR 

 4Llocation: Sauta Cave NWR 

 5Location: Fern Cave NWR 

VI. Location: 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: Lower Tennessee-Cumberland No. 28 

B. County and State: Lauderdale, Limestone, Jackson, Madison, and Morgan Counties, 

Alabama 

Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude: Wheeler NWR (N34° 33’ 25.71’’ 

latitude, W86° 50’ 36.87’’ longitude), Key Cave NWR (N34° 45’ 15.57’’ latitude, W87° 47’ 

13.66’’ longitude), Sauta Cave NWR (N34° 36’ 47.20’’ latitude, W86° 7’ 55.05’’ longitude) and 

Fern Cave NWR (N34° 40’ 9.29’’ latitude, W86° 18’ 32.85’’ longitude). 

Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: Wheeler NWR is located between Decatur and 

Huntsville in the Tennessee River Valley of northern Alabama. The refuge headquarters office is 

located on U.S. Highway 67, 3.5 miles west of I-65 and 3 miles east of Decatur, Alabama. 
292 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Key Cave NWR is located about 5 miles southwest of Florence, Alabama. From Florence, 

take Alabama State Route 20, turn west on Lauderdale County Route 2. Follow Route 2 for 

about 4 miles and turn south on Lauderdale County Route 223. Follow Route 223 for about 

1.5 miles and turn west on Lauderdale County Route 204. Follow Route 204 for 0.25 miles. 

The refuge is located on the south side of the road. 

Sauta Cave NWR is located just above the Sauty Creek embayment of TVA’s Guntersville 

Reservoir, 7 miles west of Scottsboro, Alabama on U.S. Highway 72. 

Fern Cave NWR is located 2 miles east of Paint Rock, Alabama. From Huntsville, take U.S. 

72 east to Gurley. Southeast of Gurley, turn left on County Road 500 just past where U.S. 72 

crosses the Paint Rock River. County Road 500 is closed at a gate but access by foot traffic 

is still allowed. Follow the old road as it winds along the Paint Rock River and look for 

national wildlife refuge signs. 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: N/A 

VII. Determination of Effects: 

Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Gray bat No negative impacts foreseen 

Indiana bat No negative impacts foreseen 

Anthony’s riversnail No negative impacts foreseen 

Armored snail No negative impacts foreseen 

Pink mucket No negative impacts foreseen 

Rough pigtoe No negative impacts foreseen 

Slender campeloma No negative impacts foreseen 

Alabama cavefish No negative impacts foreseen 

Bald eagle No negative impacts foreseen 

American Hart’s-tongue fern No negative impacts foreseen 

Price’s potato-bean No negative impacts foreseen 

American alligator No negative impacts foreseen 
Appendices 293

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Gray bat None 

Indiana bat None 

Anthony’s riversnail None 

Armored snail None 

Pink mucket None 

Rough pigtoe None 

Slender campeloma None 

Alabama cavefish None 

Bald eagle None 

American Hart’s-tongue fern None 

Price’s potato-bean None 

American alligator None 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION1 

REQUESTED 

NE NA AA 

Gray bat NA Concurrence

Indiana bat NA Concurrence

Anthony’s riversnail NE Concurrence

Armored snail NE Concurrence

Pink mucket NE Concurrence

Rough pigtoe NE Concurrence
294 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT DETERMINATION1 REQUESTED 

Slender campeloma NE Concurrence

Alabama cavefish NA Concurrence

Bald Eagle NA Concurrence

American Hart’s-tongue Fern NA Concurrence

Price’s potato-bean NA Concurrence

American Alligator NE Concurrence

1DETERMINATION/ 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 and candidate species is “Conference”. 
Appendices 295

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

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: 

y generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

y has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

y 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; 

y 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 

y may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex were reviewed for their suitability in 

meeting the criteria for Wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the Refuge 

Complex were found to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness 

designation is not further analyzed in this plan. 
296 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 297

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX BIRD LIST 

Seasonal Appearance 

Sp Spring March – May 

S Summer June - August 

F Fall September - November 

W Winter December - February 

Additional Information 

* - nests on the Complex 

I - Introduced species 

Seasonal Abundance 

a - abundant (common species, very numerous) 

c - common (certain to be seen in suitable habitat) 

f - fairly common (occurs annually) 

u - uncommon (present but not certain to be seen) 

v - vagrant (less than ten valid records in last decade) 

x - accidental (less than three valid records) 

r - rare (seen at irregular intervals 2 to 5 years) 

h - historical (species occurring formerly) 

Locations: W – Wheeler NWR; K – Key Cave NWR; S – Sauta Cave NWR; F – Fern Cave NWR; V – 

Vicinity/Off Refuges, C – Complex Area (all refuges) 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna autumnalis W - - - x 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor W - - - x 

Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons W, K r f f 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens W, K - - f f 

Ross’ Goose Chen rossii W - - f f 

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii W - - - v 

Canada Goose* Branta canadensis W, K f u a a 

Brant Branta bernicla W - - x x 

Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis W - - x x 

Mute Swan (I) Cygnus olor W - x x - 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus W r - r r 

Wood Duck* Aix sponsa W, K c c c c 

Gadwall Anas strepera W, K c v c a 

Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope W - - v v 

American Wigeon Anas americana W, K c - a a 

American Black Duck* Anas rubripes W, K f u c c 
298 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Mallard* Anas platyrhynchos W, K c f a a 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors W, K c r c r 

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera V - - x - 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata W, K c v c c 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta W, K u v c c 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca W, K c - c c 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria W f - c c 

Redhead Aythya americana W, K f - c u 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris W, K c - c c 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila W u - u u 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis W, K c - c c 

King Eider Somateria spectabilis V - - - x 

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus V - - - x 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata W - - x x 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca W v - v v 

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra W - - - x 

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis W v - v v 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola W, K c - c c 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula W c - c c 

Hooded Merganser* Lophodytes cucullatus W, K f u c c 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser W r - r r 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator W f - f u 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis W c - c c 

Wild Turkey* Meleagris gallopavo W, K u u u u 

Northern Bobwhite* Colinus virginianus W, K f f f f 

Red throated Loon Gavia stellata W v - - v 

Common Loon Gavia immer W f v f c 
Appendices 299

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Pied-billed Grebe* Podilymbus podiceps W, K c u c a 

Horned Grebe Podiceps auritus W, K f - f c 

Red-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena W - - x x 

Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis W x - - - 

American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos W u - f r 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis V - - x x 

Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus W, K c u c c 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga W h h h - 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus W u - u - 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis W r r r - 

Great Blue Heron* Ardea herodias W, K c u a a 

Great Egret* Ardea alba W, K f u f f 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula W r r r - 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea W, K f f u - 

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor W r r - - 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis W c c f x 

Green Heron* Butorides virescens W, K c c f x 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax W u u f u 

Yellow-crowned NightHeron* 

Nyctanassa violacea W f f u - 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus W v r u - 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus W - - v x 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana W h h h - 

Black Vulture* Coragyps atratus C u u u u 

Turkey Vulture* Cathartes aura C u u u u 

Osprey* Pandion haliaetus W u f u u 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis W r r r - 
300 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Bald Eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus W, K u r u u 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus W, K u - f c 

Sharp-shinned Hawk* Accipiter striatus C f r f f 

Cooper’s Hawk* Accipiter cooperii C u r u u 

Red-shouldered Hawk* Buteo lineatus W, K, S f u f u 

Broad-winged Hawk* Buteo platypterus W, K, S f u c - 

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni W - - - x 

Red-tailed Hawk* Buteo jamaicensis W, K, S c u c a 

Rough-legged Hawk Buteo lagopus W - - v v 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos W - - v v 

American Kestrel* Falco sparverius W, K f r c c 

Merlin Falco columbarius W r - r v 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus W r - u r 

Yellow Rail Coturnicops noveboracensis W x - x - 

Black Rail Laterallus jamiacensis V - - x - 

King Rail Rallus elegans W v v v v 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola W u - u - 

Sora Porzana carolina W, K u - u - 

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica W v v - - 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus W v v v - 

American Coot* Fulica americana W, K a u a a 

Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis W - - f f 

Whooping Crane Grus americana W - - - x 

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola W u - u - 

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica W u - u - 

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus W, K c - c - 

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus W h - h - 
Appendices 301

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Killdeer* Charadrius vociferus W, K a c a a 

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus W v - v - 

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana W - - f - 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca W, K c u c f 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes W, K c u c u 

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria W f u f - 

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus W v - v v 

Spotted Sandpiper* Actitis macularius W, K c u c r 

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda W, K r - r - 

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus W v - v - 

Hudsonian Godwit Limosa haemastica W v - v - 

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa W v - - - 

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres W r - r - 

Red Knot Calidris canutus W - - v - 

Sanderling Calidris alba W r - u - 

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla W, K c u c - 

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri W f u f x 

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla W, K c u c c 

White-rumped Sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis W, K u r r - 

Baird’s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii W r - r - 

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos W, K c r c - 

Dunlin Calidris alpina W, K f - f u 

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus W u - u - 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis W r - u - 

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus W f - f - 

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus W u - u - 

Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata W, K c r c c 
302 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

American Woodcock* Scolopax minor W, K u u u u 

Wilson’s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor W, K r - u - 

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus W - - x - 

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicarius V - - x - 

Pomarine Jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus W - - - x 

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla W r r r r 

Franklin’s Gull Larus pipixcan W v v v v 

Bonaparte’s Gull Larus philadelphia W c - f c 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis W, K a u a a 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus W f r c c 

Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus W - - - x 

Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus V - - - x 

Sabine’s Gull Xema sabini W - - x - 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia W u r u - 

Common Tern Sterna hirundo W u - u - 

Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri W c r c u 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum W r r r - 

Black Tern Chlidonias niger W f u c - 

Rock Pigeon* (I) Columba livia W, K a a a a 

Eurasian Collared-Dove (I) Streptopelia decaocto W, K u u u u 

Mourning Dove* Zenaida macroura C a a a a 

Common Ground Dove Columbina passerina W v v v v 

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus W u - u - 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* Coccyzus americanus C c c c - 

Barn Owl* Tyto alba W u u u u 

Eastern Screech-Owl* Megascops asio W, K c c c c 

Great Horned Owl* Bubo virginianus W, K f f f f 
Appendices 303

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Barred Owl* Strix varia W, K u u u u 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus W, K v - v r 

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus W - - - x 

Common Nighthawk* Chordeiles minor W, K u u u - 

Chuck-will’s-widow* Caprimulgus carolinensis C c c u - 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus C u - u - 

Chimney Swift* Chaetura pelagica W, K c c a - 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* Archilochus colubris C c c c - 

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus V - - x - 

Belted Kingfisher* Ceryle alcyon W, K f u c c 

Red-headed Woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus W, K u u u u 

Red-bellied Woodpecker* Melanerpes carolinus C c c c c 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius C f - c c 

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens C c c c c 

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus C f f f f 

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus C c c c c 

Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus C f f f f 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi W, K u - u - 

Eastern Wood-Pewee* Contopus virens C c f c - 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher Empidonax flaviventris W, K v - v - 

Acadian Flycatcher* Empidonax virescens W, K, S u u u - 

Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum W v - v - 

Willow Flycatcher* Empidonax traillii W r r f - 

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus W r - r - 

Eastern Phoebe* Sayornis phoebe C c c c c 

Vermillion Flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus W - - x x 

Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens W - - x - 
304 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Great Crested Flycatcher* Myiarchus crinitus C c c u - 

Eastern Kingbird* Tyrannus tyrannus W, K c c c - 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus W u u x - 

Loggerhead Shrike* Lanius ludovicianus W, K u u u u 

White-eyed Vireo* Vireo griseus W, K, S c f c - 

Yellow-throated Vireo* Vireo flavifrons C f u f - 

Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius W, K u - u u 

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus W v - v - 

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus W u - u - 

Red-eyed Vireo* Vireo olivaceus C c f c - 

Blue Jay* Cyanocitta cristata C c c c c 

American Crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos W, K f u f a 

Horned Lark* Eremophila alpestris W, K c f c a 

Purple Martin* Progne subis W, K c c u - 

Tree Swallow* Tachycineta bicolor W, K c f c - 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow* 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis W, K, S c f c x 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia W, K c r c - 

Cliff Swallow* Petrochelidon pyrrhonota W, K f f u - 

Barn Swallow* Hirundo rustica W, K c c c x 

Carolina Chickadee* Poecile carolinensis C c c c c 

Tufted Titmouse* Baeolophus bicolor C c c c c 

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis W, K u - u u 

White-breasted Nuthatch* Sitta carolinensis W, S, F f f f f 

Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla W v - v v 

Brown Creeper Certhia americana C u - f c 

Carolina Wren* Thryothorus ludovicianus C c c c c 
Appendices 305

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii W h h h h 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon W, K f r f r 

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes W, K, S u - u f 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis W, K u - u x 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris W u - u r 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa W, K f - c c 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula C c - c c 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* Polioptila caerulea C c f c r 

Eastern Bluebird* Sialia sialis W, K c c c c 

Veery Catharus fuscescens W f - f - 

Gray-cheeked Thrush Catharus ustulatus W u - f - 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus minimus W, K f - f - 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus W, K, S u - f f 

Wood Thrush* Hylocichla mustelina C c c c - 

American Robin* Turdus migratorius W, K a c c a 

Gray Catbird* Dumetella carolinensis W, K, S c c c r 

Northern Mockingbird* Mimus polyglottos W, K c c c c 

Brown Thrasher* Toxostoma rufum W, K c c c c 

European Starling* (I) Sturnus vulgaris W, K a a a a 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens W, K f - c c 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum W, K c r c a 

Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus W, K u - f - 

Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera W u - u - 

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina W, K c - c - 

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata W, K f - f u 

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla W u - f - 

Northern Parula* Parula americana W f u f - 
306 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Yellow Warbler* Dendroica petechia W, K c u c x 

Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica W, K f - f - 

Magnolia Warbler Dendroica magnolia W, K f - c - 

Cape May Warbler Dendroica tigrina W f - u - 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens W v - v - 

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata C c - c a 

Black-throated Green 

Warbler 

Dendroica virens W, K f - f - 

Blackburnian Warbler Dendroica fusca W u - u - 

Yellow-throated Warbler* Dendroica dominica W u r u 

Pine Warbler* Dendroica pinus W, K c c c c 

Prairie Warbler* Dendroica discolor W, K f u f - 

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum W, K f - c u 

Bay-breasted Warbler Dendroica castanea W, K f - c - 

Blackpoll Warbler Dendroica striata W c - x - 

Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea W u r u - 

Black-and-white Warbler* Mniotilta varia C f u c - 

American Redstart* Setophaga ruticilla W c u c - 

Prothonotary Warbler* Protonotaria citrea W, S c c c - 

Worm-eating Warbler* Helmitheros vermivorum W, S, F f u f - 

Swainson’s Warbler* Limnothlypis swainsonii W u r u - 

Ovenbird* Seiurus aurocapilla C f u c - 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis W f - u x 

Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla W u u u - 

Kentucky Warbler* Oporornis formosus W, K, S f f f - 

Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis W r - u - 

Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia W, K u - u - 
Appendices 307

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Common Yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas W, K c f a u 

Hooded Warbler* Wilsonia citrina W, K, S f f c - 

Wilson’s Warbler Wilsonia pusilla W u - u - 

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis W u - u - 

Yellow-breasted Chat* Icteria virens W, K, S c c c - 

Summer Tanager* Piranga rubra C c c c - 

Scarlet Tanager* Piranga olivacea C c u f - 

Eastern Towhee* Pipilo erythrophthalmus W, K, S c c c c 

Bachman’s Sparrow* Aimophila aestivalis W v r - - 

American Tree Sparrow Spizella arborea W - - - v 

Chipping Sparrow* Spizella passerina W, K c u c u 

Field Sparrow* Spizella pusilla W, K c c c a 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus W, K f - f u 

Lark Sparrow* Chondestes grammacus W, K r r r - 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis W, K c - c c 

Grasshopper Sparrow* Ammodramus savannarum W, K f f f - 

Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii W h - h h 

LeConte’s Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii W, K - - - r 

Nelson’s Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow 

Ammodramus nelsoni W v - - - 

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca W, K f - f c 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia W, K c u c a 

Lincoln’s Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii W, K u - u r 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana W, K c - c a 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis C a - a a 

Harris’s Sparrow Zonotrichia querula V - - - x 

White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys W, K u - f f 
308 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name Location Sp Su F W 

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis W, K f - c c 

Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus W, K u - - f 

Northern Cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis C a a a a 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus W, K c - c - 

Blue Grosbeak* Passerina caerulea W, K c c c - 

Indigo Bunting* Passerina cyanea W, K, S a c a - 

Dickcissel* Spiza americana W, K c c c x 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus W, K c - f - 

Red-winged Blackbird* Agelaius phoeniceus W, K c c a a 

Eastern Meadowlark* Sturnella magna W, K c c c c 

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta W - - v v 

Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus 

xanthocephalus 

W v - v v 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus W u - u u 

Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus W u - u u 

Common Grackle* Quiscalus quiscula W, K c c a a 

Brown-headed Cowbird* Molothrus ater W, K c c a a 

Orchard Oriole* Icterus spurius W, K, S c c u - 

Baltimore Oriole* Icterus galbula W, K f u f x 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus W, K u - u u 

House Finch* (I) Carpodacus mexicanus W, K c c c c 

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus W u - u f 

American Goldfinch* Carduelis tristis W, K f f c c 

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus W r - r r 

House Sparrow (I) Passer domesticus W c c c c 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2006 
Appendices 309

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX MAMMAL LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Opossum Didelphis marsupialis 

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Least shrew Cryptotis parva 

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Gray bat Myotis grisescens 

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis 

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius 

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Eastern pipistrelle Pipistrellus subflavus 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Red bat Lasiurus borealis 

Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis 

Eastern big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquei 

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus 

Eastern chipmunk Tamias sciurus 

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis 

Fox squirrel Sciurus niger 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Rice rat Oryzomys palustris 

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis 
310 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus 

Golden mouse Peromyscus nuttalli 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Eastern wood rat Neotoma floridana 

Pine vole Microtus pinetorum 

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Black rat Rattus rattus 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Red fox Vulpes fulva 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

Mink Mustela vison 

Eastern spotted skunk Spilogale putorius 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginiana 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2005 
Appendices 311

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX AMPHIBIAN AND REPTILE LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

Common snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine 

Common map turtle Graptemys geographica 

False map turtle Graptemys pasudogeographica 

River cooter Pseudemys concinna 

Yellow-bellied pond slider Trachemys scripta 

Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina 

Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum 

Southern painted turtle Chrysemys picta dorsalis 

Eastern spiny softshell Trionyx spinifera spinifera 

Green anole Anolis carolinensis 

Ground skink Scincella laterale 

Five-lined skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Broad-headed skink Eumeces laticeps 

Southeastern five-lined skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Fence lizard Sceloporus undulatus 

Slender glass lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Six-lined racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Eastern worm snake Carphophis amoenus 

Northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus 

Yellow-bellied water snake Nerodia erythrogaster flavigaster 

Corn snake Elaphe guttata 

Eastern hognose snake Heterodon platyrhinos 

Queen snake Nerodia septemerittata 

Midland brown snake Storeria dekayi wrightorum 

Mole snake Lampropeltis calligaster occipitolineata 

Black kingsnake Lampropeltis getula nigra 

Scarlet kingsnake Lampropeltis triangulum elapsoides 
312 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Northern red-bellied snake Storeria occipitomaculata occipitomaculata 

Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis 

Eastern ribbon snake Thamnophis sauritus 

Eastern smooth earth snake Virginia valeriae valeriae 

Rough earth snake Virginia striatula 

Mississippi ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus stictogenys 

Western mud snake Farancia abacura reinwardtii 

Black racer Coluber constrictor 

Rough green snake Opheodrys aestivus 

Rat snake Elaphe obsoleta sspp. 

Red milk snake Lampropeltis triangulum syspila 

Scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea 

Midland water snake Nerodia sipedon pleuralis 

Crowned snake Tantilla relicta 

Northern copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen 

Eastern cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus 

Pygmy rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius 

Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus 

Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Small-mouthed salamander Ambystoma texanum 

Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Eastern tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum 

Hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis 

Red-spotted newt Notophthalmus viridescens viridescens 

Mudpuppy Necturus maculosus maculosus 

Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousei fowleri 

Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus gryllus 

Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans crepitans 

Northern spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer 
Appendices 313

Common Name Scientific Name 

Green treefrog Hyla cinerea 

Eastern gray treefrog Hyla versicolor 

Upland chorus frog Pseudacris triseriata feriarum 

E. narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

Bull frog Rana catesbeiana 

Green frog Rana clamitans 

Dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus 

Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata 

Long-tailed salamander Eurycea longicauda longicauda 

Cave salamander Eurycea lucifuga 

Tennessee cave salamander Gyrinophilus palleucus 

Zigzag salamander Plethodon dorsalis 

Slimy salamander Plethodon glutinosus 

Northern red salamander Pseudotriton ruber ruber 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2006 
314 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FISH SPECIES LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Ohio Lamprey lchthyomyzon bdellium 

Chestnut Lamprey lchthyomyzon castaneus 

Least brook Lamprey lchthyomyzon aepyptera 

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus 

Spotted Gar Lepisosteus oculaatus 

Alligator Gar Lepisosteus spatula 

Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus 

Paddlefish Polyodon spatula 

Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens 

Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorhynchus 

Bowfin Amia calva 

Channel Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis 

Flathead Catfish Pylodictus olivaris 

Black Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus melas 

Brown Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus nebulosus 

Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus 

Slender madtom Noturus exilis 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus 

Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Orange-spotted sunfish Lepomis humilis 

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus 

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus 

Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis 

Mobile Logperch Percina Kathae 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides 
Appendices 315

Common Name Scientific Name 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui 

Spotted Bass Micropterus punctulatus 

Rock Bass Ambloplites rupestris 

Yellow Bass Morone mississippiensis 

Striped Bass Morone saxatillis 

White Bass Morone chrysops 

Common Carp (intro.) Cyprinus carpio 

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense 

Gizzard Shad Donosoma cepedianum 

Smallmouth Buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 

Bigmouth Buffalo Itiobus cyprinellus 

Black Buffalo Ictiobus niger 

Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens 

Grass Pickerel Esox americanus 

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus 

Sauger Sander canadensis 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens 

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris 

Spotted Sucker Minutrema melanops 

Blacktail Redhorse Moxostoma poecilurum 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2006 
316 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND ADJACENT WATERS FRESHWATER MUSSEL 

LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Spectaclecase Cumberlandia monodonta (Say, 1829) 

Threeridge Amblema plicata (Say, 1817) 

Flat Floater Anodonta suborbiculata (Say, 1831) 

Rock Pocketbook Arcidents confragosus (Say, 1829) 

Purple Wartyback Cyclonaias tuberculata (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Butterfly Ellipsaria lineolata (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Elephant Ear Elliptio crassidens (Lamarck, 1819) 

Spike Elliptio dilatata (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Tennessee Pigtoe Fusconaia barnesiana (Lea, 1838) 

Ebonyshell Fusconaia ebena (Lea, 1831) 

Long-solid Fusconaia subrotunda (Lea, 1831) 

Pink Mucket Lampsilis abrupta (Say, 1831) 

Pocketbook Lampsilis ovata (Say, 1817) 

Yellow Sandshell Lampsilis teres (Rafinesque, 1820) 

White Heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata (Barnes, 1823) 

Fragile Papershell Leptodea fragilis (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Black Sandshell Ligumia recta (Lamarck, 1819) 

Washboard Megalonaias nervosa (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Threehorn Wartyback Obliquaria reflexa Rafinesque, 1820 

Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Ohio Pigtoe Pleurobema cordatum (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Rough Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum (Lea, 1840) 

Pyramid Pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Round Pigtoe Pleurobema sintoxia (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Pink Heelsplitter Potamilus alatus (Say, 1817) 

Pink Papershell Potamilus ohiensis (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Kidneyshell Ptychobranchus fasciolaris (Rafinesque, 1820) 
Appendices 317

Common Name Scientific Name 

Giant Floater Pyganodon grandis (Say, 1829) 

Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa (Lea, 1831) 

Mapleleaf Quadrula quadrula (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Purple Lilliput Toxolasma lividus (Rafinesque, 1831) 

Lilliput Toxolasma parvus (Barnes, 1823) 

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa (Rafinesque, 1820) 

Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis (Lea, 1828) 

Paper Pondshell Utterbackia imbecillis (Say, 1829) 

Rainbow Villosa iris (Lea, 1829) 

Mountain Creekshell Villosa vanuxemensis (Lea, 1838) 

Source: Jeff Garner, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 2006 
318 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND ADJACENT WATERS FRESHWATER SNAIL 

LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Dusky Ancylid Laevapex fuscus 

Ghost Marstonia Pyrgulopsis 

Armored Marstonia Pyrgulopsis pachyta 

Aminicola sp. Aminicola sp. 

Lyogyrus sp. Lyogyrus sp 

Golden Fossaria Fossaria obrussa 

Mimic Lymnaea Pseudosuccinea columella 

Tadpole Physa Physella gyrina 

Ash Gyro Gyraulus parvus 

Two-ridge Rams-horn Helisoma anceps 

Disc Sprite Micromenetus Dilatatus 

Anthony’s Riversnail Athearnia anthonyi 

Acute Elimia Elimia acuta 

Engraved Elimia Elimia perstriata 

Onyx Rocksnail Leptoxis praerosa 

Varicosa Rocksnail Lithasia verrucosa 

Silty Hornsnail Pleurocera canaliculatum 

Skirted Hornsnail Pleurocera pyrenellum 

Slender Campeloma Campeloma decampi 

Pointed Campeloma Campeloma decisum 

Furrowed Lioplax Lioplax sulculosa 

Banded Mysterysnail Viviparus georgianus 

Olive Mysterysnail Viviparus subpurpureus 

Musculim spp. Musculim spp. 

Pisidium spp. Pisidium spp. 

Sphaerium spp. Sphaerium spp. 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2006 
Appendices 319

 WHEELER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX WOODY PLANT SPECIES LIST 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda 

Pitch Pine Pinus rigida 

Short Leaf Pine Pinus echinata 

Virginia Scrub or Jersey Pine Pinus virginiana 

Baldcypress Taxodium distichum 

Arizona Cypress Cypressus arizonica 

Eastern Red Cedar Juniperus virginiana 

Sawbrier Smilax glauca 

Bullbriar Smilax bona-nox 

Bristley Smilax hispida 

Greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia 

Greenbriar Smilax walteria 

Greenbriar Smilax herbacea 

Southern Cottonwood Populus deltoids 

Black Willow Salix nigra 

Black Walnut Juglans nigra 

Pecan Carya illnoensis 

Water Hickory Carya aquatica 

Shagbark or Scaleybark Hickory Carya ovata 

Shagbark Hickory or Scaleybark Hickory Carya carolinae septentrionalis 

Shagbark Hickory Carya laciniosa 

White Hickory or Tightbark Hickory Carya alba 

White Hickory Carya pallida 

Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 

Pignut hickory Carya ovalis 

Blue Beech Carpinus caroliniana 

Ironwood Ostrya virginiana 

Red or River Birch Betula nigra 

Smooth Alder Alnus rugosa 

Hazelnut Corylus americana 

American Beech Fagus grandifolia 
320 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American Chestnut Castanea dentate 

Asiatic Chestnut Castanea mollissima 

Chinquapin Castanea pumila 

Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 

Shumard’s Oak Quercus shumardii 

Black Oak Quercus velutina 

Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea 

Southern Red Oak Quercus falcata 

Cherrybark oak Quercus falcata var. pagodaefolia 

Blackjack Oak or Shrub Oak Quercus marilandica 

Water Oak Quercus nigra 

Willow Oak Quercus phellos 

Nuttall’s Oak Quercus nuttallii 

Overcup Oak Quercus Lyrata 

Post Oak Quercus stellata 

White Oak Quercus alba 

Swamp chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 

Chinquapin Oak or Yellow Chestnut Oak Quercus muhlenbergii 

Rock Chestnut Oak Quercus prinus 

White or American elm Ulmus americana 

Winged elm Ulmus alata 

Red or Slippery Elm Ulmus rubra 

Hackberry or Sugarberry Celtis laevigator 

Hackberry or Sugarberry Celtis occidentalis 

Red Mulberry Morus rubra 

White Mulberry Morus alba 

Paper Mulberry Broussonetia papyrifera 

Osage orange Maclura pomifera 

Buck-Vine Brunnichia cirrhosa 

Tulip or Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 

Common mock Orange Philadelphus inodorus 

Climbing Hydrangea Decumaria barbara 
Appendices 321

Common Name Scientific Name 

Wild Hydrangea Hydrangea quercifolia 

Virginia Willow Itea virginica 

Pawpaw Asimina triloba 

Sassafras Sassafras albidum 

Spicebush Benzoin aestivale 

Red or Sweet Gum Liquidambar styraciflua 

Witch Hazel Hammamelis virginiana 

Sycamore Plantus occidentalis 

Multiflora Rose Rosa multiflora 

Swamp Rose Rosa palustris 

Cherokee Rose Rosa laevigata 

Sweet Shrubs Calycanthus mohrii 

Pear Pyrus communis 

Apple Malus malus 

Crab Apple Malus angustifolia 

Haw Crateagus spp. 

Wild plum Prunus americana 

Chickasaw Plum Prunus angustifolia 

Black cherry Prunus serotina 

Peach Amygdalus persica 

Mimosa Albizia julibrissin 

Redbud Cercis canadensis 

Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos 

Lead Plant or Plume Locust Amorpha fruticosa 

Black locust Robinia pseudo-acacia 

Bicolor lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor 

Kudzu Vine Pueraria lobata 

Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima 

Chinaberry Melia azedarach 

Poison Ivy Toxicodendron radicans 

Dwarf Sumac Rhus copallina 

Smooth Sumac Rhus glabra 
322 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Staghorn Sumac Rhus typhina 

Fragrant Sumac Schmaltzia crenata 

American Holly Ilex opaca 

Winterberry Ilex laevigata 

Deciduous Holly Ilex decidua 

Strawberry Bush Euonymus americanus 

Dwarf Buckeye Aesculus pavia 

American Bladdernut Staphylea trifolia 

Silver Maple Acer saccharinum 

Sugar Maple Acer saccharum 

Red Maple Acer rubrum 

Box Elder Acer negundo 

Rattan vine Berchemia scandens 

New Jersey Tea Ceanothus americanus 

Buckthorn Rhamnus caroliniana 

Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia 

Fox Grape Vitis labrusca 

Fox Grape Vitis vulpine 

Fox Grape Vitis baileyana 

Bunch Grapes Vitis spp. 

False Grapes Ampelopsis spp. 

Pepper-vine Amplelopis arborea 

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

Basswood Tilia caroliniana 

St. Andrew’s Cross Ascyrum hypericoides 

St. John’s Worts or Bog Myrtles Hypericum spp. 

Thunderwood, Hercules’ Club or Devil’s 

Walking Stick 

Aralia spinosa 

Ginseng Panax quinquefolium 

Swamp Loosestrife or Water Willow Decedon verticillatus 

Black gum Nyssa sylvatica 

Pond-gum Nyssa biflora 

Swamp Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 
Appendices 323

Common Name Scientific Name 

Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 

Roughleaf Dogwood Cornus asperifolia 

Wild Azalea Azalea nudiflora 

Mountain Laurel Kalmia latifolia 

Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum 

Sparkleberry Batodendron arboretum 

Huckleberry Vaccinium elliottii 

Huckleberry Vaccinium vacillans 

Buckthorn Bumelia lyciolioes 

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 

Silverbell Halesia carolina 

Styrax Styrax grandifolia 

Green ash Fraxinun pennyslvanica 

White Ash Fraxinun americana 

Swamp privet Forestiera acuminata 

Graybeard or Fringe Tree Chionanthus virginica 

Common Privet Ligustrum vulgare 

French Mulberry or Beauty Berry Callicarpa americana 

Empress tree Paulownia tomentosa 

Cross Vine Bignonia capreolata 

Trumpet creeper Bignonia radicans 

Catalpa Catalpa bignonioides 

Mistletoe Phoradendron flavescens 

Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 

Elder Sambucus canadensis 

Black Haw Viburnum rufidulum 

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica 

Source: Wheeler Complex data files, 2006 
324 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 325

Appendix J. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

Station RONS 

Project # 

Station 

Rank Project Title One-time Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

Wheeler 96002 1 

Construct two (2) pump stations in 

the White Springs Dewatering Unit 

to provide an effective water supply 

$835,000 $60,000 

Wheeler 96003 2 

Install three water control structures 

in the White Springs Dewatering 

Unit to enable effective water 

movement 

$319,000 $25,000 

Wheeler 00008 3 

Improve maintenance programs by 

establishing a work leader position 

to supervise the Complex 

maintenance program 

$137,000 $72,000 

Wheeler 03012 4 

Increase resource and visitor 

protection by establishing an 

additional law enforcement officer 

position 

$140,000 $75,000 

Wheeler 96001 5 Dewatering unit vegetation control $75,000 $30,000 

Wheeler 02004 6 

Improve safety, environmental 

compliance, and asset management 

by establishing an assistant 

manager position to serve as 

facilities manager 

$140,000 $75,000 

Wheeler 97007 7 Beaver management $25,000 $10,000 

Wheeler 00027 8 Convert cooperative farming to 

contract farming $405,000 $300,000 

Wheeler 97004 9 Purchase a Geographic Information 

System $50,000 $10,000 

Wheeler 02002 10 Construct two pump stations in the 

Rockhouse Dewatering Unit $800,000 $40,000 

Wheeler 00015 11 

Construct a simulated cave exhibit 

to interpret protected sensitive 

areas 

$80,000 $10,000 

Wheeler 00025 12 Develop a Wildlife Observation 

Building live camera $69,000 $12,000 
326 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Station RONS 

Project # 

Station 

Rank Project Title One-time Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

Wheeler 02001 13 

Classification of natural plant 

communities and inventory of 

vascular flora 

$40,000 $4,000 

Wheeler 97002 14 

Manage American Woodcock by 

establishing an additional biological 

technician position 

$118,000 $53,000 

Wheeler 00020 15 Purchase a volunteer rover vehicle $30,000 $5,000 

Wheeler 00017 16 Develop a Visitor Center computer 

interactive educational exhibit $30,000 $5,000 

Wheeler 97008 17 White Springs #4 Water Control 

Structures $100,000 $15,000 

Wheeler 00012 18 

Expand visitor programs by 

establishing an additional park 

ranger position 

$118,000 $53,000 

Wheeler 00006 19 

Conduct needed monitoring of 

wildlife populations on Wheeler 

Complex by establishing an 

additional wildlife biologist position 

$140,000 $75,000 

Wheeler 00001 20 

Administration of Geographic 

Information System through 

establishment of a GIS Coordinator 

position 

$154,000 $89,000 

Wheeler 00024 21 Coordinator for proposed 

environmental education center $140,000 $89,000 

Wheeler 00023 22 

Education resource specialist for 

proposed environmental education 

center 

$140,000 $75,000 

Wheeler 00004 23 Park ranger for proposed 

environmental education center $128,000 $63,000 

Wheeler 00003 24 Maintenance worker for proposed 

environmental education center $113,000 $49,000 

Wheeler 99004 25 

Conduct needed water quality 

monitoring be establishing an 

biological technician position 

$213,000 $98,000 

Key Cave 97010 1 

Manage endangered wildlife and 

habitats by establishing a new 

assistant manager position 

$154,000 $75,000 

Key Cave 97009 2 

Restore and maintain habitats by 

establishing a new tractor operator 

position 

$122,000 $57,000 
Appendices 327

Station RONS 

Project # 

Station 

Rank Project Title One-time Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

Key Cave 97011 3 

Analyze water quality impacting 

highly endangered Alabama 

cavefish 

$22,000 $12,000 

Key Cave 00029 4 Purchase a new truck-tractor $125,000 $5,000 

Key Cave 00028 5 Purchase a new lowboy trailer $90,000 $3,500 

Key Cave 00026 6 Purchase a new medium tractor and 

rotary mower $120,000 $5,000 

Key Cave 00030 7 Purchase a new cover disk $20,000 $1,000 

Key Cave 00025 8 Purchase a new small tractor and 

rotary mower $25,000 $2,500 

Key Cave 00027 9 Purchase a new native grass drill 

and spray rig $20,000 $3,000 

Key Cave 97012 10 Re-establish native grasses and 

forested uplands $35,000 $15,000 

Sauta 

Cave 00001 1 

Manage endangered bats and other 

rare wildlife by establishing a new 

biologist position 

$140,000 $75,000 

Sauta 

Cave 00002 2 

Monitor endangered bats and other 

rare wildlife by establishing a new 

biological technician position 

$128,000 $63,000 

Fern Cave 00001 1 

Manage endangered bats and other 

rare wildlife by establishing a new 

biologist position 

$140,000 $75,000 

Fern Cave 00002 2 

Monitor endangered bats and other 

rare wildlife by establishing a new 

biological technician position 

$128,000 $63,000 
328 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

SERVICE ASSEST MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SAMMS) NEEDS 

Station SAMMS 

Project # 

Complex 

Rank Project Title Estimated Cost 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE 

Wheeler 00103414 1 Rehabilitate Inefficient White Springs Water 

Distribution System 

$176,000 

Wheeler 80103371 2 Replace Secondary and Sub-entrance Signs $27,000 

Wheeler 98103379 3 Replace HE Wash Rack $26,000 

Wheeler 90103372 4 Rehabilitate Refuge Boundary $82,000 

Wheeler 00103393 5 Repair of Gravel Road System in Limestone 

County 

$67,000 

Wheeler 99103381 6 Repair Garth Slough Road Damaged by Use 

and Erosion 

$27,000 

Wheeler 01113573 7 Replace Defective Crabtree Slough Water 

Control Structure 

$72,000 

Wheeler 01113576 8 Replace Blackwell Swamp Main Water Control 

Structure 

$125,000 

Wheeler 02120303 9 Replace Residence #2 $235,000 

HEAVY EQUIPMENT 

Wheeler 00103423 1 Replace Caterpillar D-7E Crawler-Tractor $153,000 

Wheeler 97103375 2 Replace 1965 John Deere 3020 Tractor $55,000 

Wheeler 00103417 3 Replace International TD-15C Crawler-Tractor $153,000 

Wheeler 00103424 4 Replace Ford Backhoe $50,000 

Wheeler 80103374 5 Replace Worn 1978 GMC Dump Truck $55,000 

Wheeler 00103416 6 Replace John Deere 670 Road Grader $71,000 

Wheeler 00103425 7 Replace John Deere 690D Excavator $110,000 

Wheeler 90103378 8 Replace John Deere 350 Dozer and Fire Plow $136,000 

Wheeler 00103421 9 Replace John Deere 4055 Tractor $61,000 

Wheeler 00103420 10 Replace John Deere 4450 Tractor $70,000 

Wheeler 04134795 11 Replace Case 1150 Dozer $175,000 

Wheeler 01113595 12 Replace 1999 John Deere 6310 Tractor $48,000 
Appendices 329

Station SAMMS 

Project # 

Complex 

Rank Project Title Estimated Cost 

Wheeler 02120349 13 Replace New Holland Woods Boss Tractor $48,000 

Wheeler 04134764 14 Replace 2001 John Deere 6410 Tractor $52,000 

Wheeler 04134193 15 Replace 2002 Sterling Stake Dump Truck $50,000 

SMALL EQUIPMENT 

Wheeler 00103427 1 Replace Boston Whaler $17,000 

Wheeler 01114493 2 Replace 1996 Dodge 4X4 Service Truck $27,000 

Wheeler 01114513 3 Replace 1996 Dodge Ram 4X4 Power Wagon $23,000 

Wheeler 01114510 4 Replace 1998 Chevrolet Vanwagon $21,000 

Wheeler 01114459 5 Replace Ditchrider Trailer Pump $13,000 

Wheeler 01114413 NR Replace Terrain King Hydro 15 Mower $13,000 

Wheeler 00103422 NR Replace Rome 2115 Disk Harrow $27,000 

Wheeler 00103418 NR Replace Fire Pumper Trailer $17,000 

Wheeler 01113594 NR Replace 1997 Bush Hog Flex-wing Rotary 

Cutter 

$10,000 

Wheeler 01115228 NR Replace 1997 Exmark Turf Mower $6,000 

Wheeler 04134812 NR Replace 1984 Gator Pump $8,000 

Wheeler 00103426 NR Replace John Deere 2155 Tractor $22,000 

Wheeler 01114505 NR Replace 1998 Ford F-150 4X2 Pickup $18,000 

Wheeler 01114520 NR Replace 1999 Ford Ranger 4X2 Pickup $18,000 

Wheeler 01114498 NR Replace 1999 Ford 4X2 F-150 Pickup $18,000 

Wheeler 01114495 NR Replace 1999 Ford Ranger 4X4 Pickup $21,000 

Wheeler 01114517 NR Replace 1999 Ford 4X4 Pickup $24,000 

Wheeler 01114497 NR Replace 2000 Chevrolet S-10 4X2 Pickup $17,000 

Wheeler 01114521 NR Replace 2001 Chevrolet 4X2 Pickup $19,000 

Wheeler 01114524 NR Replace 2001 Chevrolet 4X4 Pickup $27,000 

Wheeler 01114526 NR Replace 2001 Ford 4X4 Expedition $31,000 

Wheeler 01113590 NR Replace 1999 Tiger Rotary Boom Mower $23,000 

Wheeler 01114456 NR Replace Brown Tree Cutter Mower $7,000 
330 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Station SAMMS 

Project # 

Complex 

Rank Project Title Estimated Cost 

Wheeler 01115226 NR Replace Dinsmore Slough Pump Unit $48,000 

Wheeler 03125393 NR Replace Alamo Rotary Mower $23,000 

Wheeler 04134814 NR Replace 2002 Gooseneck Trailer $7,000 

Wheeler 04134773 NR Replace 2001 Tiger Side Mower $25,000 

Wheeler 04134803 NR Replace 2003 Exmark Lawn Mower $8,000 

Wheeler 04134811 NR Replace Auditorium Projector $25,000 

Wheeler 04134194 NR Replace 2004 Ford Expedition $28,000 

Wheeler 03125391 NR Replace 2003 Ford F-150 $23,000 

Wheeler 03125390 NR Replace 2003 Chevy Trailblazer $26,000 

Wheeler 04134191 NR Replace 6X6 Amphibious ATV $19,000 

REFUGE ROADS – TEA 211 

Wheeler 05137795 1 Repair Truck Trail Road (15.0 mi.) $1,673,600 

Wheeler 03133139 2 Transportation Planning for CCPs $261,000 

Wheeler 04134826 3 Repair Rockhouse Road (4.57 mi.) $5,189,000 

Wheeler 04135737 4 Repair Buckeye Pond Boundary Road (6.29 mi.) $4,139,000 

Wheeler 04135735 5 Repair Jolly Bottoms Road (1.52 mi.) $1,726,000 

Wheeler 04134845 6 Repair Bean Place Road (3.35 mi.) $3,804,000 

Wheeler 04135759 7 Repair Mooresville Access Road (1.25 mi.) $1,419,000 

Wheeler 04135742 8 Repair Dancy Bottom Road (0.1 mi.) $102,000 

Wheeler 04135746 9 Repair Cain Landing Road (0.37 mi.) $59,000 

Wheeler 04135747 10 Repair Suzie Hole Road (0.23 mi.) $261,000 

Wheeler 04135786 11 Repair Dancy Bottom Parking Area $33,000 

Key 

Cave 04135731 12 Repair South Parking Area (Rte 902) $15,000 

Key 

Cave 04135732 13 Repair East Parking Area (Rte 901) $22,000 

Key 

Cave 04135734 14 Repair West Parking Area (Rte 900) $28,000 
Appendices 331

Station SAMMS 

Project # 

Complex 

Rank Project Title Estimated Cost 

Wheeler 04135738 15 Repair Skinner Springs Road (1.9 mi.) $2,158,000 

Wheeler 04134836 16 Repair Blackwell Run Road (5.99 mi.) $5,666,000 

Wheeler 04134847 17 Repair Penny Bottom Road (2.86 mi.) $2,116,000 

Wheeler 04134842 18 Repair Talucah Landing Road and Ramp 

Parking (0.24 mi.) 

$136,000 

Wheeler 04135744 19 Repair Hickory Hills Boat Ramp Access Road 

(0.15 mi.) 

$85,000 

Wheeler 04135745 NR Repair Bluff City Boat Ramp Access Road (0.07 

mi.) 

$96,000 

Wheeler 04135750 NR Repair Beaverdam Spur Road (0.19 mi.) $216,000 

Wheeler 04135809 NR Repair Arrowhead Landing Boat Ramp Parking 

Area 

$93,000 

Wheeler 04135804 NR Repair Jolly Bottom Handicapped Hunting 

Parking Area 

$107,000 

Wheeler 04135739 NR Repair Beaverdam Peninsula Loop Road (3.14 

mi.) 

$2,979,000 

Wheeler 04135749 NR Repair Beaverdam Loop Cutoff Road (0.16 mi.) $182,000 

Wheeler 04135751 NR Repair Beaverdam Peninsula Connector Road 

(0.51 mi.) 

$579,000 

Wheeler 04135752 NR Repair Pryor Road Access Road (0.13 mi.) $74,000 

Wheeler 04135754 NR Repair Beaverdam Peninsula Tower Access 

Road (0.59 mi.) 

$286,000 

Wheeler 04135758 NR Repair Mooresville Peninsula Road (1.99 mi.) $2,260,000 

Wheeler 04135761 NR Repair Mooresville Spur Road (0.45 mi.) $511,000 

Wheeler 04135763 NR Repair Refuge HQ Road (0.09 mi.) $35,000 

Wheeler 04135766 NR Repair Boat Ramp Access Road (Rte 109, 0.17 

mi) 

$97,000 

Wheeler 04135768 NR Repair Refuge Office Parking Area (Rte 900) $5,000 

Wheeler 04135770 NR Repair Handicapped Fishing Parking Area $12,000 

Wheeler 04135778 NR Repair Visitor Center Parking Area $188,000 

Wheeler 04135781 NR Repair Visitor Center Bus Parking Area $26,000 
332 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Station SAMMS 

Project # 

Complex 

Rank Project Title Estimated Cost 

Wheeler 04135790 NR Repair Hickory Hills Boat Ramp Parking Area $315,000 

Wheeler 04135793 NR Repair Bluff City Boat Ramp Parking Area $26,000 

Wheeler 04135796 NR Repair Cotaco Creek Boat Ramp Parking Area $353,000 

Wheeler 04135800 NR Repair Truck Trail Spur (Suzie Hole) Parking 

Area 

$14,000 

Wheeler 04135806 NR Repair Beaverdam Peninsula Tower Parking 

Area 

$64,000 

Wheeler 04135817 NR Repair Handicapped Fishing Access Road 

(0.07 mi.) 

$11,000 

LARGE CONSTRUCTION 

Wheeler 00110156 1 Construct a new Refuge Headquarters 

Administrative Building 

$795,000 

Wheeler 00110155 2 Construct Environmental Education Center $795,000 

SMALL CONSTRUCTION 

Wheeler 00124023 1 Construct Cave Exhibit $80,000 

Wheeler 00124021 2 Construct Cave Springs Kiosk and Viewing 

Platform 

$31,000 

Wheeler 97123406 3 Construct Refuge Wildlife Drive $3,000,000 
Appendices 333

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Station Project Title One-time 

Cost 

Annual 

Cost 

Wheeler 

Complex Control Feral Hogs $30,000 $15,000 

Sauta 

Cave 

Conduct a Forest Management Study at Sauta Cave NWR 

to Evaluate Price’s Potato-Bean Response to Various 

Forest Thinning Techniques 

$70,000 $10,000 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Develop an Invasive Plant Species Program to Control 

Invasive Plants on Wheeler Complex $35,000 $5,000 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Increase Force-Account (Using Complex Staff and 

Equipment) Farming Capabilities 300,000 $100,000 

Key Cave Improve the Water Holding Capacity of Three (3) Shallow 

Water Areas at Key Cave NWR $30,000 $5,000 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Increase Law Enforcement Capabilities by Purchasing 

Specialized Surveillance Equipment $10,000 $1,000 

Wheeler 

Complex Establish a Contaminants Program $125,000 $80,000 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Develop a Complex-Wide Litter Control and Reduction 

Program $15,000 $4,000 

Wheeler 

Complex Conduct a Study to Analyze Existing Rights-of-Ways $10,000 $1,000 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Develop a Cultural Resource Overview of the Wheeler 

Complex $20,000 $0 

Wheeler 

Complex 

Conduct a Comprehensive Cultural Resource Inventory of 

the Wheeler Complex $150,000 $15,000 

Wheeler Construct a Self Service Deer Weigh-In / Health Check 

Station $60,000 $3,000 

Wheeler Increase Wildlife Observation and Photography by 

Constructing an Additional Wildlife Observation Tower $60,000 $2,000 

Wheeler 

Increase Wildlife Observation and Photography by 

Constructing a Wildlife Photography Blind on the North Side 

of the Tennessee River 

$10,000 $1,000 
334 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 335

Appendix K. List of Preparers 

Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Dwight Cooley, Project Leader, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 

Emery Hoyle, Deputy Project Leader, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 

John Beck, Natural Resource Planner, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 

Steve Seibert, Assistant Refuge Manager, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 

Bill Gates, Wildlife Biologist, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 

Teresa Adams, Supervisory Park Ranger, Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Decatur, Alabama 
336 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 337

Appendix L. Priority Bird Species and Species 

Suites 

BCR 24 priority species (B=Breeding, N=Non-breeding, T=transient, PB=Post-breeding; FE=Federally Endangered, 

FT=Federally Threatened, SL=listed in at least one State within BCR) 

Tier I. SPECIES OF HIGH CONTINENTAL AND/OR REGIONAL CONCERN 

(Regional Combined Score presented only for Tier I species) 

Immediate Management 

Whooping Crane1 22 T, FE, SL 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker2 21 B, N, FE 

Greater Prairie-Chicken2 20 B, N, SL 

Swainson's Warbler 20 B, SL 

Bachman's Sparrow 20 B, SL 

Swallow-tailed Kite3 19 B, SL 

King Rail 19 B, SL 

Least Tern 19 B, FE, SL 

Brown-headed Nuthatch4 19 B, N 

Cerulean Warbler 19 B, SL 

Sedge Wren 16 B, SL 

Ruffed Grouse 15 B, N 

Loggerhead Shrike 15 B, N, SL 

Bewick's Wren 15 B, SL 

Grasshopper Sparrow 15 B 

Lark Sparrow 14 B, SL

Management Attention 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper 24 T 

American Black Duck 19 N 

Yellow Rail 19 T 

Blue-winged Warbler 19 B 

American Golden-Plover 18 T 

Upland Sandpiper 18 T, SL 

Hudsonian Godwit 18 T 

Semipalmated Sandpiper 18 T 

American Woodcock 18 B, T 

Wilson’s Phalarope 18 T 

Prairie Warbler 18 B 

Worm-eating Warbler 18 B, SL 

Kentucky Warbler 18 B 

Henslow’s Sparrow 18 B, SL 

Stilt Sandpiper 17 T 

Short-billed Dowitcher 17 T 

Short-eared Owl 17 N, SL 

Whip-poor-will 17 B 

Field Sparrow 17 B, N 

Harris’s Sparrow 17 N 

Orchard Oriole 17 B 

Northern Bobwhite 16 B, N 

Horned Grebe 16 N, B 

American Bittern 16 T, SL 

Least Bittern 16 B, SL 

Lesser Yellowlegs 16 T 

Western Sandpiper 16 T 

Least Sandpiper 16 T 

Dunlin 16 T, N 

Black Tern 16 T 

Chimney Swift 16 B 

Red-headed Woodpecker 16 B, N 

Wood Thrush 16 B 

Yellow-breasted Chat 16 B 

Painted Bunting 16 B 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 15 B, SL 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo 15 B 

Eastern Wood-Pewee 15 B 

Eastern Kingbird 15 B 

White-eyed Vireo 15 B 

Bell's Vireo 15 B, SL 

Brown Thrasher 15 B 

Eastern Towhee 15 B 

Eastern Meadowlark 15 N 

Lesser Scaup 14 N 

Pied-billed Grebe 14 B, SL 

Wood Stork 14 P, B 

American Coot 14 B, SL 

Sanderling 14 T 

Common Tern 14 T 

Northern Flicker 14 B, N 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 14 B 

Rusty Blackbird 14 N 
338 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Planning and Responsibility 

Smith’s Longspur 17 N 

Solitary Sandpiper 16 T 

Wilson’s Snipe 16 N 

Prothonotary Warbler 14 B 

Dickcissel 13 B 

Willow Flycatcher 12 B 

Tier II. SPECIES NOT OTHERWISE OF CONTINENTAL NOR REGIONAL CONCERN WHERE 

MONITORING 

(i.e., All Planning and Responsibility) ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO ENSURE POPULATION 

STABILITY 

Planning and Responsibility 

Wood Duck B, N 

Sandhill Crane N 

Black-bellied Plover T 

Semipalmated Plover T 

Killdeer B, N 

Black-necked Stilt T 

American Avocet T 

Greater Yellowlegs T 

Spotted Sandpiper B, T, SL 

White-rumped Sandpiper T 

Baird’s Sandpiper T 

Pectoral Sandpiper T 

Long-billed Dowitcher T 

Red Phalarope T 

Red-necked Phalarope T 

Downy Woodpecker B, N 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher T 

Acadian Flycatcher B 

Alder Flycatcher T 

Least Flycatcher T 

Yellow-throated Vireo B 

Philadelphia Vireo T 

Carolina Chickadee B, N 

Tennessee Warbler T 

Yellow-throated Warbler B 

Blackburnian Warbler T 

Louisiana Waterthrush B 

Summer Tanager B 

Le Conte’s Sparrow N 

Tier III. SPECIES WHERE AT LEAST MONITORING ATTENTION IS NEEDED TO ENSURE 

POPULATION PERSISTENCE 

(i.e., All at least Planning and Responsibility), BUT MANAGEMENT ATTENTION MAY OR MAY NOT 

BE NECESSARY BASED ON LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLITICAL BOUNDARIES 

Tier III a. Additional Federally Listed 

Bald Eagle B, N, FT, SL Piping Plover T, FT, SL

Tier III b. Additional State Listed 

Trumpeter Swan N 

Blue-winged Teal B 

Northern Shoveler B 

Hooded Merganser B 

Double-crested Cormorant B 

Great Blue Heron B 

Great Egret B 

Snowy Egret B 

Little Blue Heron B 

Cattle Egret B 

Black-crowned Night Heron B 

Osprey B 

Mississippi Kite B 

Northern Harrier B 

Sharp-shinned Hawk B 

Cooper’s Hawk B 

Red-shouldered Hawk B 

Broad-winged Hawk B 

Peregrine Falcon B 

Virginia Rail B 

Sora B 

Common Moorhen B 
Appendices 339

Tier III b. Additional State Listed (Cont’d) 

Barn Owl B, N 

Long-eared Owl B 

Fish Crow B 

Tree Swallow B

Bank Swallow B 

Brown Creeper B 

Marsh Wren B 

Black-and-white Warbler B 

Hooded Warbler B 

Vesper Sparrow B 

Savannah Sparrow B 

Bobolink B 

Tier III c. Additional politically recognized species

(e.g., Natureserve B=Breeding, N=Non-breeding, X=not seasonally ranked, S1=State highly 

imperiled, S2=State imperiled, S3=State vulnerable) 

 State 

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Black-bellied Whistling-Duck B S1 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck B S1 

Greater White-fronted Goose N S3 S3 S3 

Snow Goose N S3 S3S4 

Canada Goose B S3 S3S4 

Trumpeter Swan N S1 S2 

Tundra Swan N S3 

Wood Duck N S1 

American Black Duck B S2 

 N S2 S3S4 

 X S1 S2 

Mallard B S3 S3S4 

Blue-winged Teal B S2 S2S3 S2 

 X S3 S3 

Northern Shoveler B S2 

 X S1 S1 

Northern Pintail N S1 

 X S1 

Green-winged Teal B S1 

 N S1 

Canvasback N S3 S3S4 

Redhead B S1 

 N S3 

Greater Scaup N S3 S2S3 

Harlequin Duck N S1 

Surf Scoter N S3 S1 S3 

White-winged Scoter N S3 S1 S3 

Black Scoter N S3 S1 S3 

Long-tailed Duck N S3 S1 S1 S3 

Common Goldeneye N S3 S3 

Hooded Merganser B S3 S2 S2S3 S1S2 

 N S3S4 S3 

 X S2S3 S2 

Common Merganser N S3 S3 S3 

Red-breasted Merganser N S2 
340 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Ruddy Duck B S3 S1 

 X S2 

Ruffed Grouse X S1 S3 

Greater Prairie-Chicken X S1 S1 S3 

Northern Bobwhite X S2S3 

Red-throated Loon N S3 S3 

Common Loon N S3 S2 S3 

Pied-billed Grebe B S3 S2 S3 S1 

 X S3 S3 S2S3 S2 

Red-necked Grebe N S1 S3 

Eared Grebe N S3 S3 S3 

American White Pelican N S3 S3 S3 

Neotropic Cormorant X S1 

Double-crested Cormorant B S1 S2 

 X S2 S1 

Anhinga B S3 S1 

American Bittern B S2 

 N S3 S2 

 X S1S2 S1 S2 S1 

Least Bittern B S2 S3 S1S2 S2 

 N S2 S2 

 X S2 S3 S2 

Great Blue Heron B S3 S3 

Great Egret B S2S3 S1 S1 S2 

 N S3 

 X S3 S3 S1 

Snowy Egret B S2 S1 S2 

 N S3 

 X S1 S1 

Little Blue Heron B S2 S1 S2 

 N S3 S3 

 X S1 S2 S1 

Tricolored Heron B S3 

 N S3 S3 

Cattle Egret B S1S2 S2 

 N S3 S3 

 X S3S4 S1 

Green Heron B S3 S2 

Black-crowned Night-Heron B S3 S2 S1 S1S2 S3 S2S3 

 N S3 

 X S2 S3 S1 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron B S3 S2 S2 

 N S2 

 X S1 S1 S3 

White Ibis B S1 

 N S3 S3 

Glossy Ibis B S1 

 N S3 S3 
Appendices 341

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Wood Stork N S2 S3 

Black Vulture B S2 

 N S1 S3S4 

 X S3 S3 

Turkey Vulture N S1 

Osprey B S1 S1 S2 S3 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Swallow-tailed Kite X S2 

Mississippi Kite B S1 S2 

 X S3 S2S3 S3 S2S3 

Bald Eagle B S3 S2 S2 S2 

 N S3 S2S3 

 X S2 S3 S2 S3 

Northern Harrier B S2 S1 S2 S1S2 

 N S3 S3 

 X S2 S2 

Sharp-shinned Hawk B S3 S1S2 S2 S3 S3 

 X S1S2 S3 S3 

Cooper’s Hawk B S3 S1 S3 S3 

 N S3 

 X S3 S3 S3S4 

Goshawk N S2 S2 

Red- shouldered Hawk X S3 S2S3 S3 S3 

Broad-winged Hawk B S3 

 X S3 S3 

Swainson’s Hawk B S1 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Rough-legged Hawk N S3 S3 S3 

Golden Eagle N S3 S1 S2 

 X S2 S1 

American Kestrel B S2 S3S4 

Merlin N S1 S3 

Peregrine Falcon B S2 S1 

 N S3 S1 S1 

 X S1 S1 S1 

Yellow Rail N S2 S2 

Black Rail B S1 

 N S2 

 X S1 S1 S1 

King Rail B S3 S1 S1 S1 S1 

 N S3 

 X S2 S1 S1 S2 

Virginia Rail B S3 S1 S1 S1 

 N S2 S3 

 X S3 S2 S3 
342 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Sora B S1 

 X S3 S2 S3 

Purple Gallinule B S3 S1 S1 

 X S1 

Common Moorhen B S1 S3 S1S2 S2 S1 

 N S3 S2 

 X S3 S2 S3 

American Coot B S2 S3 S1 S2 

 N S2 

 X S2 

Sandhill Crane B S3 S1 S1 S1 

 N S2 S3 

 X S3 S2 S3 

American Golden-Plover N S2 S3 

Piping Plover N S1 S2 

Black-necked Stilt B S1 

 X S1 

American Avocet B S2 

 N S3 S3 

Willet B S2 

 N S3 S3 

Spotted Sandpiper B S1 S2 

 X S3S4 

Upland Sandpiper B S3 

 X S2S3 S3 S2 

Whimbrel N S3 S1 

Hudsonian Godwit N S2 S2 

Marbled Godwit N S3 S2 

Ruddy Turnstone N S2 S3 

Red Knot N S3 S1 S2 

Sanderling N S3 S3 

Baird’s Sandpiper N S3 

Dunlin N S2 S3 

Stilt Sandpiper N S3 S3 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper N S3 

Short-billed Dowitcher N S1 S3 

Long-billed Dowitcher N S2 

Wilson’s Snipe B S1S2 

 X S3 S2S2 

American Woodcock B S2 

 X S3 

Wilson’s Phalarope N S3 

 X S1 

Red Phalarope N S3 S1 

Laughing Gull N S1 S3 

Franklin’s Gull N S3 

Ring-billed Gull X S2 S3 

Herring Gull N S3 

 X S2 S3 
Appendices 343

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Caspian Tern B S2 

 N S2 

Common Tern B S1 

 N S1 S3 

 X S1 S1 

Forsters Tern B S1 

 N S3 

 X S1 

Least Tern B S2 S2 S2S3 

 X S1 S2S2 S1 

Black Tern B S1 

 X S1 S1 

Common Ground Dove X S3 

Black-billed Cuckoo B S1 S3S4 S1 S2 

Greater Roadrunner X S3 

Barn Owl B S2 

 N S3 

 X S3 S1S2 S2 S3 S3 S2 S3 S3 

Burrowing Owl N S2 S2 

 X S2 

Long-eared Owl B S1 S1 

 N S3 S2 S1S2 S2 

 X S2 S1S2 S1 

Short-eared Owl B S1 S1 

 N S2S3 S2 S3 

 X S2 S2 

Northern Saw-whet Owl X S1 S1 

Common Nighthawk B S3 

Chuck-wills-widow B S3 

 X S2 S3S4 

Whip-poor-will B S2 

 N S3 

 X S3S4 

Belted Kingfisher X S3 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker B S2 S1 

 N S3S4 S3 

 X S1S2 S1 

Olive-sided Flycatcher N S2 

 X S1 

Yellow-bellied Flycatcher N S2 S3 

Alder Flycatcher B S2 

 N S2 

 X S2 S3 S1 

Willow Flycatcher B S1 S3S4 

 N S3 

 X S3 S2S3 

Least Flycatcher B S3 S1 

 X S3 S3 S3 
344 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Western Kingbird B S1 

 N S1 

 X S1 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher B S1 S1 

 N S2 

Loggerhead Shrike B S3 S3 

 X S3 S2 S2 S3 

Northern Shrike N S1S2 

White-eyed Vireo N S3 

Bell’s Vireo B S3 S3 S2S3 S3 

 X S3 

Blue-headed Vireo B S2 S3S4 

 N S2 

 X S1 S2 

Warbling Vireo B S1 

Philadelphia Vireo N S2 S1 S2 

Fish Crow B S3 

 X S2 S1 S3 

Horned Lark B S3 

Bank Swallow B S2 S3 S2 

 N S3 

 X S3 

Cliff Swallow B S3 S3S4 

 X S3 

Black-capped Chickadee B S2 

Red-breasted Nuthatch B S1 S1 S2 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Brown-headed Nuthatch B S2 

 X S1 

Brown Creeper B S1 S2 S1S2 S2 

 X S3 S3 

Rock Wren N S2 

Bewick’s Wren B S2 S1 S3 

 N S3 

 X S1 S1 S3 S1 S1 

House Wren B S1 

Winter Wren B S3 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Sedge Wren B S1 S3 S3 

 N S2 S3 

 X S3S4 S3 S2 

Marsh Wren B S3 

 N S2 S3 

 X S3 S3 
Appendices 345

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Golden-crowned Kinglet B S3 

 N S3 

 X S1 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher N S3 

 X S3 

Veery B S3 S3S4 

 N S2 

Hermit Thrush B S2 

 N S3S4 S3 

 X S1 

Gray Catbird B S3 

Cedar Waxwing B S2 S1 

Blue-winged Warbler B S3 S3 S1 

Gold-winged Warbler B S1 S2 S3 

 N S2 

 X S1S2 

Orange-crowned Warbler N S3 

Nashville Warbler X S1 

Northern Parula B S3 

 X S3 

Yellow Warbler B S3 S3 

Chestnut-sided Warbler B S1 S3 S3S4 

 N S2 

 X S2S3 S3 S3 

Magnolia Warbler B S1 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Black-throated Green WarblerB S2 S2 

 N S3 

 X S3 

Blackburnian Warbler B S1S2 S3 

 N S2 

 X S1 

Yellow-throated Warbler B S2 

 N S3 

Pine Warbler B S3 

 X S3S4 S3S4 

Kirtland’s Warbler N S1 

Prairie Warbler B S3 

 X S3S4 

Cerulean Warbler B S1 S3 S2 S3 

 X S3 S2S3 

Black-and-white Warbler B S1S2 

 N S3 

 X S2S3 

American Redstart B S3S4 S3 

Prothonotary Warbler X S3 
346 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Worm-eating Warbler B S3 S3 S1 

 X S3S4 

Swainson’s Warbler B S3 S3S4 S1 

 X S1 S2 S3 

Ovenbird B S2 

 N S2 

Northern Waterthrush N S2 

 X S1S2 

Connecticut Warbler N S1 S3 

Mourning Warbler N S2 S3 

 X S1S2 S1 

Common Yellowthroat N S3 

Hooded Warbler B S3 S2 

 X S3S4 S3 

Wilson’s Warbler N S3 

Canada Warbler B S2 S3 S3 

 N S1 

 X S1 S2 

Yellow-breasted Chat N S2 

EasternTowhee X S3 

Bachman’s Sparrow B S3 S1 

 X S3 S2 S2 S2 

Rufous-crowned Sparrow X S1 

American Tree Sparrow N S3S4 S3 

Clay-colored Sparrow N S3 

 X S1 

Vesper Sparrow B S1 S1 

 N S3 

Lark Sparrow B S3 S3S4 S3 S2S3 S1 

 X S1 

Savannah Sparrow B S2S3 S1 

 N S2S3 

Grasshopper Sparrow B S3 

 X S3 S3S4 

Henslow’s Sparrow N S3 S3S4 S1 

Le Conte’s Sparrow N S3 S3S4 S1 

Fox Sparrow N S2 S3 S3 

Song Sparrow B S3 

Lincoln’s Sparrow N S3 S1S2 S3 

Swamp Sparrow N S3 S2 

Harris’s Sparrow N S3 S1 

Dark-eyed Junco B S2S3 

 X S2 

Lapland Longspur N S3 S2S3 S3 

Smith’s Longspur N S3 S2 

Snow Bunting N S3 S2 

Blue Grosbeak B S3 

 X S3 
Appendices 347

Species AL AR IL IN KY MO OH OK TN 

Indigo Bunting N S2 

Painted Bunting B S2 

 X S3 S2 

Dickcissel N S2 

 X S3 

Bobolink B S2S3 S2 

 N S3 

 X S3 

Eastern Meadowlark N S3 

Western Meadowlark B S2 

 N S2 

 X S2 

Yellow-headed Blackbird B S1 

 N S3 

 X S2 S3 

Rusty Blackbird N S2S3 S3S4 S3 

Brewer’s Blackbird N S1 S3 

 X S1 

Great-tailed Grackle X S3 

Orchard Oriole B S3 

Baltimore Oriole B S3 

 N S3 

Pine Grosbeak N S1S2 

Purple Finch N S3 S3S4 

 X S3 

Red Crossbill B S1 S1 

 N S3 S1 S1 S2 

 X S1 

White-winged Crossbill N S1 

Common Redpoll N S3 

Pine Siskin N S3 

 X S2 

Evening Grosbeak N S3 S3 S2 

Tier IV. OTHER SPECIES OF CONSERVATION OR MANAGEMENT INTEREST, NOT 

OTHERWISE LISTED ABOVE 

(LOCAL OR REGIONAL INTEREST=LORI species; some species may be listed in more than one 

sub-tier below) 

Tier IV a. Locally Rare or Peripheral Species of Interest 

(e.g., certain nonbreeding hummingbird species found in the Southeast U.S., Continental 

Concern species with RD=1) 

Common Loon T, N 

Willow Flycatcher B 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher B 

Warbling Vireo B 

Yellow Warbler B 

Black-and-white Warbler B 

American Redstart B 
348 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Tier IV b. Game Species of Particular Local or State Management or Economic Interest

(e.g., Wild Turkey, many species of waterfowl) 

Canada Goose N 

Wood Duck B, N 

Gadwall N 

American Wigeon N 

Am. Black Duck B, N 

Mallard B, N 

Blue-winged Teal N 

Northern Shoveler N 

Green-winged Teal N 

Ring-necked Duck N 

Lesser Scaup N 

Wild Turkey B, N 

Northern Bobwhite B, N 

Virginia Rail N 

Sora N 

American Coot N 

Mourning Dove B, N 

Tier IV c. Nongame Species of Particular Local or State Management or Economic Interest 

(e.g., Ruby-throated Hummingbird, Purple Martin, Eastern Bluebird) 

Am. White Pelican N 

Green Heron B 

Red-shouldered Hawk B, N 

White-rumped Sandpiper T 

Baird’s Sandpiper T 

Bonaparte’s Gull N 

Forster’s Tern T 

Common Nighthawk B 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird B 

Belted Kingfisher B, N 

Pileated Woodpecker B, N 

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher B 

Eastern Bluebird B, N 

Cerulean Warbler B, T 

Indigo Bunting 

Tier IV d. Species frequently occurring as a regional concern species in other BCRs, just not 

in this one, with RD>2 

(good to keep track of species where they are doing well, in many BCR’s they are not doing well) 

Chuck-will’s-widow B, N 

Yellow-throated Vireo B 

Yellow-throated Warbler B 

Hooded Warbler B 

Summer Tanager B 

Tier IV e. Species Important as Environmental Indicators 

(e.g., many species of raptors, such as Osprey, and herons, such as Great Blue Heron) 

Double-crested Cormorant B 

Snowy Egret B 

Green Heron B 

Osprey B 

Great Blue Heron B, N 

Little Blue Heron B 

Yellow-cr. Night-Heron B 
Appendices 349

Tier IV f. Nuisance or Depredating Species 

(e.g., crows, grackles, cowbirds, most blackbirds, double-crested cormorants) 

Local or Regional Population Control/Suppression 

Double-crested Cormorant breeding populations leading to habitat deterioration for other colonial 

nesting species in AL 

Canada Goose resident populations leading to crop depredation 

1

 Experimental non-essential population 

2

 Extirpated. 

3

 Extirpated. Once bred in bottomlands with forest components associated with large river systems. 

4

 Extirpated throughout much of the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region. Small populations 

persist in the Boston Mountains in Arkansas. Appears to be re-established in pine habitat immediately 

north of the Tennessee River in Alabama. 

*Action Level: 

IM=Immediate management needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines in species with small 

populations, or to protect species with the smallest populations for which trends are poorly known. Lack of action may lead 

to extirpations or extinction. Generally species with a TB/TN=5 or a TB/TN=4+PT=5 fall under this action level. 

MA=Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term 

population declines in species that are still relatively abundant. All other Regional Concern species that are not IM, fall under 

this action level. Some federally or state/provincial listed species not otherwise meeting either Continental or Regional 

Concern criteria may fall under this action level. 

PR=Long-term Planning and Responsibility needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations are maintained for 

species for which a region has high responsibility for that species. All Continental Concern species that are not also 

Regional Concern species fall under this action level, as well as any additional Regional Stewardship and Continental 

Stewardship species and any additional LORI species identified. 

PC = Population Control/Suppression needed for species that are otherwise secure and increasing that may come into conflict with 

other species of higher conservation concern or other resources of interest. 

PCL = Local or Regional Population Control/Suppression that generally are species listed as in need of Management Attention or 

Long-term Planning and Responsibility, but locally may be subject to population control measures to alleviate documented 

economic, environmental, or human health and safety conflicts, but only when economics and conservation implications have 

been thoroughly considered. 
350 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 351

Appendix M. Relationship of the Wheeler 

Complex Cooperative Conservation Plan to 

the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

(+ contributes to or supports Conservation Action, - does not contribute to or support 

Conservation Action, N – not applicable). 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

Statewide Conservation Actions — All Habitats 

S1. DWFF should provide information on GCN 

species, their habitats and conservation needs 

to appropriate water and land use 

decision-makers. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

S2. DWFF should develop an effective data 

management system and network to provide for 

efficient data input and monitoring of 

information on GCN species, key habitats, 

threats, and conservation actions in order to 

fully implement and update this CWCS. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

S3. ADCNR and other land management 

agencies should use a landscape management 

approach to enhance GCN species and 

their habitats. 

+ - + + + - + + + - + ++- ++

S4. DWFF should produce a formal revision of 

this CWCS (an action plan for all GCN species 

and their key habitats) every ten years. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

S5. DWFF should include as many imperiled 

animal taxa in updates and revisions of this 

CWCS as possible. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN
352 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

S6. DWFF should enhance wildlife protection 

regulations to address all GCN wildlife species. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

S7. DWFF should review and update the 

permitting process for collection of wildlife 

species in Alabama to insure adequate 

conservation of GCN species. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

S8. DWFF SWG Steering and Technical 

Committees should review and provide 

recommendations to prioritize research studies 

and management actions for GCN species and 

their habitats. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

S9. ADCNR Divisions should coordinate wildlife 

management to most effectively conserve GCN 

species and their habitats on lands under their 

jurisdiction. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

S10. DWFF should expand its education and 

outreach programs regarding the importance 

and sensitivity of GCN species and all wildlife 

species found in the state. 

- + - +- +- + - + - + - + - +

Statewide Conservation Actions — Terrestrial and Estuarine Habitats 

S11. Identify any extensive (at least 400-hectare; 

1,000-acre) forested natural communities and 

contact landowners to seek protection of the 

system through outright willing seller purchase 

and/or conservation easements. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

S12. Where present, maintain native 

community structure and composition. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

S13. Where absent, restore native community 

structure and composition. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

S14. Allow dead trees and woody debris to 

decompose naturally on the ground. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +
Appendices 353

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

S15. If logging is conducted, minimize soil 

disturbances from thinning and harvesting 

activities by conducting harvests during drier 

seasons and/or through use of 

low-tire-pressure equipment. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S16. Exclude logging, grazing, development, 

mechanized vehicle trails, and other erosiongenerating activities uphill from biologically 

significant sites. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S17. For critical and unique habitats embedded in 

a forest matrix, identify, retain, and avoid 

disturbances (e.g., roads, firebreaks, trails) near 

such embedded habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S18. Maintain or, where feasible, restore 

contiguous gradients (ecotones) into adjacent 

habitats such as floodplain forests. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S19. Exclude, and when necessary and 

feasible, remove exotic plant and 

animal species. 

+ - + + + - + + + - + ++- ++

S20. If necessary to establish wildlife openings or 

other enhancements for wildlife species within 

natural forest stands, use sites of previous 

disturbance or choose new sites that mimic 

natural disturbances to avoid unwanted impacts. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S21. Minimize construction of access roads and 

all-terrain-vehicle trails to those absolutely 

necessary to conduct maintenance activities and 

to provide minimal access to the public; where 

possible, gate existing roads, particularly during 

critical times of the year, (e.g., breeding seasons). 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S22. Minimize publicity about biologically 

significant areas to prevent collecting, 

poaching, or indiscriminate killing. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S23. Direct foot traffic (trails) away from 

sensitive habitat features such as seeps, 

ravines, coves, etc. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++
354 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

Conservation Actions for Specific Terrestrial and Estuarine Habitats 

Dry Hardwood Forest 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation 

easements to protect and promote large, 

unfragmented tracts (>1,000 acre) by protecting 

existing significant tracts. Work with Forest 

Legacy, Land Trusts, TNC and other partners. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA2. Avoid/discourage conversion to other 

forest types. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA3. Promote low-intensity controlled burns 

where ecological, safety, and property 

protection considerations allow. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA4. Control exotic plant and animal species. + - + ++- ++ + - + + + - + +

CA5. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA6. Encourage managers and landowners to 

favor mature and old-growth hardwood stands 

(because these are most often in shortest 

supply on a landscape scale). 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA7. Avoid or minimize plowed fire lines when 

possible; place fire lines where disturbance to 

sensitive natural groundcover can be avoided 

or minimized. Restore topography and natural 

vegetation where emergency plowed fire lines 

disrupt natural areas. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA8. Investigate effects of season and intensity 

of prescribed fire as a management technique. 

- - + +- - ++ - - + + - - + +
Appendices 355

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

CA9. Participate in the Alabama Prescribed 

Fire Council. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

Mesic Hardwood Forest 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation 

easements to protect and promote large, 

unfragmented tracts (>1,000 acre) by protecting 

existing significant tracts. Work with Forest 

Legacy, Land Trusts, TNC and other partners. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA2. Avoid/discourage conversion to other 

forest types. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA3. Control exotic plant and animal species. + - + + + - + + + - + ++- ++

CA4. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA5. Encourage managers and landowners to 

favor mature and old-growth hardwood stands 

(because these are most often in shortest 

supply on a landscape scale). 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

Floodplain Forest 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation 

easements to protect existing significant tracts. 

Work with NAWCA, Forest Legacy, Land 

Trusts, TNC and other partners to protect 

significant blocks of high quality examples of 

this habitat. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N NNNNN
356 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

CA2. Provide incentives and information to 

landowners for long-term conservation. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA3. Avoid/discourage conversion to 

agriculture or other forest types, and encourage 

restoration of altered habitats. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA4. Minimize, to the extent feasible, impacts 

of altered flood regimes. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

CA5. Control exotic plant and animal species. + - + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA6. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA7. Encourage managers and landowners to 

favor mature and old-growth stands. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA8. Investigate effects of season 

and intensity of prescribed fire as a 

management technique. 

- - + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

Swamp 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation easements 

to protect existing significant tracts. Work with 

NAWCA, Forest Legacy, Land Trusts, TNC and 

other partners to protect significant blocks of high 

quality examples of this habitat. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA2. Provide incentives and information to 

landowners for long-term conservation. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N

CA3. Avoid/discourage conversion to 

agriculture or other forest types, and encourage 

restoration of altered habitats. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N N N N N
Appendices 357

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

CA4. Control exotic plant and animal species. + - + + N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA5. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA6. Encourage managers and landowners to 

favor mature and old-growth stands. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA7. Investigate effects of season 

and intensity of prescribed fire as a 

management technique. 

- - + + N N N N N N N NNNNN

Glades and Prairies 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation easements 

to protect existing significant tracts. Promote large, 

unfragmented tracts by working with USFWS, 

TNC and other land conservation partners to 

identify, conserve and restore such tracts. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

CA2. Encourage maintenance of grassland 

through prescribed burning. Acceptance of 

controlled burning can be enhanced through 

public education, programs to “fire-safe” 

properties, and cost-share programs to install 

fire lines and conduct controlled burns. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

CA3. Coordinate and integrate existing 

initiatives and programs such as the Northern 

Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI) to 

influence habitat for birds and other wildlife by 

working with ADCNR, USFWS, and NRCS. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN
358 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

CA4. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N

CA5. Avoid or minimize plowed fire lines when 

possible; place fire lines where disturbance to 

sensitive natural groundcover can be avoided 

or minimized. Restore topography and natural 

vegetation where emergency plowed fire lines 

disrupt natural areas. 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N

CA6. Participate in the Alabama Prescribed 

Fire Council. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

CA7. Encourage thinning of overstocked pine 

forests by working with AFC. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

CA8. Discourage/avoid conversion of glades 

and barrens to mine sites and illegal garbage 

dump sites. Restore topography and natural 

vegetation where possible. 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N

Caves and Mines 

CA1. Acquire and protect, through proper 

gating and restricted usage, high-priority caves. 

Work with USFWS, TNC, National 

Speleological Society, Southeastern Cave 

Conservancy, American Cave Conservancy, 

Karst Waters Institute, and other partners to 

identify, conserve and restore such caves. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +
Appendices 359

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

CA2. Acquire or purchase conservation 

easements to protect surface habitats and 

watersheds of all caves supporting sensitive 

aquatic species such as Alabama cavefish and 

Tennessee Cave Salamander. Work with Forest 

Legacy and land trusts such as TNC, the 

Alabama Forest Resources Center, Alabama 

(Chattowah Open) Land Trust, and the Land 

Trust of Huntsville and North Alabama. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA3. Exclude all but legitimate scientific access 

to those caves serving as critical habitat to 

imperiled species. Work with landowners and 

cave groups such as National Speleological 

Society to restrict recreational caving to sites 

and seasons that will result in minimal impacts. 

+ - + + + - + + + - + ++- ++

CA4. Identify recharge areas for ecologically 

significant caves (surface disturbance and 

pollution distant from cave entrances can impact 

cave fauna). NSS, AGS, NRCS, USFWS. 

+ - + + + - + + + - + ++- ++

CA5. Encourage ecologically sensitive forestry 

practices on steep slopes around caves and 

sinks (AFA, AFC, NRCS). 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA6. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA7. Educate cave visitors who may 

unintentionally disturb bats and other cavedwelling species. Partner with the National 

Speleological Society and the American 

Cave Conservancy. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++
360 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

CA8. Support/promote efforts to reduce 

persistent pesticides in the surface groundwater 

recharge area by working with USFWS, NRCS, 

and local partners. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

CA9. Where absent, restore forested buffers 

around cave entrances to provide 

dispersal/foraging habitat for some species 

while improving water and air quality and 

temperature regimes. Partner with AFC and 

USFS among others. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

Isolated Wetland 

CA1. Develop a coordinated plan with local and 

federal agencies with regard to acquisition of 

property or purchase of conservation 

easements to protect existing significant 

wetlands. Protect high-quality forest tracts that 

contain isolated wetlands. Work with Longleaf 

Alliance, USFWS, TNC and other partners. 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N

CA2. Ensure that isolated wetlands on all 

publicly owned lands are fully protected from 

sedimentation, draining, and destruction. 

Partners include ADCNR-SLD, AFC, USFWS, 

USFS, and DoD. 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N

CA3. Remove fish from and/or prevent stocking 

of fish in, natural isolated ponds on public 

lands, and encourage private landowners to 

maintain some fishless ponds. Work with NRCS 

and USFS, whose 2004 Land and Resource 

Management Plan states, “Do not introduce fish 

into seasonal or sinkhole ponds.” 

+ + + +++++ N N N N N N N N
Appendices 361

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

CA4. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

CA5. Work with large industrial timberland 

owners to encourage identification and 

protection of significant wetlands and 

adjacent uplands. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA6. Avoid placing emergency plowed fire lines 

through dry wetlands when possible; restore 

topography and natural vegetation where 

emergency plowed fire lines disrupt 

wetland basins. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

CA7. Participate in the Alabama Prescribed 

Fire Council. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA8. Develop educational materials to inform 

the public of the importance of ephemeral 

wetlands. Work with Legacy, AFC, TNC, PARC, 

PIF, and others. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

CA9. Create artificial wetlands where wetlands 

have been lost. Partner with NRCS, USFS, 

USFWS, PARC. 

+ + + + + + + + N N N NNNNN

Artificial Habitats 

CA1. American Kestrel/Southeastern American 

Kestrel: Implement a nest box program in 

partnership with AOS, SABA. Agricultural lands 

afford excellent foraging, but cavities are 

limited. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + NNNN

CA2. Gopher Tortoise: Map current distribution 

on transmission line rights-of-way in partnership 

with major utilities including Alabama Power 

Company, ConocoPhillips, and others. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN
362 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

CA3. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA4. Encourage land managers to protect and 

buffer any remaining natural areas. These are the 

areas where most GCN taxa will persist, or visit. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA5. Encourage land managers to develop 

naturally vegetated corridors between 

habitat fragments. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA6. Encourage golf courses and other large 

land managers to adopt integrated pest 

management strategies to reduce chemical use. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA7. Encourage land managers to consider 

restoring natural hydrology to drained wetlands. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA8. Encourage land managers to avoid 

mowing wetlands, shorelines, and ditches midspring through mid-fall. This period is usually a 

critical time of reproduction and rearing of 

young for most vertebrate taxa. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA9. Encourage land managers to avoid 

overgrazing and keep livestock out of wetlands. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + N N N N

CA10. Control/eradicate exotic plants and animals. + - + ++- ++ + - + + + - + +

CA11. Preserve older farm buildings for wildlife 

use. Partner with historic preservation 

organizations and land trusts. 

N N N NNNNN N N N N N N N N

Cliffs and Rockhouses 

CA1. Protect best examples of this habitat through 

acquisition or easement. Work with USFWS, TNC 

and other land conservation partners. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +
Appendices 363

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

CA2. Discourage residential development of 

bluff lines. Work with local governments to 

promote restrictive zoning, or to purchase 

scenic easements, as has been done in other 

parts of the country. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA3. Support full implementation of the USFS 

Revised Management Plan, PIF bird 

conservation plans, and all applicable USFWS 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA4. Discourage destruction of cliff vegetation 

by recreational users. Work with USFS, NPS, 

and other land managing partners to educate 

the public of the fragility and significance of 

these habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

Statewide Conservation Actions — Rivers and Streams 

Aquatic GCN Species 

S24. Protect remaining free-flowing rivers and 

streams from impoundment. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N N++++

S25. Minimize activities that alter flow or 

temperature regimes in large streams and 

rivers. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S26. Operate existing dams and other water 

use facilities to minimize direct impacts to 

aquatic fauna. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

S27. Exclude point-source (industrial, 

municipal, agricultural) and nonpoint-source 

(residential, silvicultural, agricultural) pollution 

from waterways. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

S28. Avoid the introduction of non-native 

aquatic species. 

+ + + + N N N N + + + +++++
364 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

S29. Allow natural movement of sand and 

gravel: retain sand and gravel bar-related 

processes by avoiding in-stream mineral 

extraction, vehicular traffic, and other 

disruptions to streambeds. 

+ + + +NNNN + + + + + + + +

S30. Allow the natural development and 

movement of woody and rocky structure. 

Avoid desnagging. 

+ + + +NNNN + + + + + + + +

S31. Allow, or where impaired, restore the 

unimpeded development of native streambank 

vegetational composition and structure. 

- - - - NNNN + + + + + + + +

S32. Allow, or where impaired, restore the 

unimpeded development of natural processes 

such as bank dynamics, channel meanders, 

and flood regimes. 

- - - - NNNN + + + + + + + +

S33. Minimize use of fertilizers, herbicides, and 

pesticides near rivers. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

S34. Limit excessive harvest and indiscriminant 

killing of amphibian and reptile species. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +

S35. Dispose of dredge spoil to benefit nesting 

turtles. 

+ + + +NNNN + + + + N N N N

S36. Provide conservation-related educational 

materials to boaters, fishermen, and other 

recreational users of Alabama’s rivers and 

streams. 

+ + + +++++ + + + + + + + +
Appendices 365

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

Conservation Actions for Specific River Basins of Alabama 

Tennessee River Basin 

All GCN Species 

CA1. Support full implementation of the 

Tennessee Rivers Basin Management Plan, 

including all existing Tennessee drainage 

species recovery plans and relevant recovery 

or management plans developed within the 

next ten years that promote conservation of 

these GCN species and their habitats. 

+ + + + + + + + + + + +++++

CA2. Support implementation of more natural 

flow regimes and full compliance with water 

quality standards by TVA at Tennessee River, 

Elk River and Bear Creek watershed dams. In 

particular, the tailwaters of Wilson and 

Guntersville Dams are critical to the recovery of 

more GCN species than any other site in 

Alabama. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N N++++

CA3. Improve water quality and habitat quality 

throughout the basin. Support habitat and 

riparian restoration where needed by TVA, 

ADEM, local governments, Clean Water 

Partnership and other partners. 

+ + + + N N N N + + + +++++

CA4. Support expansion of the Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge to include lower 

reaches of Limestone and Piney creeks, by 

working with the USFWS, Forever Wild, TNC 

and other partners. 

+ + + + N N N N N N N NNNNN
366 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C DABCD A B C D A B C D

Mussels 

CA5. Most GCN species may require 

population augmentation and/or reintroduction 

to suitable habitats to maintain their viability. 

The most critical sites for the conservation of 

mussels in the Tennessee basin are the 

tailwaters of Wilson and Guntersville Dams, the 

Paint Rock River and Bear Creek. The genetic 

integrity of populations among drainages 

should be maintained. This work should be a 

cooperative effort of ARRC, TNARI, USFWS 

and other partners. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N + + + +

Snails 

CA6. Most GCN species may require population 

augmentation and/or reintroduction to suitable 

habitats to maintain their viability. The most 

critical sites for the conservation of snails in the 

basin are the tailwaters of the Tennessee River 

Dams. The genetic integrity of populations among 

drainages should be maintained. This work 

should be a cooperative effort of ARRC, TNARI, 

USFWS and other partners. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N + + + +

Crayfishes 

CA7. All GCN species -Interbasin transfer of 

crayfishes should be avoided under all 

circumstances because non-native species can 

rapidly increase in population and aggressively 

displace native species. 

+ + + +NNNN N N N N + + + +
Appendices 367

Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy 

ALTERNATIVES 

Wheeler Key Cave Sauta 

Cave 

Fern 

Cave 

A B C D A B C D A B C DABCD

Fishes 

CA8. Ashy Darter, Elegant Madtom, Blotchside 

Logperch, Palezone Shiner, Boulder Darter, 

Lollipop Darter, Snail Darter, Bluebreast Darter, 

Slackwater Darter, Slenderhead Darter, Bandfin 

Darter, Blueface Darter, Gilt Darter – These 

species may require population augmentation 

and/or reintroduction to suitable habitats to 

maintain their viability. This work should be a 

cooperative effort of ARRC, TARI, USFWS 

and other partners. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN

CA9. Boulder Darter - The Elk River from 

Gallus Island upstream to the TennesseeAlabama state line should be designated as 

critical habitat for this endangered species. 

This designation would also assist the recovery 

of other Elk River GCN species. 

N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNN
368 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
Appendices 369

Appendix N. Finding of No Significant Impact 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife resources 

in Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama, through the Wheeler 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to 

inform the public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Wheeler NWR Complex. 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 EA, Section B of the Draft CCP. 

ALTERNATIVES 

In developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Wheeler NWR Complex, the Fish and 

Wildlife Service evaluated four alternatives (A, B, C, and D). The Service adopted Alternative D, the 

“Preferred Alternative,” as the comprehensive conservation plan for guiding the direction of the 

Refuge Complex 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) 

Alternative A represents no change from current management of Wheeler NWR Complex. Under this 

alternative, all management actions would be directed towards achieving the Complex’s primary 

purpose(s), including (1) conserving wintering waterfowl habitat; (2) meeting the habitat conservation 

goals of national and international plans; and (3) and conserving wetlands, all while contributing to 

other national, regional, and state goals to protect and restore migratory birds, threatened and 

endangered species, and resident species. Hunting and fishing would continue to be major focuses 

of the public use program, with no expansion of current opportunities and current restrictions or 

prohibitions would remain intact. Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife observation and 

photography would remain at present levels. 

ALTERNATIVE B 

Alternative B would provide for more public use recreational opportunities, while maintaining current 

habitat and wildlife management programs. Most habitat management programs would continue. 

However, habitat improvement projects that would benefit compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities would be given a higher priority. At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for small 

game would be increased within the state hunting season framework and two additional youth fishing 

rodeos would be held annually. The 2,000-acre area surrounding Garth Slough, presently closed to all 

public entry from November 15 - January 15, would be evaluated for the possibility of opening select 

portions of the upland areas to public access. In addition, the hunting of feral hogs would be allowed 

during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, feral hogs would be added to 

the hunting permit and other hunting opportunities would be explored annually. 
370 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of 

nine new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (three photo blinds, three wildlife observation towers, a 

wildlife viewing platform, a nature trail, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and 

interpretation would be expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by 

constructing a new environmental education center at Wheeler NWR. New informational brochures 

would be published for Key Cave, Sauta Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and visitor access would be 

improved at Sauta Cave NWR. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

The primary focus under Alternative C would maximize wildlife and habitat management while 

maintaining current public use opportunities. At each refuge in the Complex, extensive wildlife, plant, 

and habitat inventories would be initiated. Studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to 

fish, wildlife, and plants would be initiated and a Complex-wide litter control program would be 

developed and implemented. Conservation efforts would increase for threatened and endangered 

species and nuisance animal species control would be increased. 

Any areas within the Complex with pumping and water control capabilities would be managed for 

moist-soil vegetation, or farmed (with 100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory 

waterfowl. Cooperative farming would be eliminated and all farming activities would be conducted via 

contracts or force account (using Complex staff and equipment). Law enforcement (LE) activities to 

protect trust resources would be intensified and a study to analyze the impacts of existing rights-ofway on refuge resources would be initiated. Results would determine if current Complex policy 

concerning easements should be altered and coordination with local planning departments would be 

increased. Land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR would remain focused on acquiring land surrounding 

the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land protection within the lower reaches of Piney and 

Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave high risk water recharge zone would be explored. 

Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation activities would continue as currently scheduled, but only 

where and when they did not detract from, or conflict with, wildlife management activities and 

objectives. All Complex lands would be closed at night to the public and select areas of high 

waterfowl use on Wheeler NWR would be closed from November 1 – March 1, reducing acreages for 

public use and eliminating all night bank fishing. 

ALTERNATIVE D (PROPOSED ACTION) 

The preferred alternative, Alternative D, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the Wheeler NWR Complex. Under Alternative D, cooperative farming would 

continue and areas with water control capabilities would be managed for moist-soil vegetation or would be 

force-account farmed (with100 percent of crops left standing) to benefit migratory waterfowl. Nuisance 

animal species control would be increased and studies necessary to reduce impacts of contaminants to 

fish, wildlife, and plants would be developed. A Complex-wide litter control program would be initiated 

and conservation efforts increased for threatened and endangered species. 

A large majority of Complex lands would be closed at night and select areas of high waterfowl use on 

Wheeler NWR would be closed from November 1 – March 1, slightly reducing acreages for public 

use. However, all six improved boat launching facilities and several other designated night bank 

fishing areas would remain open at night. A night fishing permit would be required. 
Appendices 371

Resource protection and visitor safety would be increased with additional LE activities and a study to 

analyze the impacts of existing rights-of-way on resources would be initiated. Results would 

determine if current Complex policy concerning easements should be altered. Coordination with local 

planning departments would be increased and the priority of land acquisition at Fern Cave NWR 

would remain focused on acquiring land surrounding the fifth cave entrance (Surprise Pit). Land 

protection within the lower reaches of Piney and Limestone Creeks and lands within the Key Cave 

high risk water recharge zone would be explored. 

At Wheeler NWR, the number of hunting days for small game would be increased within the state 

hunting season framework and an additional youth fishing rodeo would be held annually. Feral hogs 

would be hunted during both the large game and small game seasons. At Key Cave NWR, the 

hunting program would be evaluated annually and results would dictate if hunting should be 

expanded, reduced, or remain the same. 

Increased wildlife observation and photography opportunities would result from the construction of 

four new visitor facilities at Wheeler NWR (a photo blind, a wildlife observation tower, a wildlife 

viewing platform, and a wildlife drive). Environmental education and interpretation would be 

expanded by increasing the number of off-refuge programs and by constructing an environmental 

education center at Wheeler. New informational brochures would be published for Key Cave, Sauta 

Cave, and Fern Cave NWRs and visitor access would be improved at Sauta Cave NWR. 

SELECTION RATIONALE 

Alternative D is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the purpose and goals of each refuge in the Complex and emphasizes a balanced approach 

for addressing key issues and refuge mandates, while improving wildlife and habitat management. It 

is designed to optimize habitat management, while providing a balance of appropriate and compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational and educational programs for visitors; 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 this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the Complex will be 

protected, maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge specific goals 

and objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the proposed 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 CCP. Habitat management, population management, land 

conservation, and visitor service management activities on Wheeler NWR Complex would result in 

increased migratory bird utilization and production; increased protection for threatened and 

endangered species; enhanced wildlife populations; bottomland hardwood forest and native warm 

season grassland restoration; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Waterfowl and shorebird use of Wheeler NWR would improve significantly as intensive water 

management efforts would provide dependable flooded habitats to match the migration chronologies 

of these species. Population numbers and habitat use would be monitored and managed. 
372 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

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 

neotropical migratory birds and forest breeding birds. 

3. Land acquisition and protection at Fern Cave NWR would benefit the recovery of threatened and 

endangered species. Gray bat, Indiana bat, and Alabama cavefish recovery efforts would be fully 

supported with Complex staff and resources. 

4. The Complex’s habitat mix of cropland, early success ional reforestation areas, and bottomland 

hardwood forest, as well as areas under habitat management, would improve food and cover for 

resident wildlife species and enhance wetland communities. 

5. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, would result in improved compatible wildlife dependent recreational opportunities. 

While public use would result in some minimal, short term adverse effects on wildlife, and user 

conflicts may occur at certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time 

zoning, and implementing refuge regulations. Anticipated long term impacts to wildlife and wildlife 

habitats of implementing the management action are positive. In the long run, 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 CCP 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, native warm season grass and open wetland restoration 

within the wildlife communities of each refuge. Implementing the management action would result in 

substantial enhancement of forest, grassland, and open wetland communities and net increases to 

the Nation’s bottomland hardwood forest, grassland, and open 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. Implementation of the public use 

program would take place through carefully controlled time and space zoning, establishment of 

protection zones around key sites, closures of all-terrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails 

to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such as nesting bird habitat, etc. 

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. 
Appendices 373

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 wildlifedependent 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 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. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary would likely come 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 

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, dikes, control structures, 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. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

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 funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources 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 

This management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners and interested citizens 

Congressional representatives and local community officials 

Governor of Alabama 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) 

Alabama State Historic Preservation Officer (ASHPO) 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

Redstone Arsenal Military Base 

Conservation organizations 
374 Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

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 EA for the Wheeler NWR Complex: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 183-203). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 185). 

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. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 186-187). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 183, page 185, and page 202). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 183, page 185, and page 202). 

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. (Environmental Assessment, pages 

183-203). 

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. (Environmental Assessment, page 202). 

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. (Environmental Assessment, pages 184-185). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, pages 186-187 and pages 287-292). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 183-186). 

SUPPORTING REFERENCES 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Jackson, Lauderdale, Limestone, 

Madison, and Morgan Counties, Alabama. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Southeast Region. 
Appendices 375

DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY 

The Draft Environmental Assessment is located in Section B of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the Wheeler NWR Complex and was made available in April 2007. The Final 

EA is located in Section B of this document. Additional copies are available by writing: Wheeler NWR 

Complex, 2700 Refuge Headquarters Road, Decatur, Alabama 35603.