DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

EUFAULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Barbour and Russell Counties, Alabama and 

Stewart and Quitman Counties, Georgia 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

June 2008 
ii Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2
 

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
 

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

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Considerations ...........4
 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy .........................................5
 

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives .....................................................5
 

Relationship to State Wildlife Agencies ........................................................................................ 6
 

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................ 9
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9
 

Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 12
 

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13
 

Ecosystem Context.....................................................................................................................13
 

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..............................................................................14
 

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................14
 

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation .......................................................................................14
 

Alterations to Hydrology ....................................................................................................16
 

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................17
 

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
 

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
 

Physiography, Topography, and Soils ..............................................................................19
 

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19
 

Water Quality and Quantity ...............................................................................................19
 

Air Quality..........................................................................................................................19
 

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 20
 

Habitat............................................................................................................................... 20
 

Wildlife...............................................................................................................................31
 

Threatened and Endangered Species ..............................................................................34
 

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 35
 

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 37
 

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 39
 

Refuge Administration and Management ...................................................................................43
 

Land Protection and Conservation....................................................................................43
 

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 50
 

Personnel, Operations and Maintenance ..........................................................................53
 

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................................................. 55
 

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ...........................................................................55
 

Summary of Issues, Concerns and Opportunities ......................................................................56
 

Wildlife and Habitat Management .....................................................................................56
 

Resource Protection..........................................................................................................58
 

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

Table of Contents i 
Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................60
 

Wilderness Review..................................................................................................................... 61
 

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 63
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 63
 

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 63
 

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 64
 

Wildlife Population Management ......................................................................................64
 

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................75
 

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 82
 

Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................87
 

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 93
 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 93
 

Proposed Projects...................................................................................................................... 93
 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................93
 

Habitat Management.........................................................................................................94
 

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 94
 

Refuge Administration ......................................................................................................95
 

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 96
 

Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ...................................................................................96
 

Step-down Management Plans ..................................................................................................96
 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management .......................................................................................96
 

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 97
 

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 103
 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 103
 

Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................103
 

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 103
 

Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 104
 

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility.......................................................................104
 

Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 104
 

Public Involvement and the Planning Process .........................................................................105
 

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................ 107
 

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ...........................................................................................109
 

Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 109
 

Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 109
 

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) .............................................................109
 

Alternative B: Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Management ...........................................111
 

Alternative C: Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Public Use................................................113
 

Alternative D: Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management and Public Use Activities (Proposed 

Alternative)...................................................................................................................... 114
 

Features Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................116
 

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 117
 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................127
 

ii Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Pre-Settlement Conditions ..............................................................................................127
 

Custodial Management of Upland and Wetland Habitat .................................................127
 

Control of Lake Eufaula Water Levels .............................................................................127
 

Substantial Expansion of Recreational Opportunities .....................................................128
 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................129
 

Overview................................................................................................................................... 129
 

Effects Common to All Alternatives ..........................................................................................129
 

Environmental Justice.....................................................................................................129
 

Climate Change ..............................................................................................................129
 

Other Management .........................................................................................................130
 

Land Acquisition..............................................................................................................130
 

Cultural Resources..........................................................................................................130
 

Refuge Revenue-Sharing................................................................................................131
 

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 131
 

Summary of Effects by Alternative ...........................................................................................131
 

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) .............................................................131
 

Alternative B: Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Management ...........................................133
 

Alternative C: Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Public Use...............................................134
 

Alternative D: Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management and Public Use Activities 

(Proposed Alternative) ....................................................................................................135
 

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................143
 

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ...........................................143
 

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................143
 

Vegetation Disturbance...................................................................................................144
 

User Group Conflicts.......................................................................................................144
 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners .....................................................................................144
 

Land Ownership and Site Development ..........................................................................144
 

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 145
 

Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species .........................................................................145
 

Anticipated Impacts on Refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural Resources, Environmental 

Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ...............................149
 

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts .......................................................................................151
 

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity .......................................................................151
 

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................153
 

Overview................................................................................................................................... 153
 

Core Planning Team Members.................................................................................................154
 

Extended Planning Team Members .........................................................................................154
 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 155
 

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ...............................................................165
 

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ..............................169
 

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT..........................................................................................183
 

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments ..................................................................................183
 

Table of Contents iii 
APPENDIX V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ...............................................................187
 

APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS.....................................................................199
 

APPENDIX VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................227
 

APPENDIX VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW.........................................................................................231
 

APPENDIX IX. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 233
 

APPENDIX X. BUDGET REQUESTS ..............................................................................................245
 

APPENDIX XI. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................251
 

iv Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................................................10
 

Figure 2. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the Northeast Gulf 

Watersheds Ecosystem (#30) highlighted. ..........................................................................13
 

Figure 3. Expanding infestation of hydrilla on Lake Eufaula, 2001–2006. ..........................................18
 

Figure 4. Plant communities of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................................23
 

Figure 5. Major infestations of exotic and native weedy species on Eufaula National 

Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................................................... 36
 

Figure 6. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge management units and main features............................. 44
 

Figure 7. Croplands at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................................46
 

Figure 8. Current organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .....................98
 

Figure 9. Proposed future organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .......99
 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Habitat types and their estimated acreages, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .....................9
 

Table 5. Comparison of demographic statistics for Russell, Barbour, Stewart, and 

Table 9. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the 

Table 10. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Eufaula National 

Table 2. Natural community occurrences for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .................................21
 

Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .....................................38
 

Table 4. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry. ......................................40
 

Quitman counties, Alabama, Georgia, and the USA. ............................................................42
 

Table 6. Management units, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ..........................................................43
 

Table 7. Acreages of farm fields, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................47
 

Table 8. Summary of projects........................................................................................................... 100
 

goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan. ..........................................101
 

Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................................................................ 118
 

Table 11. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge........138
 

Table of Contents v 
vi Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge to guide the refuge’s 

management actions and direction over the next 15 years. 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 refuge or the purposes for 

which it was established. 

The plan has been prepared 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 plan also meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (Section B), which describes the 

alternatives that are being considered and their potential effects on the environment. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best meet the goals and objectives of the 

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. In developing the plan, the 

team has incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local 

citizens, and the general public. This public involvement and the planning process itself are 

described in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

This plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering 

three other alternatives, as described in the environmental assessment (Section B). It is being made 

available to federal and state agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and 

comment. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s purpose; 

attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent 

with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction; 

y provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the 

Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

y ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection and 

recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; and 

y provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance, 

and capital improvement needs. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service traces its roots to 1871 with the establishment of the Commission 

of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was 

renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its origins to 1886 through the establishment of a Division of Economic 

Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. 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 Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 

The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of 

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 U.S. 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 540 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, is 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, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 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. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

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

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

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

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

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 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 by establishing natural resources and 

2 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines 

for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to: 

y fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the 

Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans; 

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

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

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

y retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

The following describes a few examples of the Service’s 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 overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the 

once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted 

breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Depression focused on 

waterfowl 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 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people 16 years and older either fished, hunted, or observed 

wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 

percent in 7 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 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (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 (Caudill and Laughland 2003). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more 

than $22 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. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 
 

 

 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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 lands of the System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive 

conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge 

unit purposes. The plans will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, 

and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, 

and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER 

CONSIDERATIONS 

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. Please refer to Appendix III for a complete list of the relevant legal mandates. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the 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 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge and other partners such as the Alabama Division of Wildlife 

and Freshwater Fisheries; Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; the Wildlife 

Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Lake Point Resort State Park; 

Auburn University; private landowners; and others. 

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 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 

purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. These mandates are as follows: 

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 purposes. 

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

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. As priority public uses of 

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

management. 

4 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 directs the Service to ensure that the 

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuges are maintained for the benefit of 

present and future generations of Americans. This policy is an additional directive for refuge 

managers to follow while achieving the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the System. It 

provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat 

resources found on the refuges and their associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate 

management direction for refuges, refuge managers are required to use sound professional judgment 

to determine the refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at 

multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of 

refuge resources, the refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, 

including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 

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 draft comprehensive conservation plan. 

This draft comprehensive conservation plan supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan, the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, 

and the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) 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, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

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 habitat. 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, provincial, state, and municipal governments, 

nongovernmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working toward the goal 

of achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated 

species, and people. The plan’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional 

levels. These regional projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the 

North American landscape. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan 

Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area 

represents a scientifically-based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term 

maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame 

land birds have been vastly underrepresented 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 

The North American Waterbird Conservation 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 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. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

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

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

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, and contribute to the overall health and sustainability of fish and wildlife species 

in the States of Alabama and Georgia. 

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

and protection 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, 3 fish hatcheries, 2 waterfowl refuges, 2 wildlife sanctuaries, 34 wildlife management areas, 

and a mariculture center. It also administers more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set aside for 

wildlife purposes. 

6 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ (GADNR’s) Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD) 

manages 94 wildlife management areas on approximately 1 million acres, as well as public fishing 

areas and other natural areas. The Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites Division (GASPHS) is 

charged with managing the state’s park lands and historic sites. The GASPHS manages 48 state 

parks and 15 historic parks that encompass more than 800,000 acres. In addition, the state agencies 

provide and direct public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program 

on wildlife management areas and parks. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 
8 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1964 through community support and in 

cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and 

other migratory and resident wildlife. The refuge provides habitat and protection for endangered and 

threatened species such as the wood stork and the occasional peregrine falcon. The refuge 

landscape offers a diverse contrast to adjacent land uses. A mixture of wetlands, croplands, 

woodlands, grasslands and open water creates a mosaic of wildlife-rich habitats. Table 1 shows the 

current estimated acreages of the habitat types on Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge 

provides valuable wintering habitat for migrating waterfowl, and resting and nesting habitat for 

numerous neotropical migrant birds. 

Eufaula NWR is located on both banks of the Chattahoochee River in southeast Alabama and 

southwest Georgia (Figure 1). The refuge is superimposed on the Walter F. George Reservoir 

(also referred to as Lake Eufaula), a river and harbor project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The reservoir was created from the impoundment of the Chattahoochee River between Alabama 

and Georgia. Named after the city of Eufaula, the refuge provides 11,184 acres of land and water 

for public enjoyment in a wide range of outdoor activities. The refuge covers 7,953 acres in 

Barbour and Russell counties, Alabama, and 3,231 acres in Stewart and Quitman counties, 

Georgia. The refuge also administers a conservation easement program covering 44 counties in 

Georgia and Alabama. Eighteen of these counties are located in Alabama and 26 in Georgia. 

There are 19 conservation easements in 11 counties (Alabama and Georgia) totaling 1,360 acres, 

and three fee title tracts in three counties (Georgia) totaling 591 acres. The refuge also manages 

one conservation easement for Ducks Unlimited in Russell County, Alabama. The refuge is 

crossed by U.S. Highway 431, Gammage Road, and Georgia Route 39. A natural gas pipeline and 

a sewer right-of-way for Lake Point Resort State Park also cross the refuge. 

Table 1. Habitat types and their estimated acreages, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Habitat Type Acres 

Administration 74 

Wetlands 3,560 

Croplands 775 

Forested 2,600 

Successional Old Fields 175 

Open Water 4,000 

Total 11,184 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 
Figure 1. Location of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

10 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

Eufaula NWR lies on the eastern edge of the Mississippi Flyway. Peak wintering populations of 

ducks reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. Recently, the refuge’s duck populations have peaked 

at 12,000–20,000. Few migrant geese visit Eufaula NWR, but more than 2,000 Canada geese are 

residents. Large breeding populations of raptors such as bald eagles and osprey are becoming more 

common on the refuge. High populations of herons and other marsh birds are supported by the 

habitat. An abundance of other migratory birds and wildlife is present seasonally. 

The Georgia unit of the refuge consists of shoreline along the Chattahoochee River and the Bradley 

Impoundment. The Bradley Impoundment is composed of wetlands, agricultural fields, and 

timberlands. The Alabama portion of the refuge includes the Davis Clark Unit, the Kennedy 

impoundment, the Houston Unit, the Molnar Unit, the Upland Unit, and many miles of shoreline along 

the western edge of the Chattahoochee River and Lake Eufaula. The land on the Alabama portion is 

a mosaic of wetlands, croplands, woodlands, and grasslands. 

Eufaula NWR is a significant component in the region’s recreational opportunities. The refuge’s 

Management Information System (RMIS) showed 371,251 visits to the refuge in 2002 (Caudill and 

Henderson 2003). Fishing and nature observation were the most popular activities with 129,959 and 

101,190 visits, respectively. Deer hunters accounted for 8,700 visits in 2002. The auto tour route 

attracted 35,974 motorists, and a small proportion of these people walked the nature trails or used 

the observation platform. The local economy significantly benefits from the refuge. In 2002, refuge 

visitors spent $7 million related to refuge recreation. This resulted in $5.6 million in local final 

demand, $2.4 million in earnings, and 125 jobs attributable to refuge visitation (Caudill and 

Henderson 2003). 

The Muscogee Creek Indians once inhabited the land now known as the Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. Hardwood trees dominated the landscape and the river’s edges were filled with Muscogee 

Creek Indian villages. In the 1800s, European settlers moved into the area and a prosperous town 

developed. The town, which served as a port city for steamboats along the Chattahoochee River, was 

named Irwinton after its founder. Irwinton’s name was later changed to Eufaula in honor of a local 

Indian tribe. As the town of Eufaula expanded, the hardwood trees were cleared for agriculture. After 

World War II, local residents reforested the previously cleared land with pine plantations. In 1963, the 

Corps of Engineers impounded a portion of the Chattahoochee River to improve navigation. The dam 

created Lake Walter F. George (Lake Eufaula). Local Eufaulians wanted to provide a place for 

migratory waterfowl and other resident wildlife, while protecting beautiful natural scenery. In 1964, the 

residents were pleased by the creation of the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. This positive bond 

between the refuge and the greater Eufaula community still exists today, four decades later. 

The composition and distribution patterns of ecological communities within the greater Eufaula area 

have been significantly altered by the influence of humanity. Prior to the arrival of European 

immigrants and Euro-American settlers, the Native Americans, like humans everywhere, had shaped 

and modified the land to suit their purposes. Using simple but effective stone tools and controlled 

burning, the Creek Indians and other indigenous tribes had long since cleared parts of the eastern 

forest for agriculture. The resulting patchwork of garden plots, abandoned fields and woodlands had, 

in turn, increased habitat diversity for wildlife, thus adding to the variety and quantity of game 

available. Far from a virgin and primeval wilderness as many believed, North America was an 

already transformed landscape when Europeans first reached its shores. The effects of human 

occupation upon the natural vegetation of the region are readily apparent. To accommodate the 

progress of humanity, forests were cleared and burned and wetlands were drained, which was soon 

followed by a series of events that would forever alter the landscape. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 
 

Prior to government acquisition, most of the refuge lands were in agriculture and poorly managed 

forests. Game animal populations were low. The refuge’s 1964 Narrative Report (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1964) states, “refuge personnel have not observed any deer or deer signs 

on the refuge.” Additionally, wild turkeys were also noted as absent from the refuge. However, 

waterfowl were plentiful according to the 1964 Narrative. Gradual reforestation efforts, providing early 

successional habitats near cropland areas, and sound forestry practices have improved upland 

habitat for many species and provide a contrast to the short-rotation pine silviculture that is present 

on neighboring lands. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to 

fulfill the purpose for which it was established but also the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. If there is a conflict between the two, the purposes for which the refuge was established 

takes precedence. 

The establishing and acquisition authorities for Eufaula NWR include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667-E), and 76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d. These 

documents state that the refuge: 

1. “... shall be administered directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements... and in 

accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation and maintenance, and 

management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon ...” 

2. “... be suitable for (a) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (b) the 

protection of natural resources, (c) the conservation of endangered or threatened species ...” 

Specifically, the objectives for Eufaula NWR are: 

y	 To provide food, water, and shelter to support 2,650,000 use days for waterfowl, and 

2,000,000 use days for other migratory birds. 

y	 Provide wood duck nesting and brood-rearing habitat to produce 2,100 birds annually. 

y	 Protect, restore, and enhance refuge lands to ensure the survival of endangered and 

threatened plant and animal species. 

y	 Provide for the continued public use and enjoyment of the refuge and its resources through 

wildlife observation and interpretation opportunities, environmental education, and hunting and 

fishing programs. 

Eufaula NWR was established to provide food and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl and wood 

ducks. Objectives are achieved through a habitat management program involving six impoundment 

complexes using pumps and water control structures. Row crops and moist soil management 

techniques are used to produce waterfowl foods. An upland agricultural program, prescribed fire, 

reforestation, timber thinning, and invasive plant control are used to enhance diversity for game and 

nongame species and their habitats. 

12 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge does not include any lands under special designation. That is, it 

does not contain Congressionally-designated Wilderness Areas, federally-designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, demonstration areas, or research natural areas. In addition, oil and gas activities do 

not occur on the refuge. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, 

drawn primarily along watershed boundaries (Figure 2). Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge lies within 

the Northeast Gulf Watersheds Ecosystem (formerly the Florida Panhandle Watersheds), which 

spans portions of Florida, Alabama, and Georgia (USFWS n.d.b). 

The Service’s Northeast Gulf Ecosystem (NEG) Team has developed a strategic planning approach 

using sub-teams to address conservation issues for which the Service has responsibility (i.e., trust 

resources). The sub-teams are oriented to identify and resolve habitat-based impacts upon coastal 

and inland wetlands, endangered species, migratory birds, water quality and quantity, and longleaf 

pine restoration. Partnerships with other agencies and concerned groups are used to accomplish the 

team’s objectives. Eufaula NWR has provided both staff time and refuge funding to assist in meeting 

the biological goals and objectives of the NEG Team. 

Figure 2. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the Northeast Gulf 

Watersheds Ecosystem (#30) highlighted. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 
 

Eufaula NWR has a special role to play in the conservation of migratory birds. Suitable wintering or 

nesting habitat for species including the wood stork, prothonotary warbler, common ground-dove, 

sandhill crane, bald eagle, bobwhite quail, least bittern, American kestrel, LeConte’s sparrow, and 

others occur on the refuge. Utilizing recommendations from the Partners in Flight “Bird Conservation 

Plan for The East Gulf Coastal Plan” has helped increased awareness and improved capabilities to 

provide both seasonal and breeding habitat for many species. The refuge is a focal area for migratory 

waterfowl in Chattahoochee River valley. Wintering waterfowl populations of ducks peaked at over 

40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent years, wintering counts average around 15,000 (USFWS 2003a). 

Few migrant geese visit the refuge, but a there is a resident Canada goose population of 

approximately 2,000. Bald eagles and osprey are increasingly common, as are other breeding and 

wintering raptors. The refuge’s habitats support large numbers of waterbirds, including herons, 

egrets, and other marshbirds. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in 2002. Under this new program, Congress 

provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and 

implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement 

of SWG was for each state to complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by 

October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and focus management on 

“species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be used to manage and 

conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

The State of Alabama’s CWCS effort began when the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

sponsored the 2002 Nongame Conference that assembled scientists and stakeholders to compile the 

best available information on Alabama's wildlife. This two-year effort resulted in a comprehensive 

four-volume publication entitled, Alabama Wildlife, which is the foundation for the Alabama CWCS. 

The Alabama CWCS was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in November 2005 (ADCNR 

n.d.). This CWCS defines those wildlife species in greatest need of conservation in Alabama and 

describes the actions necessary for their restoration. 

In December 2002, the Georgia Wildlife Resources Division began the process to develop a 

comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for Georgia. The goal is to conserve Georgia’s animals, 

plants, and natural habitats through proactive measures emphasizing voluntary and incentive-based 

programs on private lands; habitat restoration and management by public agencies and private 

conservation organizations; rare species survey and recovery efforts; and environmental education 

and public outreach activities. The Georgia CWCS was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in August 2005 (GADNR n.d.). 

The states’ participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in the 

states of Alabama and Georgia. An essential part of the comprehensive planning process is the 

integration of common mission objectives, where appropriate. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

Over the past two centuries, as civilization spread throughout the region, ever-increasing needs for 

transportation, housing, water supply, electricity, food, and waste disposal have led to dramatic 

alterations of the landscape. The greatest alteration has been from land clearing for agriculture and 

14 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

flood control projects. Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living, they 

have also had a tremendous negative impact on biological diversity, biological integrity, and 

environmental health. The underlying threats to biological diversity include: 

y	 Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high quality habitat due to development; 

y	 Loss of natural shoreline as a result of development, hydrologic modifications, natural erosion, 

bulkheading, shoreline armoring, and inadequate coastal engineering; and 

y	 Lack of monitoring and regulation to protect fish and wildlife resources. 

More generally, threats to biodiversity across the variety of habitat types represented in Northeast Gulf 

Watersheds Ecosystem are posed by invasive species, overuse of resources, pollution, global climate 

change, improper practices of fire suppression, and most of all, habitat loss and fragmentation. 

As a consequence of these threats, all manner of habitats in this ecosystem have seen their acreages 

reduced. Forested wetlands and marshes are disappearing rapidly. Immense areas of bottomland 

hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments. These range from a few large areas of more 

than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the original functions and values of bottomland 

hardwood forest, to very small tracts just a few acres in size possessing limited functional value. 

Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Gulf 

Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in Alabama and Georgia. The 

species most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special 

habitat. Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species, 

primarily through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 280 species of breeding 

migratory songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species 

have declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These 

species need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence. 

The avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive 

(dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; 

those that depend on special habitat requirements like mature forests or a particular food source; and 

those that depend on good water quality. Species such as the prothonotary warbler, cerulean 

warbler, and, in particular, Bachman’s warbler, have declined significantly and will require the benefits 

of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as 

biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed 

most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of 

connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife 

between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The 

severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and 

diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable 

to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel 

corridors to allow movement is of critical importance. 

Increased urbanization is occurring along the Chattahoochee River around the town of Eufaula and 

the Highway 431 corridor. Commercial, industrial, and residential development continues to swallow 

farmland and natural areas at an alarming rate. Although many portions of the refuge are still 

surrounded by large agricultural tracts, this may decline in the next 10–20 years. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands 

and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on 

topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to 

forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships. 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, 

significant alterations have occurred in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel 

modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation. Aquatic systems have also been 

degraded from the effects of excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 

Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of 

flooding throughout the entire watershed, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in 

comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an 

enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. 

In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due to 

atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include erosion, 

sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather disturbances. 

Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in 

the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of 

native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to 

movement prevent anadromous fish—including striped bass, gulf sturgeon and Alabama shad—from 

reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many other aquatic species have similarly 

become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from land surface pollution runoff are 

exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural wetland is complicated by the 

fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, 

and animal complexes and processes. 

The recent “water wars” between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over flow rates into and through the 

Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint basin have not been resolved. Reduced flow rates could have severe 

impacts upon wetland habitats along the Chattahoochee and affect management of refuge 

impoundments. Other river management issues include the proliferation of hydrilla and other exotic 

plants; sewage disposal by boaters; shoreline erosion; and the threat of exotic fish (i.e., bigheaded carp). 

Currently, Eufaula NWR has limited regulatory authority to address these problems. Finding solutions will 

require strong partnerships among the refuge, the Corps of Engineers, and state agencies. 

SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 

Over a century ago, floodwaters and storms recharged aquatic and terrestrial habitats and created 

rich, dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife. Currently, however, 

water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. Rivers and water bodies 

throughout the ecosystem are filling in with silt. They are highly turbid, laden with pesticides, and 

support a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. Declines in fish, wildlife, and 

habitats have prompted the Service to designate the coastal habitats found in this ecosystem as 

areas of special concern. 

16 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of 

deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an 

accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water 

bodies are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface areas and depths. 

Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the 

area’s remaining aquatic resources. 

Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow 

lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. The protection, conservation, and restoration of these 

aquatic resources consequently take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated 

with flood control and navigation. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation like alligator-weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding 

and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable 

for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the 

introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening 

viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation 

important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use. 

Various species of nonnative wildlife and fish also flourish in this temperate climate. Animals like the 

nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and many, like feral hogs, have caused 

extensive habitat damage and alterations. 

Exotic and invasive weedy species in moist soil areas, agricultural fields, wetlands, and forest edges 

can potentially overwhelm management efforts and devastate plant and animal diversity on the 

refuge. Feral hogs have become persistent annual pests in the Bradley Impoundment in Georgia, 

and it is only a matter of time before they expand into the refuge on the Alabama side. Hydrilla now 

occurs in refuge waters (Figure 3); it is expanding and poses severe implications for the refuge’s 

fishery and other aquatic resources. Treating and managing invasive species is a complex issue. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Eastern Alabama (Russell and Barbour counties) and western Georgia (Stewart and Quitman), where 

the refuge is located, have a humid, warm-temperate, continental climate typical of the southeastern 

United States. The average yearly rainfall is over 51 inches, with rainfall reasonably well distributed 

throughout the year, although winter is the wettest season. March is the wettest month at 6.1 inches 

and October is the driest at 2.32 inches (USFWS 2005). Tropical storms or hurricanes coming from 

the Gulf of Mexico may occasionally bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually 

bring the heaviest rains, are rarely accompanied by hail and tornadoes. Drought conditions during 

the summer may increase the danger of fire. The average annual snowfall is less than an inch. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 
Figure 3. Expanding infestation of hydrilla on Lake Eufaula, 2001–2006. 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2007 

18 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

January is usually the coldest month, with an average temperature of 47 degrees Fahrenheit. July is 

normally the hottest, with temperatures averaging about 80 degrees (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 2006). Winters are mild, with temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. 

Summers are hot and humid with heat indexes commonly reaching 110 to 115 degrees. Humidity averages 

90% during summer. The average growing season is 230 days (University of Alabama 2006). 

PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS 

The refuge is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic region (Stein et al. 2000). 

Typical vegetation types found include southern mixed forest, oak-hickory-pine, and southern yellow 

pine (loblolly-shortleaf, loblolly-longleaf) mixed with intervening floodplain forests (Kuchler 1964). 

Major stream drainages include Cowickee, Wylaunee, Rood, Bustahatchee, and Soapstone. 

The refuge’s elevations range from 185 to 270 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Its upland and 

terrace soils are classified as fine sandy loams, deep to moderately deep, well drained, gentle sloping 

to level. Examples include the Blanton-Bonneau complex, Wickham, Amite, and Flint. Soil water 

movement ranges from freely moving to slow. Soils within the marshes, swamps, and floodplains 

vary from fine sandy loams to alluvial clays. These soils are very deep, poorly drained deposited on 

acid clayey sediments or fluvial and marine terraces. Examples include Bladen, Pelham, and the 

Annemaine-Wahee complex. 

HYDROLOGY 

Almost 36% (4,000 acres) of Eufaula NWR is open water, mostly Lake Eufaula. The refuge 

manages 16 impoundments that are flooded for waterfowl management. The refuge has six 

managed wetland units. The Bradley (750 acres), Houston (210 acres), and Kennedy (450 acres) 

units consist of inlet pumps to fill and outlet pumps to dewater. The Uplands (40 acres), Goose 

Pen (15 acres), and Molnar (25 acres) units are all filled by inlet pumps, but are drained by gravityflow water control structures. Creeks found on the refuge include the North Fork Cowickee, Middle 

Fork Cowickee, Wylaynee, and Little Barbour in Alabama; and the Soapstone, Bustahatchee, 

Rood, and Grass in Georgia. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Water quality remains a long-term concern as siltation, pesticides, treated and untreated wastewater, 

and nitrogen accumulation may eventually adversely impact aquatic resources. The refuge does not 

conduct water testing and relies on monitoring by the appropriate state agencies. The Corps of 

Engineers controls refuge water levels in a manner contradictory for good waterfowl management. 

More immediate benefits would occur to refuge wildlife if the Corps would modify its management of 

the water levels. Maintaining a lower pool elevation during summer would provide habitat for wading 

birds and migratory shorebirds and allow for moist soil plants to grow for wintering waterfowl use. 

Due to the Corps’ navigational and flood control objectives for the Walter F. George Reservoir and 

the Chattahoochee River, this change is unlikely. 

AIR QUALITY 

Compared to other counties in the United States, Russell County, Alabama, has relatively high 

emissions of air pollutants. The county’s emissions rank in the 90th percentile for carbon monoxide; 

70th percentile for nitrogen oxide; 80th percentile for PM-25 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns in 

diameter); 60th percentile for PM-10; 70th percentile for sulfur dioxide; and 70th percentile for volatile 

organic compounds (Scorecard 2005). 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 
However, Russell County’s actual ambient air quality—the air to which its residents, flora, and fauna 

are exposed and actually breathe—is relatively good. Its overall Air Quality Index is in the 30th 

percentile of counties nationwide, and its 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations are in the 20th 

percentile. Its PM-2.5, 24-hour average concentration is in the 30th percentile; its PM-10, 24-hour 

average concentration is in the 0–10th percentile range; and its PM-10 annual average concentration 

is in the 20th percentile. The only ambient air parameter of concern is the PM-2.5 annual average 

concentration, which is in the 70th percentile. Overall health risks, as judged by the number of 

person-days that exceed the national air quality standards for PM-2.5, are in the 1–10th percentile 

range (Scorecard 2005). 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge contains a fragmented assemblage of managed and naturally 

occurring wetlands, interspersed with a mosaic of hardwood forests, pine hardwood uplands, 

successional fields, and active agricultural lands. The Service contracted with The Nature 

Conservancy’s Alabama Natural Heritage Program (ANHP) to conduct a natural community and rare 

plant survey of the refuge, which was published in 2001–2002 (Schotz 2002). This survey identified 

21 distinct natural plant associations or communities on the refuge, which are listed in Table 2 and 

shown in Figure 4. The most ubiquitous plant communities included the Upland Pine Forest and 

Upland Mixed Forest. Each of these 21 communities is briefly described below. 

Upland Pine Forest 

Historically, this forest type constituted the upland, well-drained portion of the once-extensive longleaf 

pine ecosystem that stretched from southeastern Virginia to east Texas. Under ideal conditions 

where frequent fire is allowed to burn every two to ten years, this system will assume an open and 

park-like appearance consisting of widely spaced longleaf pine and a ground cover of perennial 

grasses and forbs interspersed with a scattering of small oaks and shrubs. Formerly widespread 

throughout southern Alabama, examples have now been reduced to small, isolated remnants that 

occupy low ridges and slopes. One type is currently known from Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge: 

y Pinus palustris – Pinus (echinata, taeda) – Quercus (incana, margarettiae, falcata, laevis) 

Woodland 

[Longleaf Pine – (Shortleaf Pine, Loblolly Pine) – (Bluejack Oak, Sand Post Oak, Southern Red 

Oak, Turkey Oak) Woodland] 

The examples at Eufaula are represented by an open canopy of longleaf and shortleaf pines (Pinus 

palustris and P. echinata, respectively), with a high incidence of hardwoods that include mockernut 

hickory (Carya tomentosa); bluejack oak (Quercus incana); southern red oak (Q. falcata); sand post 

oak (Q. margarettiae); post oak (Q. stellata); and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). In addition to 

specimens of the foregoing canopy species, the understory is comprised of a low diversity of trees, 

shrubs, and vines, including Alabama black cherry (Prunus alabamensis); water oak (Quercus nigra); 

yellow hawthorn (Crataegus flava); winged sumac (Rhus copallina); sassafras (Sassafras albidum); 

sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum); dwarf blueberry (V. darrowii); poison oak (Toxicodendron 

toxicarium); muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia); and various briers (Smilax bona-nox, S. glauca, S. 

rotundifolia). For the most part, the herbaceous component is relatively sparse and irregularly 

distributed, and composed of herbaceous perennials which either benefit directly from the effects of 

growing season fire or from the open canopy. 

20 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 2. Natural community occurrences for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Scientific Name Common Name Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

No. of 

EORs 

Pinus palustris – Pinus (echinata, taeda) 

– Quercus (incana, margarettiae, 

falcata, laevis) Woodland 

Upland Pine Forest G? S1 1 

Quercus hemisphaerica – Quercus 

(falcata, nigra) / Ilex opaca – Vaccinium 

arboreum / Cnidoscolus stimulosus 

Forest 

Coastal Plain Dry – Mesic 

Oak Forest 

G2G3 S1 0 

Pinus taeda – Quercus falcata – 

Quercus alba / Ostrya virginiana / 

Chasmanthium sessiliflorum Forest 

Upland Mixed Forest G4G5 S2 0 

Quercus falcata – Quercus alba – Carya 

tomentosa / Oxydendrum arboreum / 

Vaccinium stamineum Forest 

Upland Hardwood Forest G4G5 S2 0 

Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus 

(nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda / 

Vaccinium elliottii – Morella cerifera 

Forest 

Upland Mixed Forest G5 S5 0 

Quercus pagoda – Quercus nigra / 

Halesia diptera – Ilex decidua / 

Chasmanthium sessiliflorum – Dicliptera 

brachiata Forest 

Bottomland Forest G4? S1 1 

Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus 

americana / Carpinus caroliniana / 

Boehmeria cylindrica Forest 

Bottomland Forest G4? S2 0 

Pinus taeda Planted Forest Loblolly Pine Plantation G5 S5 0 

Quercus pagoda Planted Forest Cherrybark Oak 

Plantation 

G5 S5 0 

Quercus acutissima Planted Forest Sawtooth Oak Plantation G5 S5 0 

Successional Field Successional Field G5 S5 0 

Quercus phellos – Quercus nigra – 

Quercus alba / Chasmanthium 

sessiliflorum Forest 

Bottomland Forest G3G4 S1 1 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 
 

 

Scientific Name Common Name Global 

Rank 

State 

Rank 

No. of 

EORs 

Quercus phellos / Carex (albolutescens, 

intumescens, joorii) – Chasmanthium 

sessiliflorum / Sphagnum lescurii Forest 

Willow Oak Depression G2G3 S1 1 

Nyssa biflora / Itea virginica – 

Cephalanthus occidentalis Depression 

Forest 

Gum Swamp G3G4 S1 1 

Nyssa biflora – Quercus nigra – 

Quercus laurifolia – Pinus taeda / Ilex 

opaca – Carpinus caroliniana Forest 

Oak Depression Swamp G5 S1 0 

Liriodendron tulipifera – Nyssa biflora – 

Magnolia virginiana / Toxicodendron 

vernix – Morella heterophylla / Osmunda 

regalis Forest 

Baygall G2G3 S1 0 

Salix nigra Temporary Flooded 

Shrubland 

Black Willow Swamp G5 S3 0 

Hypericum fasciculatum / Rhynchospora 

(chapmanii, harperi) Shrubland 

Coastal Plain Depression 

Marsh 

G2G3 S1 0 

Panicum hemitomon – Pluchea 

(camphorata, rosea) – Ludwigia spp. 

Herbaceous Vegetation 

Maidencane Marsh G3? S2 0 

Eleocharis microcarpa – Juncus repens 

– Rhynchospora corniculata – 

(Mercardonia acuminata, Proserpinaca 

spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation 

Coastal Plain Depression 

Marsh 

G2G3 S1 0 

Nelumbo lutea Herbaceous Vegetation American Lotus Aquatic 

Wetland 

G3G4 S2 0 

Impounded Areas Impounded Areas G5 S5 0 

Source: Schotz (2002) Total Number of Communities: 22

 Total Number of EORs: 5 

[NOTE: An element is any exemplary or rare component of the natural environment, such as a species, natural 

community, bird rookery, sinkhole, or other ecological feature. An Element Occurrence (EO) represents the 

location of an element and is the environment which sustains a species’ population or an example of a natural 

community. The Element Occurrence Record (EOR) is the computerized record that contains the biological 

and location information regarding a specific EO.] 

22 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Figure 4. Plant communities of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Definition of Heritage Ranks 

The Alabama Natural Heritage Program uses the Heritage ranking system developed by The Nature 

Conservancy. Each species is assigned two ranks; one representing its rangewide or global status (G rank), 

and one representing its status in the state (S rank). Communities or species with a rank of 1 are most critically 

imperiled; those with a rank of 5 are most secure. 

Global Ranking State Ranking 

G1 Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer S1 Critically imperiled in Alabama because 

 occurrences) of extreme rarity (5 or fewer 

 occurrences of very few remaining 

G2 Imperiled globally (6 to 20 occurrences) individuals or acres) or because of some

 factor(s) making it especially vulnerable 

G3	 Either very rare and local throughout its to extirpation from Alabama. 

range or found locally in a restricted 

range (21 to 100 occurrences) S2 Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to 

 20 occurrences or few remaining 

G4 Apparently secure globally individuals or acres) or because of some

 factor(s) making it very vulnerable to 

G5 Demonstrably secure globally extirpation from Alabama 

G? Not ranked to date S3 Rare of uncommon in Alabama (on the

 order of 21 to 100 occurrences) 

S4 Apparently secure in Alabama with 

 many occurrences

 S5 Demonstrably secure in Alabama and

 essentially “ineradicable” under present 

 conditions 

Upland Hardwood Forest and Upland Mixed Forest 

Upland hardwood and upland mixed forests are currently found throughout Alabama, but their 

composition varies with the transition from a warm nearly subtropical forest in the South to a cool 

temperate flora in the North. In addition, the composition and abundances of species, as well as the 

structure and dynamics of these forests, are greatly affected by complex disturbance regimes that 

vary at different scales over space and time. Most recently, as well demonstrated at Eufaula, 

anthropogenic disturbance has complemented natural disturbance regimes, thus further modifying 

ecological processes. Hence, combinations of species and natural communities not present upon the 

Eufaula landscape during pre-settlement times are currently being formed. Given the above 

conditions, four associations are presently recognized from Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge: 

y	 Quercus hemisphaerica – Quercus (falcata, nigra) / Ilex opaca – Vaccinium arboreum / 

Cnidoscolus stimulosus Forest 

[Upland Laurel Oak – (Southern Red Oak, Water Oak) / American Holly – Tree Sparkleberry / 

Tread-softly Forest 

24 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

This association is predominantly comprised of upland laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica) in the 

canopy, often in accompaniment with a lesser frequency of post oak (Q. stellata); southern red oak 

(Q. falcata); water oak (Q. nigra); sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua); blackgum; and loblolly pine. 

Characteristic taxa of the open understory are well represented by the foregoing canopy species, as 

well as an assortment of small trees and shrubs, including tree sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum); 

Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii); horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria); American holly (Ilex opaca); 

black cherry (Prunus serotina); sebastian bush (Sebastiana fruticosa); sand holly (Ilex ambigua); and 

dwarf pawpaw (Asimina parviflora). The herbaceous component is typically very sparse with lowgrowing briers (Smilax glauca, S. bona-nox), panicled tick-trefoil (Desmodium paniculatum), and 

partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) appearing most conspicuous. 

y Pinus taeda – Quercus falcata – Quercus alba / Ostrya virginiana / Chasmanthium sessiliflorum 

Forest 

[Loblolly Pine – Southern Red Oak, White Oak / Hop Hornbeam / Longleaf Spanglegrass Forest] 

This community type is poorly represented on Eufaula, where it is narrowly confined to a complex of 

gently rolling slopes overlooking the backwaters along the west side of the Chattahoochee River. 

Examples are close canopies being codominated by loblolly and shortleaf pines, with some 

combination of southern red oak, upland laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica), white oak (Q. alba), 

and water oak (Q. nigra). Accenting the foregoing assemblage is a lesser frequency of post oak, 

mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and sweetgum. Of special interest is the presence of an 

occasional longleaf pine, suggesting that this association may represent a transition zone between 

the hardwood-dominated bottomlands and the fire-maintained uplands. 

y Quercus falcata – Quercus alba – Carya tomentosa / Oxydendrum arboreum / Vaccinium 

stamineum Forest 

[Southern Red Oak – White Oak – Mockernut Hickory / Sourwood / Deerberry Forest] 

This association contains vegetation that can be described as a dry-mesic oak-hickory forest. A 

widespread association of the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain, its presence on Eufaula is limited 

to a small tract along the north side of Cowikee Creek, just west of U. S. Highway 431. The canopy is 

dominated by southern red oak, water oak, pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and mockernut hickory, 

with lesser amounts of upland laurel oak, white oak, and sweetgum. The subcanopy and shrub strata 

are comprised of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); winged elm (Ulmus alata); hoary azalea 

(Rhododendron canescens); tree sparkleberry; sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum); red maple (Acer 

rubrum var. rubrum); beautyberry (Callicarpa americana); dwarf pawpaw (Asimina parviflora); downy 

serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea); and hog plum (Prunus umbellata), among others. 

y Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus (nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda / Vaccinium elliottii – Morella 

cerifera Forest 

[Sweetgum – (Water Oak, Willow Oak) – Loblolly Pine / Elliott’s Blueberry – Southern Bayberry 

Forest] 

Undoubtedly the most ubiquitous community type on Eufaula, this association contains a mixture of 

upland and lowland species that typically occur together following the cessation of agriculture. It is 

primarily dominated by hardwood trees, particularly sweetgum, water oak, and willow oak (Quercus 

phellos). However, this forest type occurs in two distinct phases: one with an emergent canopy of 

large loblolly pine, and the other without the emergent canopy. Coverage by Pinus taeda in the Pinus 

taeda phase ranges from 10 to greater than 60%. As the hardwoods mature, the pines gradually 

decrease in abundance, becoming only a minor component in the canopy. The closed canopy is 

characterized by a prominence of sweetgum and various oaks, most notably water and willow oaks. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 
 

The understory exhibits a high variability in structure and composition, with the greatest density of 

shrubs and small trees occurring in early successional stages. Vines are an important component of 

this association and include trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans); yellow jessamine (Gelsemium 

sempervirens); poison ivy; muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia); and seemingly a prominence of briers 

(Smilax laurifolia, S. glauca, S. rotundifolia, S. bona-nox). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

japonica), an opportunistic exotic species, has become well established in several areas. The 

herbaceous layer may be sparse, particularly if shrubs and vines are dense. 

Bottomland Floodplain Forests 

Southern floodplain forests have undergone some of the most rapid reductions in size and changes 

in floral composition than nearly any other forest biome in the United States, and are therefore of 

critical conservation concern. Many have been and are continually being converted to farmland, 

industrial parks, or are modified by urban and suburban expansion. Other bottomlands are 

managed for timber production or as recreational areas in ways that reduce their viability as natural 

wetland habitats. Nonetheless, an understanding of the distribution, physical and biotic 

characteristics, and functional properties of these systems are critical toward establishing 

appropriate criteria for their use and long-term preservation. 

Floodplain forests are found wherever streams or rivers flood at least occasionally beyond their 

channels. In the southeastern United States, these forests are broadly classified into three general 

categories: bottomland forests, floodplain forests, and deepwater alluvial swamps, each being 

defined by the frequency and timing of annual flooding. Floodplain ecosystems are highly variable in 

size, ranging from broad alluvial valleys several miles wide to more narrow strips of streambank 

vegetation. On Eufaula, these forest associations exist as narrow remnants along the Chattahoochee 

River, two of which are currently recognized. 

y	 Quercus pagoda – Quercus nigra / Halesia diptera – Ilex decidua / Chasmanthium sessiliflorum – 

Dicliptera brachiata Forest 

[Cherrybark Oak – Water Oak / Two-wing Silverbell – Deciduous Holly / Longleaf Spanglegrass - 

Mudwort Forest] 

Occurring as a narrow corridor along the Chattahoochee River in the northernmost sector of Eufaula 

NWR, this association is represented by a codominance of cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), water 

oak, sweetgum, and loblolly pine in the canopy. More widely distributed, but seldom absent from the 

canopy, is a suite of secondary species, including winged elm; post oak; swamp chestnut oak 

(Quercus michauxii); black cherry (Prunus serotina); persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); and water 

hickory (Carya aquatica). The understory is open and park-like, containing a representation of the 

foregoing canopy associates, in addition to a scattering of small trees and shrubs such as deciduous 

holly (Ilex decidua); American holly; American elm (Ulmus americana); two-wing silverbell (Halesia 

diptera); dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor); and red maple (Acer rubrum). The herbaceous component is 

characterized by a mosaic of sparsely vegetated areas. 

y	 Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus americana / Carpinus caroliniana / Boehmeria cylindrica Forest 

[Green Ash – American Elm / American Hornbeam / False Nettle Forest] 

The extent of this association on Eufaula NWR is restricted to the margins of the Chattahoochee 

River, where it is represented by a small number of poor quality occurrences. Considered a close 

canopied forest, human-derived disturbances have resulted in an open overstory with a dense, nearly 

impenetrable understory of vines and shrubs. A suite of species indicative of bottomlands in the 

region characterize the canopy, including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica); sugarberry (Celtis 

26 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

laevigata); American elm; silver maple; water oak; sweetgum; and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). 

The dense undergrowth contains a rich variety of species, most notably consisting of the following: 

silky dogwood (Cornus amomum); American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana); lead-plant (Amorpha 

fruticosa); pepper-vine (Ampelopsis arborea); southern bayberry (Morella cerifera); tag alder (Alnus 

serrulata); giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea var. gigantea); groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia); 

giant ironweed (Vernonia gigantea); and Japanese honeysuckle. 

y	 Quercus phellos – Quercus nigra – Quercus alba / Chasmanthium sessiliflorum Forest 

[Willow Oak – Water Oak – White Oak / Longleaf Spanglegrass Forest] 

This is a temporarily flooded forest association dominated by willow oak in the canopy. Although 

occurring less frequently, other canopy associates include, in decreasing order of abundance, water 

oak; sweetgum; loblolly pine; swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora); red maple; green ash; winged elm; 

water hickory; and white oak. The subcanopy/shrub stratum is generally well-developed and contains 

representatives of the foregoing canopy layer, as well as parsley-leaf hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii); 

green hawthorn (Crataegus viridis); dwarf palmetto; deciduous holly; and Virginia willow (Itea virginica). 

The greatest floral diversity is found in the herb layer, which is dominated by members of the grass 

(Poaceae) family. Resurrection fern (Pleopeltis polypodioides) and Spanish moss (Tillandsia 

usneoides) are epiphytic on the branches of some trees. An assortment of vines is also in evidence, 

appearing to be equally distributed along the forest floor as well as in the canopy. High quality 

occurrences of this association can still be found throughout Eufaula. The best examples occur in the 

vicinity of Cowikee Creek, along the south side of the creek in the refuge’s Molnar Unit. 

Forest Plantations 

Plantations of trees have been planted throughout Eufaula NWR, with the primary intent of enhancing 

wildlife habitat. Three types are noted for the refuge, including one pine and two hardwood 

associations, all of which extend from 10 to 30 years of age. 

y	 Pinus taeda Planted Forest 

[Loblolly Pine Planted Forest] 

This association is classified as a loblolly pine plantation with little understory. 

y	 Quercus pagoda Planted Forest 

[Cherrybark Oak Planted Forest] 

Plantations of cherrybark oak are planted for wildlife habitat improvement. The understory is patchy 

but relatively open, containing beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), southern bayberry, sweetgum, St. 

Andrew’s-cross (Hypericum hypericoides), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia). 

y	 Quercus acutissima Planted Forest 

[Sawtooth Oak Planted Forest] 

Plantations of sawtooth oak are grown for wildlife habitat enhancement. 

Successional Fields 

Successional fields are the result of former land use practices in which the forest was eliminated, and 

then allowed to become re-established. Fields represent the initial phase in the progression of 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27 
vegetational succession from which the cessation of active land use gradually transforms into climax 

forest. On Eufaula, this vegetation type is represented by the earliest levels of succession: herbdominated fields occasionally accented by a series of low-growing trees and shrubs. 

y Successional Field 

This is a relatively short-lived association that will likely succeed to a Liquidambar styraciflua – 

Quercus (nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda / Vaccinium elliottii – Morella cerifera Forest, a community 

type that usually follows the abandonment of agricultural lands. Examples at Eufaula are partially 

maintained through periodic mowing, thus retarding the growth of woody vegetation. The vegetation 

is characterized by a prominence of weedy herbaceous species such as gerardia (Agalinis 

fasciculata), sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteus), Canada goldenrod (Solidago 

canadensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), ragweed (Ambosia artemisiifolia), and Brazilian 

vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) that are accented with a scattering of small trees and shrubs, most 

notably loblolly pine, sweetgum, oaks, persimmon, and winged elm. 

Basin Swamps 

Basin swamps generally occur within irregularly shaped basins not associated with river systems. 

Three types are known from Eufaula NWR, all of which maintain similar hydroperiods (200–300 

days), but possess a strikingly different combination of flora. Some basin swamps on the refuge, 

specifically those associations dominated by Nyssa biflora, are dependent on fire, which often 

dictates the vegetation to occupy a given site. Long intervals between droughts obscure the 

importance of fire in modifying and maintaining these wetland environments. Various wetlands burn 

on different cycles, with gum ponds having relatively long intervals of 50 to 150 years. 

y	 Quercus phellos / Carex (albolutescens, intumescens, joorii) – Chasmanthium sessiliflorum / 

Sphagnum lescurii Forest 

[Willow Oak / (Greenish-white Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Cypress-swamp Sedge) Longleaf 

Spanglegrass / Yellow Peatmoss Forest] 

This association occupies seasonally wet depressions along the upper floodplain terraces of the 

Chattahoochee River. A closed canopy forest, this community is represented by a prominence of 

willow oak. Water oak, sweetgum, swamp blackgum, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and loblolly pine 

generally occur less frequently and therefore are of secondary importance. The shrub and herb 

layers of high quality occurrences are relatively sparse, often characterized by a low diversity of plant 

life. The finest occurrence of this association can be found on the north side of a refuge road in the 

Upland Unit, in the southeast quarter of Section 24. 

y	 Nyssa biflora / Itea virginica – Cephalanthus occidentalis Depression Forest 

Swamp Blackgum / Virginia-willow – Buttonbush Depression Forest 

This community, while rare on Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, is widespread throughout the 

southeastern United States, where it occupies peaty or mucky, acidic, semipermanently wet 

depressions and narrow sloughs. The canopy is predominantly comprised of swamp blackgum, while 

other bottomland species such as sweetgum, water oak, willow oak, red maple, and loblolly pine are 

more widely scattered, usually contributing less than 30% of the canopy. The abundance and 

diversity of the shrub and herb layers are generally sparse, often correlated with seasonal water 

fluctuation and canopy closure. 

28 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

y	 Nyssa biflora – Quercus nigra – Quercus laurifolia – Pinus taeda / Ilex opaca – Carpinus 

caroliniana Forest 

[Swamp Blackgum – Water Oak – Laurel Oak – Loblolly Pine / American Holly – American 

Hornbeam Forest] 

The example at Eufaula is represented by a closed canopy of swamp blackgum, laurel oak, and 

loblolly pine, with a slightly lesser abundance of water oak and sweetgum. The understory is poorly 

defined, with only a small number of species present, including American hornbeam, red maple, and 

Virginia willow, as well as various members of the canopy layer. Lizard’s-tail (Saururus cernuus) is a 

prominent component of the ground cover, along with a rich diversity of other wetland species. 

Baygalls 

Rangewide, baygalls exhibit highly variable structural and compositional features, but are generally 

characterized as densely forested, acidic wetlands dependent on a continuous seepage flow or high 

water table. Baygalls occur throughout southern Alabama in several different landscape settings, 

including streamsides, flatwoods, depressions, wetter sections of pitcher-plant bogs, and floodplains. 

Hydrology, topographic variables, and soil properties exert a significant influence on the type of 

baygall vegetation occupying a particular site. 

y	 Liriodendron tulipifera – Nyssa biflora – Magnolia virginiana / Toxicodendron vernix – Morella 

heterophylla / Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Forest 

[Tuliptree – Swamp Blackgum – Sweetbay / Poison Sumac – Evergreen Bayberry / Royal Fern Forest] 

This association is generally restricted to the margins of small blackwater and spring-fed streams, 

particularly those not subject to much flooding or siltation. Distinguished by the presence of poison 

sumac, this community is an uneven aged, mixed forest consisting of a closed canopy of tulip tree 

(Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp blackgum, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and loblolly pine that 

overtops a dense shrub component principally composed of poison sumac, red maple, swamp redbay 

(Persea palustris), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), American olive 

(Osmanthus americanus), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). The herbaceous stratum is 

diverse and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) often carpets the ground. 

Floodplain Marsh 

Floodplain marshes are wetlands characterized by a prominence of herbaceous and/or woody 

vegetation that occurs in river floodplains, particularly in the Gulf Coastal Plain. Water and, to a minor 

extent, fire is the driving force responsible for maintaining the viability of naturally occurring systems 

and a corresponding diversity of wildlife. In fact, fire plays a crucial role in the ecology of some of 

Alabama’s marshlands by limiting the invasion of woody vegetation, affecting the composition of the 

herbaceous component, and retarding or occasionally reversing peat accumulation. The presence of 

floodplain marshes on Eufaula originated from a combination of increased water levels resulting from 

the damming of the Chattahoochee River and the installation of dikes to artificially manipulate water 

levels for the benefit of waterfowl. 

y	 Salix nigra Temporary Flooded Shrubland 

[Black Willow Temporary Flooded Shrubland] 

This community type is composed of young or frequently disturbed thickets of black willow (Salix 

nigra) that inhabit shallow water associated with impounded areas and the backwaters of the 

Chattahoochee River. Occurrences are moderately vegetated in the understory with an assortment 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29 
 

 

of shrubs, vines, and herbs. Characteristic species include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis); 

hemp sesbania (Sesbania macrocarpa); sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); rose 

mallows (Hibiscus militaris, H. moscheutos); woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus); broad-leaf arrowhead 

(Sagattaria latifolia); and water pepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides). 

y	 Panicum hemitomon – Pluchea (camphorata, rosea) – Ludwigia spp. Herbaceous Vegetation 

[Maidencane – Camphorweed – Seedbox species Herbaceous Vegetation] 

This is a broadly distributed association that primarily occurs along the margins of backwater areas 

associated with the Chattahoochee River. Characterized by a prominence of maidencane (Panicum 

hemitomon), this vegetation type is nearly monospecific, containing only a small number of associated 

herbs, including woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus); panicgrass (Dichanthelium scabriusculum); spikerushes 

(Eleocharis spp.); rushes (Juncus spp.); sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); camphorweed 

(Pluchea camphorata); and various seedboxes (Ludwigia spp.). 

y	 Nelumbo lutea Herbaceous Vegetation 

[American Lotus Aquatic Wetland] 

The distribution of the American lotus association on Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge is primarily 

restricted to the backwaters of the Chattahoochee River. Stands are essentially monospecific and 

often cover extensive areas. Other floating-leaved aquatics such as yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea 

ssp. advena), duckweed (Lemna sp.), mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana), and the exotic water 

hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) are also present, as are various emergent species including pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), broad-leaf arrowhead (Sagittaria 

latifolia), water pepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). 

Alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), an adventive weedy species from South America, has 

also invaded some areas. 

Depression Marsh 

Depression marshes are shallow (less than a meter deep), often ephemeral wetlands that occur 

within a slight depression in an otherwise flat landscape. The origin of depression marshes is open 

to interpretation, with several explanations having been offered. However, one of the most 

accepted theories suggests that these wetlands were created by wind scouring of unconsolidated 

sands forming hollows that filled with water above a subsurface hardpan. The vegetation typically 

assumes a well-defined concentric zonation pattern, where shrub St. John's-wort (Hypericum 

fasciculatum) generally dominates the outer portion and a prominence of herbs, particularly grasses 

and sedges, characterize the innermost sections. Eufaula contains a single occurrence of 

depression marsh, in the Molnar Unit, represented by two associations, the outer shrub zone and 

the inner herbaceous zone. 

y	 Hypericum fasciculatum / Rhynchospora (chapmanii, harperi) Shrubland 

[Peelbark St. John’s-wort / (Chapman’s Beakrush, Harper’s Beakrush) Shrubland] 

This association is poorly represented at Eufaula, occurring as a small, linear assemblage of shrubby 

vegetation along the margin of a pond in the Molnar Unit. The vegetation is readily distinguished by a 

prominence of peelbark St. John’s-wort accompanied by a lesser abundance of other shrubs, most 

notably black willow and groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia). A rich diversity of herbs are also 

present, represented by numerous members of the grass (Poaceae) and sedge (Cyperaceae) 

families. Principal species, including grasses and sedges, are maidencane (Panicum hemitomon); 

soft rush (Juncus effusus); wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus); nodding beakrush (Rhynchospora 

30 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

inexpansa); short-bristle beakrush (Rhynchospora corniculata); bristlegrass (Setaria geniculata); 

rose-mallows (Hibiscus spp.); water pepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides); centella (Centella erecta); 

and flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia minor), among others. 

y Eleocharis microcarpa – Juncus repens – Rhynchospora corniculata – (Mercardonia acuminata, 

Proserpinaca spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation 

[Small-fruit Spikerush – Creeping Rush – Shortbristle Horned Beakrush – (Axil-flower, Mermaidweed species) Herbaceous Vegetation] 

This association forms the center of saturated to seasonally flooded depression ponds throughout the 

southeastern United States. The example at Eufaula is dominated by a combination of small-fruit 

spikerush (Eleocharis microcarpa) and creeping rush (Juncus repens), two low-growing herbs 

capable of establishing large colonies. Also present in much smaller quantities are blunt spikerush 

(Eleocharis obtusa), short-bristle beakrush (Rhynchospora corniculata), and water-purslane (Ludwigia 

palustris). The depressions where this community type occurs typically experience a seasonal 

fluctuation in water level, filling in the winter and often drying completely in the summer. However, 

during some years, the deepest zone in the center may remain inundated. 

Impounded Areas 

Moist soil management refers to the management of land to provide moist soil conditions during the 

growing season to promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by these 

plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. The decomposing 

vegetative parts of moist soil plants also provide substrate for invertebrates, which are critical food for 

many wetland wildlife and fish. 

Eufaula NWR maintains several artificially flooded areas for the purpose of enhancing waterfowl 

habitat. Such areas are seasonally inundated generally to coincide with spring and fall migratory 

patterns. The extreme variation in water levels allow for a diverse, but nonetheless, weedy flora to 

exist. For the most part, herb-dominated vegetation is characteristic, often accented with patches of 

low-growing trees and shrubs. Although no single species is prominent, several share codominance, 

frequently occurring in nearly homogeneous stands. Although an impressive diversity of species is 

present, a small number have become well established, achieving localized prominence and forming 

monospecific stands. Examples include sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); bladderpod; hemp sesbania; soft rush (Juncus effusus); and Virginia broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). 

Herbs occurring in slightly lesser abundance are fascicled gerardia (Agalinis fasciculata); bugleweed 

(Lycopus americanus); Maryland meadow-beauty (Rhexia mariana); flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia 

minor); small white aster (Aster vimineus); and savanna panicgrass (Phanopyrum gymnocarpon). 

Woody vegetation is represented by sweetgum, southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), groundsel-tree 

(Baccharis halimifolia), and buttonbush. 

WILDLIFE 

With a variety of aquatic, managed wetlands and terrestrial habitats, Eufaula NWR supports a 

diversity of fauna on the upper Coastal Plain. Various species occur throughout the area. The refuge 

focuses most of its efforts on waterfowl habitat management, but a variety of these habitat 

management practices benefit numerous other species. The refuge’s bird list includes 287 species. 

Thirty-six mammal, 25 reptile, 18 amphibian, and 37 fish species have also been recorded. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31 
Waterfowl 

Eufaula NWR is located on the extreme eastern edge of the Mississippi Flyway. Few Atlantic coast 

flyway waterfowl make it this far west. Primary waterfowl use areas occur in and around the Bradley 

Impoundment, Kennedy Impoundment, Blackmon Bottoms, the Davis Clark/Lakepoint Lodge area, 

Houston Bottoms, Upland Impoundment, and areas near Florence Marina. The common habitat 

component of these areas is shallow water, either natural or controlled by pumps. 

The refuge’s peak wintering populations of ducks reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent 

years, populations have peaked at 12,000–20,000. Migratory waterfowl numbers fluctuate 

throughout the Chattahoochee Valley from year to year. Three major factors contribute to strong 

duck numbers at Eufaula NWR: subfreezing weather must dip into the southern portion of the state; it 

must occur before mid-December; and the sub-freezing weather must be sustained for several days. 

A wide variety of duck species can be observed during the winter. An early arrival in August is the 

blue-winged teal. By late October, wigeon, gadwall, green-winged teal, ring-necks and shovelers are 

common. Wood ducks and ring-necked ducks eventually become the most abundant duck species 

by mid-December. Larger groups of pintails and mallards can be observed in the Upland and Winter 

Loop impoundments (USFWS 2003a). A large number of wood duck nest boxes are scattered over a 

wide area on the refuge. 

Few migrant geese use the refuge, but a resident Canada goose population now totals about 2,000. 

Primarily, they utilize the Houston Bottoms and Kennedy units; however, the entire refuge can be 

utilized by Canada geese during some part of the year. Only 100–200 true migrant Canada geese 

may be found during the colder winters. About 30–50 snow geese and 50–100 white-fronted geese 

use the refuge during the winter. A Ross' goose has been occasionally observed congregating with a 

small group of Canada geese (USFWS 2003a). 

The refuge participates in the annual mid-winter waterfowl counts. Since 2000, the counts have 

ranged from 9,300 to 11,900 and about 27 species have been observed. The refuge staff estimates 

that annual peak wintering waterfowl populations average about 15,000 birds. The refuge serves as 

a survey area for the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Counts. The refuge staff participates on the 

river portion of the survey. This count also provides an estimate for wintering waterfowl numbers. 

The refuge has erected and maintained wood duck nest boxes for many years. Box numbers and 

placement strategy have evolved as new recommendations occur. Over the last several years, the 

staff removed clustered boxes from within the impoundments or from those lacking adequate water 

during the summer. The current strategy is to locate new boxes outside the impoundments near 

suitable brood habitat over permanent water. The program’s goal is to inspect and maintain 200 

boxes annually. Poorly located boxes continue to be removed and others are added following the 

Service’s updated Southeast Region policies. The refuge currently maintains 104 wood duck boxes. 

Marsh and Wading Birds 

Providing foraging areas for wading birds and marsh birds is an important objective within the 

impoundments. This is accomplished by maintaining temporary mud flats and shallow water areas 

during spring and summer. Impoundments in the Bradley Unit are especially suited to drawdowns 

that expose productive foraging areas. Smaller areas in the Kennedy and Houston Bottoms are also 

managed to provide similar sites. Suitable habitat is not widely available during the fall, as most have 

revegetated with moist soil plants. 

32 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

About 27 species of marsh and wading birds have been observed. The most abundant and visible 

species include the great blue heron, great egret, little blue heron, snowy egret, green-backed heron, 

double-crested cormorant, coot, anhinga and cattle egret, although birds as rare as roseate 

spoonbills can be observed. Other common water bird species include king rails, sora rails, American 

and least bitterns, common moorhens and purple gallinules (USFWS 2003a). 

Several large rookeries are located on the refuge, consisting of hundreds of great blue heron, great 

egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, anhinga and cattle egrets. The refuge supports large 

populations of herons and other marsh birds year-round. About 100 wood storks are present during 

spring and summer and several hundred sandhill cranes winter on the refuge. It is possible that the 

soon to be established eastern population of whooping cranes will use the Eufaula Refuge during its 

migration flight. Colonial water bird rookeries have been located in the past in the Molnar Unit, 

Bradley Unit, Blackmon Slough, Houston Bottoms, Kennedy Unit, and Bird Island. 

Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species 

Eufaula NWR provides stopover and feeding habitats for migratory shorebirds, primarily within the 

impoundments during spring. River water levels are controlled by Corps of Engineers policy and are 

maintained about 188 feet above mean sea level (MSL) during the migration periods. This is too high to 

make the sandbars, mudflats, or other shallow water habitats available for shorebird use. Only during 

extended droughts or when the water levels are approximately 187 MSL or less are suitable shorebird 

habitats available along the Chattahoochee River. Resting and feeding areas are provided within the 

impoundments, particularly the Bradley Unit. Gradual spring drawdowns and daily water level fluctuations 

in the outlet pools provide ample habitat from March through June. By late July, these areas have 

normally revegetated with dense, tall herbaceous growth which is unsuited for shorebird use. 

Peak shorebird migration takes place in April and October. About 50 different species of shorebirds, 

gulls, and terns are on the refuge’s bird list. Willets, marbled godwits, ruddy turnstones, black-bellied 

plovers, short-billed dowitchers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, black-necked stilts, and several 

species of sandpipers have been observed (USFWS 2003a). Sandhill cranes are annual winter 

migrants on the refuge, and are highly coveted by birders. Between 75–150 sandhill cranes roost in 

marshy and shallow water habitats along the river and feed in nearby agricultural fields. Blackmon 

Bottoms and the nearby peninsulas are known roosting areas. 

Raptors 

The refuge supports large breeding and wintering populations of raptors, including bald eagles and 

ospreys. About 17 species of raptors have been documented on the refuge. Of these, the most 

common are the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, 

American kestrel, Northern harrier, osprey, barred owl, great horned owl, screech owl, barn owl, 

turkey vulture, black vulture and bald eagle (USFWS 2003a). Raptors are an important consideration 

in the refuge’s forest and successional habitat management programs. 

Other Resident and Migratory Birds 

The refuge’s diverse habitat not only provides important habitats for waterfowl, wading birds and 

raptors, but also for a wide range of songbirds. Neotropical migratory songbirds are a priority species 

group in the management of timber resources and old field habitats. The refuge’s goal is to provide 

diverse habitats with high quality stopover cover and food resources. The refuge contains 

approximately 2,200 acres of forested habitat and 800 acres of old field areas. Of the 2,200 forested 

acres, 1,700 acres are pine-dominated stands with 500 acres in hardwood types. The pine forests 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33 
 

 

are managed to provide a moderately open overstory with diverse understory conditions. Old field 

areas are managed to encourage use by migrating songbirds that require grassland and scrub/shrub 

habitats. These include bobolinks, meadowlarks, and several species of sparrows. Northern harriers 

and kestrels also benefit from old field management. The refuge has placed field borders and buffer 

zones along the edges of agricultural fields and retired fields or sections of fields to manage as old 

field habitats. Periodic mowing and fall disking are used to encourage a grass-herbaceous cover 

type. The refuge also contains resident populations of wild turkey and bobwhite quail. 

Mammals 

The various kinds of cover found on the refuge provide habitat for 36 species of mammals. Resident 

wildlife including beaver; fox; raccoon; opossum; bobcat; swamp and cottontail rabbit; nine-banded 

armadillo; coyote; and white-tailed deer are present in high numbers. Small mammals include 

shrews, mice, chipmunks, voles, and moles (USFWS 2003b). 

Game mammals include the white-tailed deer, cottontail and swamp rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and 

gray and fox squirrels. Gray squirrels occur but are not very common, probably due to the absence of 

large, contiguous stands of hardwoods. Fox squirrels are very rare. In addition to these game 

mammals, furbearers include beaver, river otter, mink, weasel, and spotted and striped skunk. Four 

species of bats can also be found at the refuge. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

The refuge supports an abundance of native reptiles and amphibians. Sixty-eight species of 

amphibians and reptiles are known from Barbour County based on museum specimens. In a 

herpetofaunal survey of the refuge conducted by Guyer and Green (1992), 46 species were 

observed: 17 species of frogs and toads, 2 species of salamanders, 6 species of turtles, 8 species of 

lizards, and 13 species of snakes. Also, a healthy, growing population of American alligators exists in 

refuge wetlands. 

Fish 

Lake Eufaula is regionally and nationally known for its bass fishing. Crappie, bluegill, and catfish are 

also popular sport fish. The most prominent species of fish present in Lake Eufaula include 

largemouth bass, crappie, catfish, various panfish, hybrid bass, and striped bass. A fishery survey of 

eight streams entering Eufaula NWR documented 37 species of fish (USFWS 2003a). 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

The endangered wood stork is commonly seen on the refuge between May and October, especially 

when the lake levels and impoundment water levels are low enough to provide isolated pools for 

foraging. The number of storks using the refuge fluctuates greatly from year to year, with as many as 

70 birds having been observed (USFWS 2003a). Although the refuge has several active wading bird 

rookeries, no wood stork nesting has occurred in the refuge vicinity. The Molnar Unit was established 

as a management area for wood storks. Nesting platforms and decoys were installed but have not 

been successful to date. Periodically, excess fingerlings, minnows, and tadpoles from the Warm 

Springs Fish Hatchery are released in the Molnar Impoundment as a supplemental food resource for 

storks and other wading birds. Habitat management for wood storks is an objective in the other 

impoundments as well. 

34 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

The formerly listed bald eagle and peregrine falcon are seen occasionally as they migrate through the 

area in winter. 

In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered, and 

consequently removed the animal from the list of endangered species. The alligator population on 

the refuge and within the refuge area has increased since the reintroduction of the species in 1971. 

Alligators nest on the slopes of levees and on small, woody vegetation-covered islands in all the 

units. Young begin to hatch in late summer. A conservative estimate of the refuge population is over 

1,000 animals (USFWS 2005). Most of the alligators are less than six feet in length; however, several 

12- to 14-foot individuals are present on the refuge. Beginning in 2006, the refuge contracted with Dr. 

William Birkhead of Columbus State University to conduct alligator surveys in the impoundments. 

The surveys are conducted at night using a spotlight to perform direct counts in the Houston, Molnar, 

Kennedy, and Bradley impoundments. Sizes of alligators are approximated using the estimated 

distance between the nostril and eye. 

The federal endangered shinyrayed pocketbook mussel is documented to occur in Russell County, 

Alabama, north of the refuge, on a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. State-listed species found 

on the refuge include the alligator snapping turtle and bluestripe shiner. 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Although habitat destruction and degradation are the most pervasive threats to the viability of 

Alabama’s and Georgia’s vegetation resources, the influence of exotic (nonnative) plants has proven to 

be equally as harmful to ecosystem integrity. Invasive exotic plants have demonstrably caused 

irreparable damage to various natural communities throughout the Southeast. Chinese privet 

(Ligustrum sinense), alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), rattlebox (Sesbania punicea), bagpod (Sesbania vesicaria), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are five invasive plant 

species that have become well established in several locations on Eufaula. The major infestations of 

exotic plants on the refuge are illustrated in Figure 5. These species are capable of colonizing large 

areas, generally in full sun, throughout the warmer regions of the world. Japanese honeysuckle was 

first introduced into the New World at Long Island, New York, to embellish the gardens of Colonial 

America. Since then, the popularity of this species as a garden plant has enabled it to quickly spread 

throughout much of the eastern United States, displacing desirable native vegetation. While not firmly 

established, the presence of Chinese tallow on the refuge is of concern. The species was first 

introduced from China during the early 1900s to promote the silkworm industry. Since then, the tree 

has become widely naturalized in the Southeast, often monopolizing large areas. The widespread 

dispersal of the above-mentioned and other exotic species have been primarily attributed to highway 

maintenance and construction, horticultural purposes, and the enhancement of wildlife habitat. The 

illegal disposal of yard trash has also aided the spread of these and other exotic species. 

Table 3 lists the species of exotic plants that were observed in Eufaula during a recent plant 

communities survey (Schotz 2002). Other exotic species that occur at the refuge are two aquatic 

plants (hydrilla and common waterweed), feral hogs, and the Mediterranean gecko. Hydrilla in the 

Chattahoochee River has severe implications for the management of aquatic resources. Native 

invasive and weedy upland plants including sicklepod, cocklebur, and morning glory are problems in 

agricultural fields and impoundments. Chinese privet, Chinaberry, and Japanese honeysuckle are 

pervasive along forest edges, invading into the stands. Plant diversity along shorelines has been 

impacted by alligator-weed, water willow, maidencane, giant cutgrass, and primrose-willow. Treating 

areas infested with alligator-weed, maidencane, primrose-willow, sesbania, water smartweed or 

waterpepper, American lotus, and others occurs within the impoundments (USFWS 2003a). 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35 
Figure 5. Major infestations of exotic and native weedy species on Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

36 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Management of invasive and exotic plants at Eufaula includes mechanical, biological, and chemical 

methods, or a combination of these. Mechanical methods include mowing, and disking or plowing 

using farm tractors. These methods are not effective as they provide only temporary relief. The very 

high occurrence of invasive seeds in seed banks and the rhizomatous nature of some species allow 

quick re-establishment and growth. The primary biological method used has been the release of 

host-specific alligator-weed beetles. The quantities released each year vary, normally between 2,000 

to 3,000. The release of beetles has had limited success in reducing alligator-weed. The use of 

herbicides has provided partial control of some invasive species. The primary herbicides used are 

Roundup (glyphosate) and 2,4-D amine (organophosphates). Others include Rodeo (glyphosphate), 

Arsenal (imazapyr), and Tordon (picloram). Atrazine was previously used by the cooperative farmer 

for control of sicklepod in corn, but it is now banned from use on all refuges (USFWS 2003a). 

The refuge’s management strategy for exotic plants focuses on drying up the impoundments and 

using tractor-mounted boom sprayers to apply herbicides. The herbicides are applied as early as 

ground conditions allow equipment in the fields before the plants become tall, dominant, and produce 

seed. Abundant spring and summer rains delay treatments, allowing weed establishment. Aerial 

treatments have been used at the refuge but are effective only when there are large concentrated 

areas of invasives. Other application methods include backpack sprayers and an ATV-mounted 

boom sprayer. In agricultural fields, the cooperative farmer applies approved herbicides for weed 

control in corn, soybeans, winter wheat, oats, and rye. 

Monitoring and treatment of existing infestations, and preventing the encroachment of new 

populations, should remain an important component of land management throughout Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge. Education of land managers about the problems associated with exotic 

pests, coupled with the use of native species for improving wildlife habitat, may be beneficial in this 

effort. If nonnative cultivars must be used, then invasive species should be avoided. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), 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 (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, 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 (NRHP), including 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 NRHP 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. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Scientific Name Common Name Degree of Severity* 

AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA Tree-of-heaven 3 

ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN Mimosa 2 

ALTERNANTHERA PHILOXEROIDES Alligator-weed 1 

CROTALARIA SPECTABILIS Showy rattle-box 3 

DAUCUS CAROTA Wild carrot 2 

JACQUEMONTIA TAMNIFOLIA Hairy cluster-vine 3 

LESPEDEZA BICOLOR Shrub bush-clover 2 

LESPEDEZA CUNEATA Chinese bush-clover 2 

LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM Japanese privet 2 

LIGUSTRUM SINENSE Chinese privet 1 

LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM Italian ryegrass 2 

LONICERA JAPONICA Japanese honeysuckle 1 

LYGOPODIUM JAPONICUM Japanese climbing fern 2 

MACLURA POMIFERA Osage orange 3 

MELIA AZEDARACH Chinaberry 2 

MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM Nepal grass 2 

NARCISSUS SPP. Narcissus 3 

PASPALUM NOTATUM Bahia grass 2 

PASPALUM URVILLEI Vasey grass 3 

PERILLA FRUTESCENS Beefsteak plant 3 

POPULUS ALBA White poplar 3 

PUERARIA LOBATA Kudzu 2 

RAPHANUS RAPHANISTRUM Wild radish 3 

SAPIUM SEBIFERUM Chinese tallow 2 

SESBANIA PUNICEA Rattle-box 2 

SESBANIA VESICARIA Bag-pod 1 

VERBENA BRASILIENSIS Brazilian vervain 3 

VERBENA RIGIDA Stiff vervain 2 

WISTERIA SINENSIS Chinese wisteria 2 

Category 1 = Species that have invaded and disrupted native plant communities in Eufaula NWR.

 Category 2 = Species that have shown a potential to invade and disrupt native plant 

communities, but pose no immediate threats in Eufaula NWR. 

 Category 3 = Species that have persisted around old homesites and have no or 

minimal potential to invade native plant communities. 

Source: Schotz (2002) 

38 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in 

preserving the cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. 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, the refuge contracts with a 

qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the site. 

The results of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, as 

well as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), which, in Alabama, is a member of the 

Alabama Historical Commission. The SHPO 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. 

In 1978, the Columbus Museum of Arts and Sciences published the results of a cultural resource 

background survey and archeological reconnaissance of Eufaula Refuge (Schnell and Knight 1978). 

The study’s literature and background survey demonstrated that there were 57 archeological sites 

known to exist in or adjacent to the refuge prior to the reconnaissance. Ethnohistorical data 

suggested that a minimum of six historic Creek Indian villages were located in the refuge area. A 

number of archeological properties had already been impacted by the impoundment of the Walter F. 

George Reservoir. 

During the reconnaissance portion of the 1978 study, 11 additional sites were discovered within the 

proposed Kennedy and Davis-Clark project areas. Two of the 11 sites were demonstrated to have 

archeological integrity. Both of these sites were believed to represent prehistoric occupation of the 

area. Data collected at the time of the survey were insufficient to allow for nomination of either of 

these sites to the National Register of Historic Places. However, limited sampling of lithics (rock 

materials) and ceramics at one of the sites suggested a possibly pure component assignable to the 

Swift Creek Period (ca. 500 AD), with perhaps an additional Archaic Period manifestation. At the 

other site, two components were identifiable, the strongest of which was assignable to the Cartersville 

Period (ca. 1 BC). Another component suggested an earlier occupation of the site during the 

transitional Archaic-Woodland Period (ca. 1000 BC). 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge is located on both banks of the Chattahoochee River in southeast 

Alabama and southwest Georgia. It lies in four counties: Barbour and Russell counties in Alabama 

and Stewart and Quitman counties in Georgia. The refuge is located about 40 miles south of 

Columbus, Georgia, and 80 miles east of Montgomery, Alabama. Much of the refuge lies within the 

city limits of Eufaula, Alabama. 

Russell County is almost as densely populated as the state of Alabama (78 persons per square mile 

vs. 88 persons per square mile), while Barbour County has about half the density (33 persons per 

square mile). Stewart and Quitman counties in Georgia are very rural (11 and 17 persons per square 

mile vs. 141) (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2006). 

In 2004, Russell County’s estimated population was 49,262, about 0.01% of Alabama’s population of 

4,530,182 (USCB 2006). The county’s population declined by 1% from 2000 to 2004, compared to 

Alabama’s 1.9% growth in the same four years. Barbour County’s estimated population in 2004 was 

28,557. The county’s population declined 1.7% from 2000 to 2004. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39 
Stewart County’s estimated 2004 population was 4,981, about 0.0006% of Georgia’s population of 

8,829,383. The county population declined by 5.2% from 2000 to 2004, compared to Georgia’s 7.8% 

growth in the same four years. Quitman County’s estimated population in 2004 was 2,467. The 

county’s population declined 5% from 2000 to 2004. 

The local economy is dominated by nearby Fort Benning, and the largest industries are durablegoods manufacturing followed by state and local government. In 2004, of the data available, 

manufacturing was the largest of twenty major economic and employment sectors in Russell and 

Barbour counties in Alabama (STATS Indiana 2006). Health care and social assistance was the 

largest sector in Stewart County and retail trade in Quitman County in Georgia. Employment by 

major industrial sectors is shown in Table 4. 

Table 4. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry. 

Industry Russell County, 

Alabama 

Barbour County, 

Alabama 

Stewart County, 

Georgia 

Quitman County, 

Georgia 

Agriculture, Forestry, 

Hunting N/A 1.9% 6.3% 9.0% 

Mining N/A 0.9% N/A N/A 

Construction 7.3% 1.1% N/A N/A 

Manufacturing 22.0% 36.6% N/A N/A 

Wholesale Trade 1.2% N/A 2.3% N/A 

Retail Trade 15.7% 10.4% 10.31% 9.2% 

Transportation and 

Warehousing 2.3% 6.9% 1.2% 1.9% 

Utilities 0.7% 0.6% N/A N/A 

Information 0.9% 0.4% N/A N/A 

Finance and 

Insurance 2.9% 2.6% N/A N/A 

40 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Industry Russell County, 

Alabama 

Barbour County, 

Alabama 

Stewart County, 

Georgia 

Quitman County, 

Georgia 

Real Estate 1.6% 0.6% N/A N/A 

Professional and 

Technical Services 1.7% N/A N/A N/A 

Management of 

Companies 0% N/A N/A N/A 

Waste Services 1.4% 1.5% N/A N/A 

Educational Services 9.2% 6.4% 18.6% N/A 

Health Care and 

Social Assistance N/A 7.6% 28.6% N/A 

Arts, Entertainment, 

Recreation 0.5% 0.5% N/A N/A 

Accommodation and 

Food Services 10.0% 6.1% N/A N/A 

Other Services 2.7% 1.2% 1.7% 1.9% 

Public Administration 1.6% 9.6% 9.1% 1.3% 

Source: STATS Indiana 2006 

(Note: N/A = data not available) 

Alabama’s statistics are well below the national averages for persons below the poverty line, median 

household and per capita income, and educational attainment levels (USCB 2006). Russell and 

Barbour counties conform to this profile and worse. Georgia conforms closely to the national 

averages; however, both Stewart and Quitman counties fare significantly worse, as shown in Table 5. 

In terms of race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and the state populations. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41 
Table 5. Comparison of demographic statistics for Russell, Barbour, Stewart, and Quitman counties, Al

and the USA. 

Location 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Per 

Capita 

Income 

% Below 

Poverty 

% High 

School 

Graduates 

% 

Bachelor 

Degree 

% 

White 

% 

Black 

% 

Hispanic 

A

Russell County, AL $27,492 $14,015 19.9 66.5 9.7 56.7 40.8 1.5 Barbour County, AL $25,101 $13,316 26.8 64.7 10.9 51.3 46.3 1.6 Alabama $34,135 $18,189 16.1 75.3 19.0 71.1 26.0 1.7 Stewart County, GA $24,789 $16,071 22.2 63.2 9.3 37.1 61.5 1.5 Quitman County, GA $25,875 $14,301 21.9 57.8 6.1 52.1 46.9 0.5 Georgia $42,433 $21,154 13.0 78.6 24.3 65.1 28.7 5.3 USA $41,994 $21,587 12.4 80.4 24.4 75.1 12.3 12.5 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2006
 

42 Eufaula Na
 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

In keeping with the purpose for its creation, management efforts at Eufaula NWR are aimed toward 

the improvement of habitats under its jurisdiction for the benefit of migratory waterfowl and wood 

ducks, threatened and endangered species, and all other native wildlife. To this end, the refuge staff 

undertakes a vigorous program of active habitat restoration, management, and manipulation that 

includes levee and drainage canal construction and upkeep, disking, prescribed fire, planting, and 

exotic plant control. Most refuge habitats, if they are left to nature, would be either too wet or too dry 

to be optimal for wildlife. Thus, the staff attempts to manage the water levels through a variety of 

means. Table 6 shows the refuge’s management units and the current management methods for 

each. Figure 6 shows the locations of the management units. 

Table 6. Management units, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unit Acres Description Current Management 

Molnar Unit 25 

2 Impounded freshwater 

marsh units and 1 green 

tree reservoir 

Managed for wood ducks, 

shorebirds, wading birds 

Inlet pump / gravity drained 

Kennedy Unit 450 

Moist Soil Managed for wintering waterfowl 

Moist soil/pumping 

Inlet and outlet pumps 

Houston Unit 230 

5 impounded freshwater 

marsh units 

Managed for wintering waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds 

Agriculture / moist soil mgt. 

Inlet and outlet pumps 

Upland Unit 35 

2 impounded freshwater 

marsh units 

Managed for wintering waterfowl 

Agriculture / moist soil 

Inlet pump / gravity drained 

Bradley Unit 750 

5 impounded freshwater 

marsh units 

Managed for wintering waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and wading birds 

Inlet and outlet pumps 

Goose Pen 20 

2 impounded freshwater 

marsh units and 2 green 

tree reservoir units 

Managed for wintering waterfowl 

Inlet pump and gravity drained 

The Corps of Engineers controls the refuge’s water levels in a manner contrary to good waterfowl 

management. Full pool elevation of 189–190 MSL is annually maintained from spring through fall (midApril to October); water levels drop to approximately 186 MSL during winter. Only during drought years is 

an abundance of moist soil plants produced in wetlands normally not exposed to water level fluctuations. 

Thus, the majority of the Chattahoochee River and Lake Eufaula is not high quality waterfowl habitat, 

emphasizing the refuge’s responsibility to make the most of a suboptimal situation. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43 
Figure 6. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge management units and main features. 

44 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

The refuge manages 16 impoundments controlled by eight pumps (seven diesel, one electric) and a 

system of water control structures (primarily screwgates with headwalls), with culverts, ditches, and 

irrigation pipes to move water. The Bradley, Houston and Kennedy units consist of inlet pumps to fill 

and outlet pumps to dewater. The Upland, Goose Pen, and Molnar units are all filled by inlet pumps, 

but are drained by gravity-flow water control structures. 

All impoundments with the exception of the Molnar Unit are managed in a similar manner. The Molnar 

Unit serves as a wood duck banding site and also as a wood stork and wading bird area. It is 

maintained as a shallow water feeding site during the summer. Flooding the other impoundments 

begins in mid-October until they are at full pool by early November. Drawdowns begin in mid-March; 

the Upland and Goose Pen impoundments are emptied by gravity flow in several days, although if 

ducks are still present, the drawdown is extended for several weeks. These impoundments are the 

primary sanctuary and feeding areas. They are managed as row crop production areas, annually 

planted to corn. The areas are gated from November 15 to February 28 with no public access allowed. 

Drawdowns in the Kennedy, Bradley, and Houston Bottoms impoundments occur over several months, 

although 75 percent of the water volume is pumped out within 4–5 weeks. Thus, a slow drawdown is 

employed to encourage growth by moist soil plants. The Upland, Goose Pen, and Houston Bottoms 

impoundments contain agricultural fields managed under a cooperative farming agreement. 

The Houston Bottoms area contains six impoundments. Corn is normally planted on higher ground in 

four impoundments, with the lower elevations managed for moist soil plants. The other two 

impoundments (Outlet Pool and Observation Tower) are difficult to dry out and moist soil plants are a 

priority. There is currently a beaver pond area on the north end of the Observation Tower 

Impoundment which contributes to its wet nature. There is a need for lateral drainage ditches to 

allow some impoundments to drain and dry out more thoroughly. Portions of these impoundments 

hold ponded water into late summer, allowing for invasive plants to grow and out-compete desired 

moist soil plants. The Kennedy Impoundment serves as a waterfowl hunting area and is 

approximately 350 acres. Annual flooding by electric pump covers approximately 200 acres. Exotic 

and nuisance plants are a major problem. 

The Bradley Impoundment in Georgia is the largest at approximately 750 acres, approximately 350 

acres of which can be flooded. The area is divided east to west by a cross-dike road with higher 

elevation ground subdividing the area into three subunits. Water is moved by two pumps and five 

major ditches controlled with screwgates. Waterfowl hunting is allowed during the state season. 

Farming Issues 

Eufaula NWR has a long history of farming prior to and after its establishment in 1964. The acreage 

planted to agricultural crops peaked in 1968 when 1,689 acres were farmed and 232 acres were 

grazed (USFWS 1988). Cattle grazing was permitted until 1980. Currently, 500 acres are under 

agricultural management (Figure 7) in more than 20 farm fields (Table 7). Croplands are managed 

under a Cooperative Farming Agreement (CFA). The CFA is annually negotiated for the period 

January 1 – December 31. The basis for the CFA is to provide food resources for wintering waterfowl 

by allowing private citizens to farm refuge property at fair market values with benefits accruing to both 

parties. The 2006 CFA is based on an acre-for-acre crop share ratio of 75% / 25% (farmer/refuge). 

Acreage shares are determined by the total acres of the cooperative plants as its share. Under the 

2006 CFA, the cooperative farmer farmed 384 acres as its share and 116 acres (15 percent) as the 

refuge’s share. The refuge allows the farmer to plant any grain crop he wishes such as corn or small 

grains (wheat, oats, and rye) for his share. For the refuge’s share, the farmer is required to plant 

corn. Normally, the farmer rotates corn, small grains, and soybeans. There are 36 acres of hayfields 

in the current CFA. They are treated the same as a grain crop. The farmer is required to provide all 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45 
Figure 7. Croplands at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

46 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 7. Acreages of farm fields, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Field Name Acres Hectares 

R1 3.13 1.27 

R2 22.79 9.22 

R3 10.79 4.37 

R4 58.11 23.52 

R5 12.63 5.11 

R6 5.95 2.41 

F1 14.03 5.68 

F2 2.44 0.99 

F3 5.47 2.21 

F4 15.49 6.27 

F5 9.49 3.84 

F6 16.19 6.55 

F7 22.61 9.15 

F8 20.75 8.40 

F9 24.38 9.87 

F10 72.63 29.39 

F11 15.83 6.41 

F12 13.42 5.43 

F13 6.43 2.60 

F14 44.99 18.21 

F15 8.93 3.61 

F16 58.27 23.58 

F17 20.29 8.21 

F18 21.27 8.61 

F19 17.10 6.92 

F20 23.11 9.35 

F21 25.69 10.40 

F22 17.58 7.12 

F23 11.07 4.48 

F24 18.77 7.60 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47 
necessary labor, equipment, ground preparation, seed, fertilizer, lime, and pesticides for each party. 

The refuge’s share of corn is left unharvested for wildlife consumption. 

The 1988 Croplands Management Plan (USFWS 1988) sets a goal of producing 7,050 bushels of 

corn (or equivalent as waste grain in combination with other grain crops in the refuge’s share). The 

goal is to provide sufficient available metabolizable energy (ME) to sustain 50 percent of the refuge’s 

objectives for duck maintenance. The objective level is 2,300,000 duck use-days. The 7,050 bushels 

of corn was determined using published equations for basal metabolic rate, the gross energy content 

and ME of corn, with an added 20 percent to buffer effects from weather, consumption by other 

wildlife, and corn unavailability. As noted previously, approximately 80 to 120 acres of corn are left 

unharvested for winter waterfowl use. To meet this goal, average yields of 88 bushels/acre must be 

obtained. Under “normal growing conditions” the refuge is able to meet this goal. Furthermore, using 

reported conversions of one acre of corn providing enough energy for 233 ducks for 110 days 

equates to the refuge’s 80 acres providing for approximately 18,840 ducks per season. Assuming an 

average winter population of 15,000 ducks, it appears the refuge is planting and providing enough 

corn for wintering waterfowl needs (USFWS 2003a). 

Forest Management and Fire 

Prior to 2001, the Eufaula Refuge conducted very few timber sales. Both natural and planted pine 

forests were typified by mature trees with closed canopies and poor regeneration. Southern pine 

beetle outbreaks in 2000 and 2001 required the timber to be thinned. In other areas, beetle 

infestations have gradually killed timber over the past five years. Problems with insect outbreaks are 

typical of overstocked stands with closed canopies. Therefore, the north boundary of the refuge has 

recently been thinned to prevent continued timber loss. Periodic thinning and burning of upland 

timber results in healthier forests with productive, diverse, wildlife habitat. The refuge’s Forest 

Management Plan (USFWS 1971) calls for silvicultural treatments every eight years based on an 80­

year rotation cycle. In conducting timber sales, the refuge’s goal is to reduce the existing timber 

basal area of pine to approximately 50 square feet/acre. The average basal area for maintaining pine 

forests in the south is approximately 80. The management goal in pine and pine/hardwood stands is 

to increase plant diversity, and habitat conditions for bobwhite quail, migratory birds (Bachman’s 

sparrow, woodcock, brown-headed nuthatch), and wild turkey (USFWS 2003a). Subsequent to 

thinning, the areas are burned during winter. Hardwood trees in pine/hardwood stands are removed 

using timber stand improvement (TSI) methods. The healthiest, dominant, large crown trees are left, 

removing the smaller, subdominant, deformed ones. Streamside protection zones are left around 

perennial streams and shorelines. Standing snags and dead trees are retained. Bottomland 

hardwood stands are found primarily in narrow, isolated strips along the river, and no management 

action is proposed for these areas. 

Reforestation goals for the refuge are currently being developed. A new forest management plan will 

need to be developed after the completion of this comprehensive conservation plan. Natural 

regeneration will restock thinned loblolly and slash pine stands. Eufaula NWR is within the historic 

natural range of longleaf pine habitat. Over the last 50 years, changes in land use and forest 

management have significantly altered most of the longleaf pine habitat, replacing it with loblolly pine 

and mixed hardwood forests. The forest management goal is to reestablish longleaf pine as the 

dominant pine forest habitat on the refuge. This will be accomplished by underplanting longleaf pine 

seedlings in the remaining loblolly pine forest. Longleaf will also be planted in and around portions of 

reclaimed agricultural fields. The long-term goal is to reforest 1,000 acres with longleaf pine. As the 

longleaf matures, prescribed burning and selective forest thinning will be important tools for 

successful habitat management. Beginning in 2006, the refuge began planting longleaf seedlings on 

328 acres. This effort was assisted with funding through the Southern Company and the National 

48 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Reforestation of fallow fields or along upland ditches is another option. 

Many field edges in upland areas are dominated by exotic Chinaberry trees, which should be 

removed and replaced with native species. 

As stated in the Corps of Engineers permit, the refuge is allowed to keep receipts from all timber 

sales. The refuge cannot use the proceeds to fund additional staff positions, but they can 

supplement normal operating expenses, allowing the refuge to upgrade its equipment, conduct many 

habitat management activities, and fund research projects. 

Eufaula NWR has an active prescribed fire program and it has an RXB3 Burn Boss, qualified staff, 

and good logistical support. Good relationships have been established with Okefenokee NWR and 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR for burning assistance. The refuge is capable of conducting low 

complexity prescribed burns. The Davis Clark area, North Boundary area, and State Park Lodge 

area are the three prescribed burning units. Due to the refuge’s location within the Eufaula city limits 

and its proximity to Lakepoint Resort State Park, there are wildland/urban interface issues arising 

primarily from smoke management concerns. For moderately complex prescribed burns, assistance 

is required from neighboring refuges and a RXB2 Burn Boss. 

The refuge has an approved Fire Management Plan (USFWS 2001) with goals to burn on a 2–3 year 

rotation, depending on vegetation responses. Winter burns, or occasionally fall burns, are conducted 

in small fallow fields. As the refuge staff gains additional experience, summer burns in longleaf pine 

sites will be conducted. Current problems with the fire program revolve around smoke management 

and dependence upon obtaining a RXB2 Burn Boss and additional assistance from other refuges. 

Equipment needs include an improved fire plow and a fuel trailer. Permanent fire breaks are also 

needed in some areas. 

Resource Protection 

The refuge has two collateral duty law enforcement officers: the Refuge Manager and Assistant 

Refuge Manager. However, new policies may soon require refuge managers to relinquish law 

enforcement duties, leaving Eufaula with one collateral duty officer. Finding time to actively enforce 

refuge regulations is a challenging dilemma for these officers with primary management and 

supervisory responsibilities. The refuge has good relationships with conservation officers in Georgia 

and Alabama, the Eufaula City Police Department, and the Barbour County Sheriff’s Department for 

additional assistance. Annual coordination meetings are held to discuss and review hunting season 

regulations and plans. 

The average number of notices of violation (NOVs) issued each year is moderately low (usually less 

than 25) (USFWS 2003a). Casual contacts by refuge staff and verbal warnings are frequently used 

to educate and control public use. As the refuge is divided by the Chattahoochee River, boat patrol is 

necessary to contact deer hunters and potential illegal waterfowl hunters. Typical NOVs include 

fishing without a license; vehicle trespass; spotlighting; over limit on waterfowl; improperly plugged 

shotguns; leaving permanent deer stands on refuge property; and excess fish or game limits. 

Littering is a problem near gates and bank fishing areas. Two significant archaeological sites are 

located on the refuge and remain closed to public access. They are signed and periodically patrolled. 

The refuge staff does not believe there are major disturbance issues to wildlife. Potential and 

occasional disturbances to refuge wildlife include noise and boat activity around the Bird Island 

rookery and vehicle and foot traffic to wintering waterfowl in or near closed areas. The east side of 

Bird Island is along the main river channel and exposed to boat traffic, and anglers are occasionally 

observed in the shallow water areas on the north and west ends. Refuge policies do not regulate 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49 
 

recreational vessels unless they involve wildlife disturbance. There are no restrictions on the types of 

boats, jet skis, or boating activities. Airboats are prohibited on Lake Eufaula (Walter F. George 

Reservoir). The Corps of Engineers is the primary regulatory agency in this area. Seasonally closed 

areas provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. The Upland and Goose Pen impoundments are the 

primary waterfowl sanctuary areas. These areas are closed to all public access from November 15 to 

March 1. Portions of the Houston Bottoms are gated and closed to vehicle access but foot travel is 

allowed. Periodic disturbance to waterfowl occurs near the boat ramp area, and because of this 

disturbance the ramp was closed in 2006. The ramp will be seasonally closed from November 15 

through March 1. 

Land Acquisition, Fee Title Tracts, and Easements 

Eufaula NWR does not have an approved refuge boundary expansion program. Expanding the 

refuge or purchasing new land is not a national or regional priority at this time. The refuge has three 

fee title tracts totaling 591 acres in Miller (256 acres), Colquitt (177 acres), and Taliaferro counties 

(158 acres), Georgia. The refuge has conducted past management activities at these sites. 

However, because they are not priority areas, management efforts have recently been curtailed. 

Similarly, the refuge has management responsibilities for 21 Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) 

easements in Alabama and Georgia, and one conservation easement that is being monitored for 

Ducks Unlimited in Barbour County, Alabama. Periodic inspections and limited management 

activities occur on these easements, but not on a regular basis. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Presidential Executive Order 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 recognized six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible 

with the purposes for which the refuge was established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, which “have been 

and are expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” However, these “Big Six” public uses 

are by no means the only permitted public uses of national wildlife refuges; other uses have been and 

can continue to be permitted, provided that they are determined to be compatible with the refuge’s 

purposes, including walking dirt/gravel roads, bicycling dirt/gravel roads, canoeing, horseback riding, 

and general boating. Horseback riding is confined to gravel roads only. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 

are not permitted. 

Eufaula NWR is located on U.S. Highway 431, the primary transportation route between Atlanta and 

the Florida Panhandle. More than five million people travel through Eufaula NWR annually, providing 

a huge potential for visitation. Eufaula NWR is part of the Corps of Engineers’ Lake Eufaula/Walter F. 

George Reservoir, which hosts more than 3.5 million visits annually, including large national fishing 

tournaments (USFWS 2003c). The refuge recorded more than 418,000 visits during 2006; the vast 

majority of these were recreational anglers. Wildlife Drive users and other nonconsumptive users 

were second and hunters third (USFWS 2006). 

Eufaula NWR has a growing, multifaceted public use program that serves an estimated 400,000 

visitors annually. The most popular uses include fishing and boating, wildlife observation, and 

hunting. There is considerable mutual visitation between the refuge and adjacent Lakepoint Resort 

State Park, the Florence Marina State Park, and on Walter F. George Reservoir. 

50 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Fishing 

Since being impounded in the mid-1960s, Lake Eufaula has had a national reputation for excellent 

largemouth bass fishing, and is often referred to as the “Bass Capital of the World.” Lake Eufaula 

has hosted numerous major national fishing tournaments. Sport fishing within refuge boundaries is 

one of the major economic engines of the local economy. 

Fishing is offered on the refuge year-round. Bank fishing is limited to daytime use only, but there are 

no timing restrictions for fishing from boats. The refuge adopts fishing laws from both Alabama and 

Georgia. The two states have reciprocal agreements addressing license requirements for the entire 

lake; however, there are several differences in each set of regulations. 

About 49 percent—about half—of all visitors to Eufaula NWR come for fishing, with over 205,000 use 

days recorded in 2006 (USFWS 2006b). Reduction of the legal bass size limit from 16 inches to 14 in 

several years ago has stimulated great interest in bass fishing. Crappie, catfish and bluegill are also 

heavily pursued. Bank fishing, often by subsistence users, occurs at many sites throughout the 

refuge, especially at the outlet pumps in spring. Six boat ramps are located on the refuge. Four boat 

launches are maintained by partner agencies (Lakepoint Resort State Park by the State of Alabama, 

Florence Marina State Park by the State of Georgia, and Rood Creek Landing by the Corps of 

Engineers). Two boat launch areas are the responsibility of Eufaula NWR: the Houston Bottoms boat 

launch and the Gammage Road boat launch. The Gammage road boat ramp is maintained as a 

public access ramp year-round. The Houston Bottoms boat ramp has never been designated as a 

public launch; however, previous management has permitted hunters and anglers to use this ramp. 

The Houston Bottoms ramp will continue to be used seasonally from March 1 through November 15. 

Hunting 

Eufaula NWR is open to hunting of waterfowl, deer, dove, squirrel, and rabbit. Hunting is permitted in 

designated areas only. The refuge staff participates in hunt coordination meetings with the two 

states. The hunt coordination meetings are held annually with the State of Alabama and every other 

year with the State of Georgia. Hunting laws on the refuge are enforced by collateral duty law 

enforcement officers. Other public use activities are not allowed in the hunting areas during the quota 

gun hunts and quota waterfowl hunts. However, during the dove gun hunt, the Wildlife Drive, 

observation tower and platform remain open, presenting a possible safety hazard. 

The two primary hunting opportunities at Eufaula NWR are archery hunting for white-tailed deer and 

waterfowl hunting. The archery hunts are free nonquota hunts requiring a refuge permit and state 

hunting license. Approximately 2,800 use days for archery hunting (25 hunters/day for 115 days) 

occurred in 2002–2003 (USFWS 2003a). Youth gun hunts for deer are held annually in the Bradley 

Unit. These are quota pay hunts for youth 10–15 years of age during the weekends in October. 

Waterfowl hunting occurs only in the Kennedy and Bradley units. These are quota pay hunts using 

computer-randomized drawings to select hunters. The selected hunters draw for their blind 

selections at the check station, with up to three hunters allowed per blind. A record 624 hunters 

participated in waterfowl hunts during the 2005 season (USFWS 2005). Adult, adult/youth, and youth 

waterfowl hunts occur annually. Each year, several organized hunts for mourning doves are held. 

Normally, two to four hunts (including youth) occur in upland fields. A free permit is required. 

Attendance is usually between 75–100 hunters distributed over about 350 acres. The refuge also 

provides other hunting opportunities for small game such as squirrel and rabbit, but few hunters 

participate. Hunting for bobwhite quail and wild turkey is not permitted. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51 
 

 

 

 

Waterfowl hunters experience good success at the refuge. The waterfowl hunter success rate has 

averaged from 0.85 to 2.48 birds per hunter, with a five-year average of 1.65 birds/hunter. Wood 

ducks are the most commonly harvested species, followed by ring-necked ducks, shovelers, gadwall, 

hooded merganser, and mallards. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Ample opportunities exist for observing wildlife on Eufaula NWR. The primary method is viewing 

from vehicles along the Wildlife Drive. Over 34,000 visits were documented on the drive during 

2002 (USFWS 2003a). The eight-mile drive meanders through a variety of upland and wetland 

habitats, providing good chances to see numerous wildlife species. Stops at the waterfowl viewing 

platform or wildlife observation tower can be very rewarding, especially during winter. Birding 

attracts many visitors to the refuge. Birding groups from the tri-city area (Columbus, Montgomery, 

and Pensacola) normally visit several times each year. The refuge is a designated site on the 

Georgia Southern Rivers Birding Trail and on a birding trail in Alabama. The refuge also 

participates in the Watchable Wildlife Weekend with the Alabama State Parks. The refuge’s hiking 

trails are in a transition phase. A new trail system is being evaluated and planned. Wildlife 

photography is a popular activity for refuge visitors. Local photographers and camera clubs visit 

often. The refuge does not currently provide photography blinds. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Eufaula NWR does not have an environmental education (EE) plan. Every effort is made to 

accommodate any request for education programs on or off the refuge. The refuge staff provides 

numerous EE programs throughout the year, responding to requests from teachers and the general 

public, consisting mostly of in-class visits and some field trips on the refuge. The refuge does not 

have a full-time position dedicated to public outreach or education; however, it plans to hire a refuge 

Ranger/Interpretive Specialist who will be responsible for developing an EE program. Some 

volunteers have been identified in the community to work with refuge staff to develop the EE 

program. Current materials include coloring books, posters, the refuge-specific video, and a 

presentation about the refuge. Approximately 40 presentations were given to area schools, civic 

groups, and at festivals or county fairs in 2002 (USFWS 2003a). 

Visitors to refuge headquarters are able to speak to any available staff member or to volunteers for 

information. All staff members greet and provide information to visitors while at the headquarters. 

Brochure information is provided at the headquarters’ front entrance and at hunter check stations. 

The Service has an 18-minute video about Eufaula NWR produced at the National Conservation 

Training Center. Videos and other programs are currently presented in the office conference room. 

The refuge has partnered with the Barbour County Chamber of Commerce to create an interactive 

exhibit about the refuge at the Eufaula Barbour County Chamber of Commerce office in the city. 

A variety of entrance, boundary, interpretive, and regulatory signs are located throughout the refuge 

at public use areas. The refuge recently installed regulatory signs at the entrance to the Kennedy, 

Houston, Molnar, and Bradley units. An entrance sign is located at the main entrance to the office 

along Alabama Highway 165; the entrance to the Wildlife Drive on Alabama 285; and off of Georgia 

39 to the Bradley Unit. Interpretive signs are located at the main entrance, the Houston Observation 

Tower, and the Observation Platform. Informational signs have also been erected at the boat 

landings at Rood Creek, Florence Marina, and Lakepoint State Park to inform the public that the 

waters are part of the refuge. Signs have been placed by the Alabama Department of Transportation 

along U.S. 431 to inform the traveling public that they are entering and exiting Eufaula NWR. These 

signs are very effective in raising public awareness of the refuge. 

52 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

All brochures are produced in accordance with the Service’s Graphic Standards and include a 

general brochure, an auto tour brochure for the Wildlife Drive, a bird list, and hunting and fishing 

regulations. The general brochure is designed to welcome visitors and provide basic refuge 

information, regulations, and a map of the public use areas. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge has six permanent full-time employees: a Refuge Manager (GS–13), 

Assistant Refuge Manager (GS-11), Wildlife Biologist (GS-11), Office Assistant (GS–7), Engineering 

Equipment Operator (WG-10), and a Maintenance Worker (WG-8). One intermittent (temporary) Park 

Ranger has been hired to assist with the public use program in 2005 and 2006. In past years, a 

temporary Tractor Operator (WG-6) has also been hired. The refuge does not have a full-time law 

enforcement officer, but does have two collateral duty law enforcement officers, the Refuge Manager and 

Assistant Refuge Manager. The refuge’s annual budget in 2006 was approximately $933,000.00. 

The refuge headquarters is located on the refuge just north of the City of Eufaula, Alabama. Refuge 

facilities include a maintenance office, workshop, and storage yard. The refuge does not have a 

visitor center; the new headquarters office in Eufaula serves as a visitor contact station. A planned 

new visitor center is on the Service’s top 20 national list of planned visitor centers. It is unknown 

when funding will become available for its construction. One location being considered for this 

planned visitor center is in the Kennedy Unit with the entrance off U.S. 431, then a short drive to the 

visitor center. There is substantial community support for the construction of the new visitor center. 

The refuge’s roads are graveled and maintained (graded) regularly by the refuge staff. Many of the 

roads are located on levees, which are also maintained by refuge staff. The Houston Bottoms boat 

ramp parking area is maintained. However, the parking area at the Gammage Road boat ramp has 

not been maintained (gravel and graded) or mowed as frequently as needed in recent years due to 

higher priority habitat projects for the refuge’s maintenance staff. Small parking areas are maintained 

outside the entrance gates at the Kennedy, Bradley, Houston, and Molnar units and at the Houston 

Observation Tower and Observation Platform. No accessible parking is provided. 

Nine permanent hunting blinds are maintained in the Kennedy Unit and 15 in the Bradley Unit. Parking 

and directional signs, along with maintained trails posted with reflectors, lead hunters to each blind. The 

refuge maintains the Houston Observation Tower and an Observation Platform at the Upland Unit. 

Partnerships and Volunteers 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge enjoys active, productive partnerships with a number of agencies, 

institutions, and individuals. Among these are the Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Wildlife Services division; Natural Resources Conservation Service; Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Georgia Wildlife Resources Division; and the 

Barbour County Chamber of Commerce. The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit, nongovernmental 

conservation organization, cooperates with the refuge on resource management issues. Other 

nongovernmental organizations that partner with the refuge include Ducks Unlimited, the National 

Wild Turkey Federation, the W.C. Bradley Company, Alabama Power, and the Tri-Rivers Waterway 

Development Association. 

The refuge also has an active and growing volunteer program. In 2001, some 52 volunteers 

contributed more than 4,000 service hours. Volunteers contributed 1,440 hours in 2006, conducting 

wildlife surveys, assisting with the hunter check stations, performing general maintenance, monitoring 

and maintaining bluebird and wood duck boxes, rehabilitating walking trails, and helping with 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53 
International Migratory Bird Day activities. Youth Conservation Corps volunteers have assisted in the 

past. Other past volunteer activities have included the construction of a new asphalt shingle roof on 

the kiosk at the head of the nature trail; the building of brochure racks for the refuge kiosks; the 

installation of shelves in the carpentry shop in the maintenance building; the building of duck blinds; 

office duties; Geographic Information Systems (GIS) support; and the participation of volunteers in 

the refuge’s Environmental School Day Program. 

Currently, the refuge does not have an official Friends group. 

54 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 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 refuge’s management direction. The Service as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are 

grateful to each individual 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 refuge. 

Scoping refers to the process by which the planning team gathers input from a variety of internal and 

external sources on the key issues, concerns, and opportunities that need to be addressed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Sources of internal scoping include the refuge staff itself and 

other Service biologists and professionals. External scoping sources include concerned private 

citizens; research and educational institutions; members of conservation, sportsmen, and civic 

groups; refuge neighbors; citizens of the local community; and state, tribal, and local agencies. 

These various interests are sometimes referred to collectively as “stakeholders,” that is, those 

individuals and groups that have a stake in how the refuge is managed. In developing this 

comprehensive conservation plan for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, the planning team conducted 

both internal and external scoping. 

The first step in developing the plan was a biological review that took place during the week of August 

11–15, 2003. The biological review team included 15 Service biologists, managers, foresters, and 

non-Service managers and biologists. The biological review involved onsite evaluations to assist the 

refuge in meeting its purposes and determining the role(s) the refuge could play regarding its wildlife 

needs and objectives at various geographical scales (local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The 

approach was to take a holistic look at achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs, 

while still giving priority to accomplishing the refuge’s originally established purposes. The team 

presented its recommendations in a Biological Review Report (USFWS 2006a). In keeping with the 

comprehensive planning process, these recommendations were made in the form of goals, objectives 

and strategies for the management of the refuge’s biological resources. These preliminary goals, 

objectives and strategies were studied by the planning team and modified and adapted for use in this 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

A visitor services review was also conducted in 2003. The five-member visitor services review team 

consisted of personnel from the Service’s Visitor Services and Outreach Division at the Southeast 

Regional Office in Atlanta; a representative of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge; and a representative 

of the Piedmont and Bond Swamp national wildlife refuges. The team met with the refuge manager 

and biological technician to tour the refuge and discuss its recreational, educational, and interpretive 

programs and opportunities. After touring the refuge and reviewing its visitor services program, the 

team presented a set of draft recommendations to the refuge staff and held an open discussion of the 

pros and cons of the various recommendations (USFWS 2003c). Later in January, 2006, the team 

submitted its Final Public Use Review Report with a number of recommendations for improving and 

expanding the refuge’s visitor services facilities and operations (USFWS 2006b). 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55 
 

 

 

 

The comprehensive conservation planning team, composed of the refuge manager; assistant refuge 

manager; wildlife biologist; a natural resources planner from the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, field 

office; and an outside professional consultant (see Appendix XI, List of Preparers) met for the first 

time on November 16–17, 2005. The planning team toured the refuge and received an overview of 

its habitats, fish and wildlife, and public use programs, facilities, and opportunities. It also conducted 

additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary schedule, a mailing list, and plans for public 

involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge was 

published in the Federal Register on January 26, 2006. 

The planning team held an open house and public scoping meeting on January 31, 2006, at the Bevill 

Center on the campus of Wallace Community College in Eufaula, Alabama. The meeting was coordinated 

with officials of other governmental agencies, various organizations, and the surrounding communities. The 

meeting was publicized in advance in several ways. Letters and flyers were sent to those on the mailing list, 

which included refuge users, government and civic leaders, congressional staff, private organizations, and 

other interested parties. Information announcing the public scoping meeting was also sent to local 

newspapers, and a public service announcement was sent to local radio stations. Approximately 30 citizens 

attended the open house and scoping meeting. The attendees were able to meet and interact with the 

refuge staff, ask questions, view the exhibits and maps on hand, and provide comments. 

The meeting began with brief overviews of the refuge and the comprehensive planning process, 

followed by a facilitated open-floor question and comment period. The attendees were given the 

opportunity to ask questions and voice their thoughts and concerns about the refuge and how it 

should be managed in the future. In addition, a comment form was distributed for the attendees and 

other interested parties to submit written comments. The written comments could be submitted either 

at the meeting or subsequently by mail or e-mail. The issues, concerns, and suggestions received at 

the scoping meeting were considered and evaluated in the preparation of this draft comprehensive 

conservation plan. A total of 23 comment forms and letters were received. Appendix IV, Public 

Involvement, provides a summary of the public scoping comments. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns and opportunities related to fish and wildlife 

protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered species. 

Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local 

ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input through 

public scoping meetings, open planning team meetings, comment packets, and personal contacts. All 

public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues that are important to the 

public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be addressed within this planning 

process. Nevertheless, the team did consider all issues that were raised through this planning process, 

and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. 

The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are the most significant to the 

refuge. These priority issues are summarized in the following sections. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Internal 

y	 Invasive aquatic vegetation encroachment needs to be kept under control via cooperative 

work agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) and the states. Additionally, 

to better document the extent of the problem and to track trends over time (including 

sedimentation problems), aerial and GIS map documents are needed. 

56 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y	 An updated Forest Inventory/Management Plan should be prepared soon. This will probably 

require the help of a nearby forester (perhaps Noxubee Refuge). Some tree harvest removal 

will be necessary to improve understory and midstory conditions, with an emphasis on 

regeneration of bottomland hardwood oaks and other mast-bearing trees. 

y	 Devices/capability to document refuge habitat types, water coverage, etc., need to improve, 

since habitats change over time and change in response to ACE flooding regimes. There is a 

need for some past and present satellite imagery/aerial photos, etc., tied to water gauge 

readings and different seasons of the year. 

y	 Wood duck box and trapping activities: continue with them, but when old boxes and poles 

need replacing, use only one box/pole and place boxes so one is not in sight of the other. At 

present, limit wood duck banding to a July to September 20 period (possible to September 30; 

see updated 2003 Regional Wood Duck Management Guidelines). 

y	 Species of concern and threatened and endangered species, which every national wildlife 

refuge aims to safeguard. 

y	 Moist soil management, which is carried out at Eufaula on behalf of waterfowl and shorebirds. 

y	 Shorebirds and wading birds, both of which utilize shore margins, sloughs, wetlands, and 

moist soil units on the refuge. 

y Woodcock, for which there is habitat on the refuge and whose populations have declined in 

the Southeastern United States in recent decades. 

y	 Terrestrial nongame birds, which are abundant on the refuge and some of which may be of 

management concern in the region, or, in the case of neotropical migrants, throughout the 

continent. 

External (Public) 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to wildlife and habitat management at Eufaula NWR: 

y	 Exotic and invasive species pose a very serious threat to the conservation of natural 

resources on the refuge. 

y	 Prescribed burning and smoke management in the urban interface is a concern. 

y	 Longleaf pine and hardwood reforestation are needed to increase habitat diversity. 

y	 It is important to manage fallow fields and buffer strips. 

y	 Maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat is an important issue. 

y	 There is a lack of attention provided to boundary lands along the borders of the refuge. For 

example, the problem with beetle infestation on the South Fork Cowickee is an area that has 

been completely ignored by refuge management. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57 
y	 Balance prohibiting waterfowl disturbance with providing public access. 

y	 Help educate Lakepoint administration so that they can become more conservation-minded. 

Birds and other wildlife don’t recognize manmade boundaries. It would be great if Lakepoint 

would do a conservation/environmental plan that reflects and enhances refuge philosophies. 

y	 Assist in the development of waterfowl habitat on private lands. 

y	 Consider alternative crops for wildlife, such as rice; plant millet and other crops which attract 

waterfowl. 

y	 Mosquito control is needed. 

y	 Mammal conservation should be made a priority, incorporating both a deer hunting program 

and beaver control. 

y	 Suitable habitat should be maintained for mammals such as woodrats, several species of 

mice, spotted and striped skunks, and cottontail and swamp rabbits. 

y	 Because the refuge is not on a main flyway, more emphasis should be focused on attracting 

and holding waterfowl. Have more flooded impoundments with food and resting areas. 

Eliminate farming leases because they do nothing for waterfowl, since all the crops are 

gathered before most of the wintering waterfowl arrive. Nothing is left in the field after harvest. 

y	 Eufaula NWR is a refuge, and should be a place of peace, with a place for birds to rest, not be 

hunted. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Internal 

y	 Monitoring of water quality/contaminants should occur to have baseline data for fish and 

certain key pools in the refuge. Utilize Corps of Engineers data from nearby river (if 

available). 

y Cultural resources: in addition to the above issues identified by the public and by the biological 

and public use reviews, the Service should identify the protection and preservation of its 

cultural resources as an important issue. 

External (Public) 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to resource protection at Eufaula NWR: 

y Hire a full-time law enforcement officer. 

y Litter control is needed. 

58 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Internal 

y	 Permits or user fees: Could revenue from permits or fees be directed toward improving habitat 

and wildlife management on the refuge? 

y	 Emphasis on fishing and hunting: given current staffing/budget limitations, as well as the 

interests of most visitors, the public use program should continue to emphasize fishing and 

hunting. 

External (Public) 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to visitor services at Eufaula NWR: 

y	 There are safety concerns about the nonconsumptive public use activities occurring too close 

to hunting activities. Close hunting areas to other public uses during hunts to ensure public 

safety, and create a no-hunting zone around the Houston Observation Tower. 

y	 Eufaula NWR is located on U.S. Highway 431, the primary route for the public driving from 

Atlanta to the Florida Panhandle. More than 5 million people travel through Eufaula NWR 

annually, providing huge potential for visitation. 

y	 Evaluate the current environmental education and outreach program, including the audience, 

message, and outreach tools (website, events, field trips, presentations) used to reach those 

audiences. Revise environmental education and outreach programs to target primary 

audiences more efficiently. 

y	 Promote Eufaula NWR to the birding community by opening a portion of the Bradley Unit as a 

birding drive, working with birding trail organizers in Georgia and Alabama, and partnering 

with the Chamber, Audubon and others to promote Eufaula NWR as a birding destination. 

y	 Develop an up-to-date Visitor Services Plan that reflects current legislation, director’s orders, 

initiatives, policy, and the mission of Eufaula NWR, the NWR System and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The plan should also address the current and future visitor services and 

recreation needs of refuge visitors. 

y	 Develop Sneads Pond Road for public use, including signage, culvert, road maintenance, and 

parking. 

y	 Implement a plan for an accessible fishing/wildlife observation pier at Houston Bottoms. 

y	 Open a portion of the Bradley Unit as a birding drive. 

y	 Develop a canoe trail along Wylaunee Creek. 

y	 Give seniors a better chance to hunt. Applicants for the waterfowl hunt should be sorted into 

two groups: one 16 years and up to 59 years of age, and the other 60 years and older. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59 
y	 There should be more public school involvement with education programs and more programs 

to educate the public about the refuge. Family programs should be created and presented on 

a regular schedule. 

y	 Observation areas need to be located where people can really see a lot of species. 

y	 The quota system for duck hunting should be revised to provide the public with a greater 

opportunity to be selected by taking into account prior year rejections. A rejection notice 

system would give those who have not had an opportunity to hunt in recent years a greater 

chance at being selected for a given year’s duck hunt. 

y	 Continue to include hunting as a priority recreational use; put more emphasis on providing 

quality dove and waterfowl hunts. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Internal 

y	 Personnel and facility needs, which limit the ability of the refuge to fulfill its purpose. 

y Special studies/research, for which the refuge can provide a “natural laboratory” for studies of 

particular interest to management of refuge resources and/or of interest to the academic 

community. 

y	 Partnerships with conservation groups could enhance wildlife observation opportunities as 

well as outreach. 

y Volunteers and partners could assist refuge, as would a “Friends” group. 

y	 Continue close coordination with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources’ Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries on hunting and fishing programs on the 

refuge and expand the state’s participation in refuge planning activities. Continue the interagency 

agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerning management of the refuge. 

y	 Develop and strengthen partnerships related to environmental education and visitor use 

programs; control invasive plant species; manage and protect migratory birds; and increase 

law enforcement. 

External (Public) 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to refuge administration at Eufaula NWR: 

y	 Increase the volunteer program by defining volunteer needs and strategically recruiting
 

volunteers. 

y	 Develop a Friends group. A Friends group could do volunteer work that would benefit the refuge. 

It would also serve as a tax-deductible fund for donations by businesses and individual 

contributors that would be used on behalf of habitat improvements, birds, waterfowl, etc. 

60 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y Hire an Outreach and Interpretive Specialist.
 

y Acquire additional lands for refuge expansion. 

y Build a new visitor center that provides interpretation and an education/nature center with 

classrooms.
 

y Continue to enhance partnerships.
 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The results of the wilderness review are included in Appendix VIII. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61 
62 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. Public uses are allowed if they are 

appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses. 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 refuge over the 

next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies 

that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative A, Current Management 

Direction (No Action); Alternative B, Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Management; Alternative C, 

Enhanced Wildlife-dependent Public Use; and Alternative D, Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management 

and Public Use Activities. Each of these alternatives is described in Chapter III of the Environmental 

Assessment (Section B). The Service chose Alternative D, Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management 

and Public Use Activities, as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative will result in the conservation, protection, and enhancement of 

native habitats and wildlife populations representative of the Middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including 

waterfowl, other migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. It would also furnish the 

public with quality wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretation that will lead 

to a greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and their habitats. 

VISION 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1964, as a result of strong community support, on 

land that was acquired as part of an Army Corps of Engineers water development project on the 

Chattahoochee River called the Walter F. George Reservoir. The Service manages the refuge under a 

perpetual Lease Agreement with the Corps of Engineers. In its first four decades, the refuge has focused 

on providing wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl, nesting and brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks, 

protecting threatened and endangered species, and furnishing public recreational opportunities. 

In the next 15 years, refuge staff will focus its wildlife and habitat management efforts in several 

areas: (1) providing habitat for migratory birds, including waterfowl and neotropical migrants; (2) 

protecting threatened and endangered species that might occur; (3) controlling invasive species, 

including aquatic and terrestrial; (4) managing existing forest lands to achieve sustainable forest 

ecosystems, to include restoring a significant area of the historic longleaf pine ecosystem; (5) 

managing refuge habitat for the benefit of indigenous terrestrial species of plants and animals; and 

(6) managing conservation easements or agreements for which the Service has responsibility. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63 
 

 

A healthy refuge environment will also encourage opportunities for visitors to participate in 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation in a natural setting. Fishing, hunting, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation will all be encouraged. The 

refuge will also fulfill its obligations to protect cultural resources that may occur. To meet all of the 

above challenges, the Service will nurture and seek partnerships with other federal and state 

agencies, interest groups, landowners, schools, and local communities. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented below are the Service’s responses to the issues, 

concerns and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public 

and are presented in a 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, and the purposes and vision of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. With adequate 

staffing and funding as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish 

these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal: Conserve, protect, and enhance native wildlife populations representative of the Middle 

Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other migratory birds, and threatened and 

endangered species. 

Discussion: The diverse habitats at the Eufaula Refuge furnish shelter and food for migratory 

waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds. Other nonmigratory resident wildlife species such as deer, 

turkey, quail, dove, hawks, owls, rabbits, squirrel, otters, coyote, bobcat and beaver are also well 

represented on the refuge throughout the year. Large populations of reptiles, amphibians, insects 

and fish also inhabit the refuge. Eufaula’s habitats also provide protection for endangered and 

threatened species such as the wood stork. The American alligator, bald eagle, and the occasional 

peregrine falcon are also found on the refuge. These species were formerly listed as threatened or 

endangered, but have been de-listed because their populations have recovered sufficiently due to 

conservation efforts like those of Eufaula’s. 

Objective: Wintering Waterfowl Management – Provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil 

and grain crops, to meet the foraging needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. 

Discussion: The 11,184-acre refuge has lands and waters in both Alabama (a Mississippi Flyway 

state) and Georgia (Atlantic Flyway state). Peak wintering populations of ducks at Eufaula NWR 

reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent years, populations have declined, peaking at 

12,000–20,000. Few migrant geese use the Eufaula Refuge, but a resident Canada goose 

population now totals about 2,000. 

Approximately 4,000 acres at the refuge are part of the main Walter F. George Reservoir (upper 

end/shallower waters of Lake Eufaula), often with abundant submerged or emergent aquatic 

vegetation of mostly poor to fair value as waterfowl foraging habitat. There are approximately 1,250 

acres of manageable impoundments where some degree of water control is available and another 

approximately 700–1,000 acres of upland open lands where agricultural crops can be grown. 

64 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

In order to meet the late fall/winter needs of most dabbling duck species, it is desirable to have a 

complex of habitat types, including natural moist soil aquatics, flooded timber, and high caloric/grain 

foods, all preferably within a 10-mile radius. Additional life history requirements involve energy and 

protein/amino acid needs associated with molts, pair-banding, mating, migration reserves, egg-laying, 

metabolizable energy, and brood-rearing. These requirements necessitate some sanctuary, 

nondisturbance factors, as well as adequate foraging needs. Diving duck species such as ringnecked ducks and scaup are also associated with deeper water habitats, floating and submerged 

aquatics, and/or small fish and foraging opportunities. 

Strategies: 

y	 Strive to meet half of the duck foraging needs by moist soil habitats and half by hot foods 

(planted grain crops). 

y	 Provide approximately 1,000 acres of flooded moist soil habitat within impoundments or 

other refuge sites that average > 400 lbs. of seed/acre. 

y	 Provide approximately 70–75 acres of flooded, unharvested corn or an equivalent amount 

of other grains, that averages at least 50 bushels per acre. 

y	 Work aggressively to improve capability of impoundments to provide desirable food 

resources (control invasive aquatic plants, water depths). 

y	 Utilizing ground and aerial chemical treatments as well as mechanical devices (burning, 

disking, mowing), control/treat invasive aquatic and wetland plants that reduce the 

foraging value of managed impoundments. 

y	 Improve drainage and drying capabilities via maintenance of internal drainage ditches and 

canals. 

y	 Consider options for an experimental deep flooding (>3') of portions of an impoundment 

for several years (2–3) to control invasive aquatics. Document plant/animal responses. 

y	 Prevent, reduce or eliminate disturbance factors in several key waterfowl feeding, 

roosting, and loafing areas (on land and water) to ensure sufficient sanctuary to meet 

numerous life history needs. 

y	 Maintain the current no-hunt and/or no firearm hunt procedures and areas as described in the 

2003–2004 Hunting/Fishing Regulations brochure. Consider further reduction of vehicle and 

foot traffic in or near the Houston, Goose Pen, and Upland units during the November 15– 

February 28 period. Discourage fishing in impoundments and from impoundment banks 

during key waterfowl use periods (approximately November 15–March 15). 

y	 Do not locate wildlife drives in or on impoundment and dewatering areas during key 

waterfowl use periods (November–February). Extend closure for waterfowl sanctuary by 

two weeks to March 15. 

y	 Limit waterfowl hunting to no more than 2 half-days per week, less if higher quality hunts 

are desired (no immediate major expansion beyond current 2003–2004 procedures, with 

possible exception of future September teal/resident goose hunts in limited areas). 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65 
 

 

 

Objective: Geese/Cranes – Provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter 

utilization and feeding of at least 500 geese/cranes. 

Discussion: Larger waterfowl species such as wild geese and cranes prefer more open grazing areas 

(clover, young wheat, sedges/grasses) and grain (“hot food”) opportunities. Sandhill cranes are 

annual refuge winter migrants and highly desired by birders. Between 75–150 sandhill cranes roost 

in marshy and shallow water habitats along the river and feed in nearby agricultural fields. Blackmon 

Bottoms and nearby peninsulas are known roosting areas. As noted above, while the refuge has a 

resident Canada geese flock of about 1,500–2,000, few migrant geese visit or winter at Eufaula, and 

the harvest of geese from refuge hunts is insignificant. Snow geese and white-fronted geese (in 

combination) also frequent the refuge and nearby areas. 

Strategies: 

y	 Maintain at least one upland site of 100+ acres, leaving 10+ acres of unharvested grain to 

support 500 geese and/or sandhill cranes. The unharvested grain should be left in the 

center of the field, surrounded by green forage. 

y	 Provide for utilization and feeding by cranes and geese for 90–100 days. 

y	 Work cooperatively with the state to band Canada geese at their request. 

Objective: Wood Ducks – Maintain 200 wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Discussion: Management of wood duck populations has historically been a key part of Eufaula’s 

mission. Wood ducks are the most commonly harvested species by hunters at the refuge. Wood 

ducks require cavities (in trees or nest boxes) of proper dimensions and drainage for nesting, and 

abundant brood-rearing habitat for offspring survival and growth. Staff has erected and maintained 

wood duck nest boxes for many years. Box numbers and placement strategy have evolved as new 

recommendations occur. Over the last several years, the refuge staff removed clustered boxes from 

within impoundments or those lacking adequate water during the summer. The current strategy is to 

locate new boxes outside impoundments near suitable brood habitat over permanent water. Sixtyfive boxes were installed in fiscal year 2003, with additional boxes to follow over the coming years. 

The wood duck nest box program is in a transitional period. The staff plans to continue removing 

poorly located boxes while adding others following updated Region policies. 

Wood ducks have been historically banded at the refuge, although the demand for banding data has 

varied. Regional interest in wood ducks has increased, reviving staff banding efforts. Two banding 

stations are employed: one at the Molnar Unit using rocket netting, and the other at the Lakepoint 

State Park’s sewage lagoons, utilizing walk-in funnel traps. 

Strategies: 

y	 Utilize the Regional Office 2003 guidelines, Increasing Wood Duck Productivity: 

Guidelines for Management and Banding, USFWS Refuge Lands (Southeast Region) to 

improve overall wood duck status. 

y	 Utilize well-maintained wood duck boxes to improve wood duck nesting success; follow 

Regional Office 2003 guidelines for placement, maintenance, and number of boxes to erect. 

66 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y	 If possible, utilize volunteers or Biological Technician in placing and maintaining nest 

boxes. 

y	 Help meet Regional/National banding goals and quotas for both regular duck banding and 

reward duck banding programs. 

y	 Increase banding efforts by adding additional personnel to assist with the banding 

program. 

y	 Do not totally remove beaver ponds known to be good wood duck roosting or brooding 

areas (with exceptions for human hazard/economic reasons). 

Objective: Forest Birds – Provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both 

priority pine- and hardwood-associated bird species by 2010. 

Discussion: An opportunity exists to manage for both open pine forest-associated and mature 

hardwood-associated bird species at Eufaula, but the distribution and past management history of 

forest patches forces treating most of the mature forest types under one category. The entire forest 

component is 2,178 acres, including both the Alabama and Georgia units. Less than 1,500 acres are 

in upland forest types, and the rest is in bottomland forest. 

At present, with the abandonment of agriculture, forested conditions have returned, but with fire 

suppression and dense planting of mostly loblolly pine the longleaf and shortleaf pine communities 

were greatly reduced. With very few exceptions, mature pine stands are densely stocked and in poor 

condition to support open pine forest-associated species, such as the brown-headed nuthatch and 

Bachman’s sparrow. Most of the pine today is still mostly loblolly or plantation slash pine, but some 

individual remnant longleaf and shortleaf pines can still be found on refuge lands. 

Ultimately, the loblolly pine-dominated stands should be replaced by about 1,000 acres of 

longleaf/shortleaf pine savanna and open woodland conditions, with frequent fire that will benefit 

resident and migratory birds as well as other wildlife. Although red-cockaded woodpeckers 

infrequently disperse and will not likely establish a population at Eufaula, the site might serve as part 

of a river corridor link between Fort Benning and International Paper's Southlands Experiment Forest 

on Lake Seminole. More likely will be the establishment of Bachman’s sparrow populations and 

healthier populations of brown-headed nuthatch, northern bobwhite, and red-headed woodpecker 

than now found on the refuge. The potential for the southeastern breeding subspecies of American 

kestrel nesting on the refuge should increase as more longleaf pine is reestablished and ground 

cover is maintained in a mostly grassy-herbaceous condition. 

Managed bottomland forests could potentially support breeding and resident priority forest species 

such as the wood thrush, worm-eating warbler, Kentucky warbler, and Swainson’s warbler, among 

many other species. Optimal habitat conditions would include thinning the canopy to about 60 

percent cover, allowing the understory vegetation layer to increase and then through group selectionsized openings, increasing denser patches of understory vegetation. Supporting canebrake 

conditions would be part of this management which, in addition to nongame songbirds, should 

provide important diurnal habitat conditions for both nesting and foraging American woodcock. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67 
One wintering species—the rusty blackbird—is in need of at least monitoring attention, mostly as a 

roosting and foraging species in and around forested wetlands. At the present time, the refuge staff 

is simply attempting to locate areas of fairly consistent use by this increasingly vulnerable species of 

blackbird. The staff has been requested to keep notes on where, when, and how many rusty 

blackbirds are observed during the winter months. 

Shrub-scrub species that should also benefit from proposed forest management include the northern 

bobwhite quail, American woodcock (nesting and diurnal foraging habitat), common ground-dove, 

prairie warbler, field sparrow, and eastern towhee. Most of these species are already regular at 

Eufaula and would be expected to increase as the forest management practices outlined above are 

implemented, along with any other shrub-scrub conditions that are available, including feathered 

edges between croplands and forested habitat. 

American woodcock would most likely benefit from development of dense canebrakes in forested 

wetlands and otherwise a dense understory layer that would develop from appropriate thinning of the 

forest canopy, as described above. Availability of adjacent fields would also lead towards supporting 

woodcock populations. 

Many forest birds (and other landbirds) are migratory, such as the neotropical migrants. Beyond 

habitat availability, one of the most important issues affecting their survival in North America is the 

proliferation of communication towers that may cause significant mortality during inclement weather 

nights, when nocturnal migrants are attracted to the tall towers’ slowly blinking beacon lights. The 

Service has guidelines on how to reduce the mortality associated with communication towers when 

they are being planned near the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y	 By 2010, identify and subject to heavy thinning and growing season prescribed fire a 

minimum of 1,000 acres of pine stands intended for longleaf or shortleaf restoration. 

y	 By 2010, conduct thinning and patch openings, with rare incidence of fire, in 700 acres of 

forested wetland that are infrequently flooded (at least during the breeding season). 

y	 Revise and update the Eufaula NWR Forest Management Plan by 2012. Work to be done 

by contract or FWS forester. 

y	 When forest management decisions are made, establish point counts in stands that will be 

subjected to management in the near-term as well as stands that will not be managed in 

the near-term to track bird responses by 2007. 

y	 By 2008, during the winter months, refuge staff will keep records on their encounters with 

rusty blackbirds, including locations, numbers, and dates when observed. 

y	 By 2010, link status of shrub-scrub species at Eufaula with habitat improvements 

established for 1,000 acres of upland forest that will be maintained in savanna or open 

woodland condition as described above. 

y	 All forest edges with fields should be feathered by cutting into the existing woods to 

maximize potential use by shrub-scrub species by 2010. 

68 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

y	 Establish roadside point counts along forest and field edges across the refuge to track 

habitat use by all priority shrub-scrub species by 2008. 

y	 By 2007, implement USFWS communication tower guidelines. 

Objective: Grassland Birds – Provide high quality grassland habitat to support grassland bird 

species on 220 to 300 acres while achieving priority waterfowl objectives by 2008. This 

includes planting native warm season grass species on old farm fields. 

Discussion: Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge has long been known to be an excellent place to 

encounter rare or otherwise hard-to-find grassland species in Georgia and Alabama. The highest 

priority grassland birds include the following species: Henslow’s sparrow, yellow rail, 

American woodcock, Wilson’s snipe, short-eared owl, northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, barn 

owl, loggerhead shrike, sedge wren, and Le Conte’s sparrow. 

About 3,000 acres of open land is now available at Eufaula. Managed wetlands constitute 2,000 

acres, while less than 50 acres of hayfields through other fallow acres can provide excellent 

grassland bird habitat. Most of the remaining 1,000 acres of open land is dedicated to cropland 

management each year, with some acreage left fallow, but this varies from year to year in terms of 

acreage and location. In addition, some of the moist soil units (or at least the edges of these units) 

can also provide grassland bird habitat. 

Grasslands should be managed using fire, mowing, chemicals, and soil disturbance as needed to 

establish and maintain proper plant composition. Some type of management probably will be needed 

every 1–2 years. Native warm season grasses and other plants will be established if feasible (if seed 

sources and establishment techniques are available). Management needs to ensure that late 

summer or fall management activities do not leave too much area bare of cover for the winter. 

Strategies: 

y	 By 2008–2009, consider research on how to provide the range of habitat conditions for 

grassland species wintering at the Eufaula Refuge, with emphasis on yellow rails, 

Henslow’s sparrows, sedge wrens, and Le Conte’s sparrows. 

y	 By 2009–2010, implement Project Prairie Bird or similar surveys to attempt a better 

understanding of habitat use by wintering species. 

y	 By 2008, establish a protocol to survey American woodcock using fields during winter and 

spring. 

y	 By 2010, provide high quality grassland habitat and nesting sites to support northern 

bobwhite, barn owls, and loggerhead shrikes. 

y	 By 2008, establish roadside point counts that would include grassy areas as well and 

concurrently conduct quail call-counts. 

y	 By 2007, consult with Georgia Department of Natural Resources personnel to establish 

nest boxes that should support nesting barn owls on each unit near open land. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 
 

 

 

 

y	 By 2010, develop conditions in a subset of fields where nesting loggerhead shrikes may 

be best supported in scattered trees within or adjacent to fields. 

y	 Plant thickets of native Chickasaw plum, hawthorn, and crabapple trees along field edges 

and borders. 

Objective: Marsh Birds – By 2010, promote tall emergent vegetation sufficient to support a 

population of 10–20 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

Discussion: All of the priority marsh birds found at Eufaula NWR require tall emergent vegetation as 

part of their habitat. All are breeding species, except the American bittern. Breeding populations of 

pied-billed grebe and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest, even though 

wintering populations are considered secure. Of the marsh birds of most conservation interest at 

Eufaula, the king rail is of highest concern, followed by the least bittern and purple gallinule. Since 

2006, a survey for king rails and least bitterns has been conducted under the Research Partnership 

Program with Auburn University. Auburn researchers will utilize standard marsh bird survey protocol 

to document presence of these species. 

During the last several decades, overall loss of freshwater emergent wetlands has been underway as 

development pressures increase, especially away from immediate coastlines. The king rail, in 

particular, is thought to have declined dramatically from inland areas and is now considered to be a 

species in potentially deep conservation trouble away from coastal areas. The least bittern likely has 

never been common in the inner Coastal Plain, but is also likely to be suffering from freshwater 

wetland losses in recent decades. The purple gallinule is close to the northern edge of its distribution 

at Eufaula, but is also a species that may be in decline locally, if not regionally. All these factors 

considered together suggest that Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge is well positioned to support 

healthy habitat for these and other marsh bird species. 

The king rail may serve as an umbrella species for the other priority marsh birds. King rail may be the 

most habitat-specialized of those species nesting in tall emergent vegetation. Their nests are 

constructed near the soil, usually where standing water depths are about 10 inches. Higher water 

levels have the potential to flood out the species and little or no standing water potentially exposes 

nests to greater depredation pressure from predators like raccoons. These conditions should support 

nesting least bitterns as well, with nests usually placed higher in the vegetation, making this species 

more tolerant of deeper flooding. 

Density estimates for breeding pairs of king rails are extremely variable and more work is needed at 

Eufaula to establish specific population and habitat objectives. However, from the data that do exist, it 

appears realistic that in high quality habitat, tall emergent wetlands could support at least one pair per five 

acres. Other estimates suggest 20 acres may be necessary to support a pair, but there is no information 

to determine the relative quality of habitat or the accuracy of these estimates. Assuming that a minimum 

of five acres and a maximum of 20 acres is necessary to support at least one pair and all the marshland 

acres are in suitable condition for king rails, then somewhere between five and 20 pairs of king rails could 

be supported on the refuge in managed wetlands under present conditions. 

Strategies: 

y By 2010, focus specific attention on promoting tall emergent vegetation in a way that 

would support sizable breeding king rail and least bittern populations primarily in the 

Bradley and Kennedy units. 

70 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

y	 Promote 50–70 percent tall emergent vegetation in the larger patches of marsh, with the 

remaining 30–50 percent in open water, floating vegetation, and submergent aquatic 

vegetation in support of breeding purple gallinules, pied-billed grebes, and American 

coots, as well as brooding wood duck and wintering waterfowl. 

y	 If emergent vegetation is treated with herbicides in coves within the reservoir, do so in 

patches or strips, striving to maintain 50–70 percent of each cove in emergent vegetation. 

y	 By 2007, determine the presence of marsh bird species in suitable habitat and the 

response of these species to habitat management by contributing to the secretive marsh 

bird survey data presently coordinated by Courtney Conway, BRD-University of Arizona. 

Objective: Wading Birds – By 2010, provide for both secure nesting sites and ample foraging 

habitat. 

Discussion: In general, nesting wading birds have ample habitat available at Eufaula, but the issue of 

how much disturbance nesting wading birds can tolerate is key to protecting these species. If the 

refuge staff finds nesting areas at remote sites (from the standpoint of public use), it may be 

worthwhile to occasionally monitor these sites for potential disturbance problems and make entry 

adjustments accordingly. In other situations where colonies form and there is high public use nearby, 

no public use restrictions may be necessary to be too concerned. The main priority should be 

tracking changes in public use around established colony sites (e.g., Bird Island) and responses by 

the nesting birds. 

One important aspect of managing for long-legged wading birds is providing post-breeding foraging 

habitat in late summer and early fall, which may include dispersing endangered wood storks. Proper 

management would involve furnishing habitat conditions similar to those provided for shorebirds by 

drawing down water in impoundments. Drawdowns and stocking of forage fish improve foraging 

habitat and concentrate birds for viewing. 

Species of conservation interest in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain include the little blue heron, 

tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned night-heron, wood stork, and white ibis. 

Daily observations of these species, their numbers, use of impoundments, and the 

condition/management of these impoundments would provide valuable information for guiding future 

management decisions, again in line with what is needed for brooding wood duck and later use by 

migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

y	 Locate nesting sites for colonial waterbird species each year and determine if special 

measures are needed to reduce disturbance, by 2010. 

y	 By 2010, determine use of managed wetlands and flooded cropland during post-breeding 

periods by long-legged waders, concurrently with southbound shorebird surveys, by 2010. 

Objective: Shorebirds – By 2010, provide for at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for 

shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71 
 

 

 

 

 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR provides stopover and feeding habitats for migratory shorebirds, primarily 

within the impoundments during spring. River water levels are controlled by Corps of Engineers 

policy and maintained at about 188 feet MSL during migration periods. This is too high to expose 

sandbars, mudflats, or shallow water habitats for shorebird use. Only during extended droughts or 

when water levels are approximately 187 feet MSL or less are suitable shorebird habitats available 

along the Chattahoochee River. 

However, the Service provides resting and feeding areas within the impoundments, particularly the 

Bradley Unit. Gradual spring drawdowns and daily water level fluctuations in the outlet pools provide 

ample habitat from March through June. By late July, these areas have normally revegetated with 

dense, tall herbaceous growth unsuited for shorebird use. 

Willets, marbled godwits, ruddy turnstones, black-bellied plovers, short-billed dowitchers, greater and 

lesser yellowlegs, black-necked stilts, and several species of sandpipers have been observed in refuge 

impoundments. Sandhill cranes are annual refuge winter migrants and highly sought after by birders. 

Between 75 and 150 sandhill cranes roost in marshy and shallow water habitats along the river and feed 

in nearby agricultural fields. Blackmon Bottoms and nearby peninsulas are also known roosting areas. 

Where opportunities exist, managing shorebird habitat should be focused on both northbound 

(spring) and southbound (autumn) movement periods. For areas away from the Lake Eufaula 

shoreline, consideration for flooding and gradual drawdown should be undertaken between late 

March and late May and again from late July to early October. 

Strategies: 

y By 2008, identify potential sites (e.g., impoundments, fallow crop fields) where water can 

be drawn down during late March to late May and late July to early October, rotating 

among sites as needed to ensure available waterfowl habitat, by 2008. 

y	 Contribute to the International Shorebird Survey by implementing counts in coordination 

with the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 

Objective: Threatened and Endangered Species – Provide protective conservation measures 

for federally or state-listed species and habitats for future ecological existence. 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR is not known to provide significant habitat for any plants or animals listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. However, the refuge does provide 

seasonal or temporary use by federally listed species, such as the wood stork. Additionally, some 

species of wildlife that are listed for protection by the states of Alabama or Georgia are found on the 

refuge. These are the alligator snapping turtle and Barbour’s map turtle. The refuge does not have any 

resident federally listed species other than the American alligator, which is only listed for “similarity of 

appearance” (SA) to the American crocodile found only in south Florida and the Florida Keys. 

The area in and around Eufaula NWR likely did support a modest red-cockaded woodpecker 

population that persisted through heavy conversion of forestland to agriculture during the late 1800s 

through to the early 1900s. Today, the nearest recovery population is north of the refuge at Fort 

Benning, and a small but increasing population now exists along Lake Seminole on the Georgia side 

under active management from International Paper. There also may be scattered family groups in 

the vicinity of the refuge, but there are no reports of nesting red-cockaded woodpeckers from the 

refuge proper. Nevertheless, future forest conditions may over the long term support this endangered 

species, but not likely within the next several decades. 

72 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

Strategies: 

y Inventory and conserve unique and rare habitats. 

y Contract with the state natural heritage programs, universities, private consultants, and 

others to survey and classify for unique habitats and any species occupying them on the 

refuge. 

y Survey and identify waters and habitat preferred by alligator snapping turtles and 

Barbour’s map turtles. 

y Continue to participate in the Georgia mid-winter bald eagle survey. 

y Provide and maintain potential nest trees for eagles in future forest management 

operations. 

y Provide and post information for fisherman on identifying and safe release of alligator 

snapping turtles. 

y Conduct survey for the federally endangered relict trillium (Trillium reliquum), which thrives 

best in mature, moist, undisturbed hardwood forests. 

Objective: Resident Wildlife – Expand capability and effort to implement sound scientific 

principles to better manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. 

Discussion: The primary resident game animal is the white-tailed deer. No specific management is 

conducted solely for white-tails, but deer and other game animals are benefiting and even thriving as a 

result of Eufaula’s timber thinning, prescribed burning, and farming programs. Bow hunting is allowed by 

free permit on both the Alabama and Georgia portions of the refuge. The refuge does not conduct deer 

population surveys or counts to provide a population index. Harvest data from 2003 indicate a stable or 

slowly increasing population. While not a precise indicator of herd health, the buck/doe ratio from archery 

harvests is 1.7/1.0. A deer health check by the Southeastern Cooperative Disease Study conducted in 

1998 revealed no major health problems with deer in either state. 

Mourning doves are another hunted game species on the refuge. Two to four free hunts are 

permitted annually. Wild turkeys are becoming more prevalent at Eufaula NWR. While no surveys or 

monitoring of adults or broods is conducted, groups of adults and hens with broods are commonly 

seen. Timber thinning activities the past 3 years and associated prescribed burning appear to be 

providing better brooding and nesting habitat. Turkey hunting is currently not allowed on the refuge. 

Other resident game animals include gray and fox squirrels and Eastern cottontail rabbits. Fox 

squirrels are uncommon and gray squirrels occur in the isolated pockets of mature hardwoods and 

along stream drainages. Eufaula does not have the large stands of hardwoods typical of productive 

squirrel habitat. Eastern cottontails are common but not overly abundant. 

Bobwhite quail populations are very low, typical for wild populations in this region. In recent years, 

the refuge staff has been placing field borders around croplands and periodically mowing and strip 

disking fallow fields and field edges. Low areas and irregular portions of crop fields have been taken 

out of production and will be managed for early successional habitats. Since 2003, approximately 50 

acres of cropland were retired and will be managed as old field habitats. It is hoped these practices 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73 
will allow the quail populations to gradually increase. Currently, quail hunting is not allowed. Hunting 

for rabbits is allowed during February, but the staff sees few hunters in the field. It is hoped rabbits 

will benefit from the refuge’s increased quail habitat management activities. 

The refuge provides a wide diversity of habitats for nongame mammals, herpetofauna (reptiles and 

amphibians), resident songbirds, raptors, and marsh and wading birds. Raccoons, opossums, ninebanded armadillos, bobcats, coyotes, and beaver are very common. River otter are occasionally 

observed. The Eufaula bird list contains 287 species and was last updated in 2001. A herpetofaunal 

survey of the refuge was also completed in 2001. 

Strategies: 

y	 Continue current recognized management practices including prescribed burning, 

selective thinning, farming, strip disking, mowing, herbicide use, and others to benefit 

wildlife. 

y	 Monitor and evaluate white-tailed deer population through hunter harvest data, periodic 

herd health checks, and spotlight surveys. 

y	 As opportunities arise, remove upland agricultural fields from crop production and manage 

as habitat for quail, rabbits, and turkey. 

y	 Continue thinning pine stands and gradually convert to longleaf pine habitats. Manage for 

open stands with grass/forb understory. 

y	 Use sound scientific management practices to maintain or increase healthy populations of 

nongame species. 

y	 Monitor and adapt management practices for game species to benefit nongame species. 

y	 Expand field borders and buffer strips around all agricultural fields. 

y	 Plant stands or thickets of Chickasaw plum, mayhaw trees, and crab apple in fallow fields, 

field edges and borders. 

y	 Conduct a detailed herpetofaunal survey of the refuge. 

y	 Determine most effective method of long term monitoring of herpetofaunal species or 

species groups for population trends. 

Objective: Pest and Nonnative Species Control – Control domestic, feral, or pest animals, 

especially feral hogs, removing 100-plus hogs annually, or as needed. 

Discussion: Domestic pets roaming or being left on the refuge are occasionally encountered by 

personnel. Normally the animals are captured by Eufaula Animal Control or taken to the city pound. 

Beaver can cause problems in the impoundments by building dams and stopping up water control 

structures. The refuge staff removes problem beavers by shooting and removing or exploding dams. 

Feral hogs are a severe problem in the Bradley Impoundment in Georgia and are quickly becoming a 

problem in the Houston Unit in Alabama. Live trapping has been conducted for the past three years 

but has not been very effective. Alternative methods including contract hunters or trappers must be 

74 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

pursued to limit the impacts of these highly destructive animals. A Feral Hog Management Plan has 

been recently prepared by the refuge describing guidelines of approved control methods. 

Approximately 1,000–1,500 giant Canada geese are year-round residents of Lake Eufaula. This flock 

began in 1965 with 104 donated geese from Wheeler National Wildlife Refuge, Alabama; 

transplanting continued periodically until 1971, with 257 geese from Brigantine National Wildlife 

Refuge, New Jersey, released in the interim. Refuge personnel have assisted the park with trapping 

and relocating birds to private lands. 

Strategies: 

y Help control resident Canada geese numbers to reduce negative impacts to parks, golf 

courses, etc. 

y Do not purposely stock giant Canada geese on refuge lands and do not provide nesting 

structures. 

y Help trap and remove geese to private lands desiring birds. 

y If resident numbers expand, consider special hunting opportunities (September hunts). 

y Update the Pest Control Plan authorizing methods and personnel allowed to control 

domestic, feral, or pest animals. 

y Determine appropriate control method on a case-by-case basis. 

y Utilize public education and outreach to publicize impacts of feral and free-roaming pets. 

y Use contract hunters and trappers to remove feral hogs. This will be done through the 

issuance of Special Use Permits under the guidelines of the refuge’s Feral Hog 

Management Plan. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal: Provide suitable habitats for native wildlife populations representative of the Middle 

Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other migratory birds, and threatened and 

endangered species. 

Discussion: Recognizing the direct influence of habitat suitability and diversity on the abundance and 

distribution of wildlife on the refuge, Eufaula NWR has had and will continue to have—under this CCP— 

an active habitat management program. Habitats that are managed include croplands, forests, and moist 

soils. The refuge also contains open water and marsh. While the Service has no control over the water 

levels in Lake Eufaula, which is under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers, the refuge does 

cooperate with the Corps and state agencies to control invasive aquatic species. 

Objective: Farming – Gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over the 15-year life of 

the CCP. Cultivate crops on 100 to 300 acres (refuge-maintained) to provide food, cover, and 

sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. This will provide adequate habitat for wintering 

waterfowl and provide quality dove hunting opportunities. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 
 

 

Discussion: The Eufaula NWR area has a long history of farming prior to and after refuge 

establishment in 1964. Refuge acreage planted to agricultural crops peaked in 1968 when 1,689 

acres were farmed and 232 acres allowed grazing. Cattle grazing was permitted until 1980. 

Currently, 501 acres are under agricultural management. Croplands are currently managed under a 

Cooperative Farming Agreement (CFA), which is negotiated annually. The basis for the CFA is to 

provide food resources for wintering waterfowl by allowing private citizens to farm refuge property at 

fair market values with benefits accruing to both parties. The current CFA is based on a acre for acre 

crop share ratio of 75%:25% (farmer/refuge). 

Under the current CFA, the cooperative farmer is farming 384 acres as his share and 117 acres (23 

percent) as the refuge’s share. The refuge allows the farmer to plant corn and small grains for his 

share. For the refuge’s share he is required to plant corn. Normally, the farmer rotates corn, small 

grains (wheat, oats, or rye), and soybeans. There are 36 acres of hayfields in the current CFA and 

they are treated the same as a grain crop. The farmer is required to provide all necessary labor, 

equipment, ground preparation, seed, soil amendments, and pesticides for each party. The refuge’s 

share of corn is left unharvested for wildlife consumption. 

Eufaula’s Croplands Management Plan (1988) sets a goal of producing 7,050 bushels of corn (or 

equivalent, in waste grain in combination with other grain crops, and in the refuge’s share). The 

cropland goal is to provide sufficient available metabolizable energy (ME) to sustain 50 percent of the 

refuge’s objectives for duck maintenance. The objective level is 2,300,000 duck use days. The 7,050 

bushels of corn was determined using published equations for basal metabolic rate, the gross energy 

content and ME of corn, and by adding 20 percent to buffer effects from weather, consumption by 

other wildlife, and corn unavailability. 

As noted previously, approximately 117 acres of corn are left unharvested for winter waterfowl use. 

To meet this goal, average yields of 60 bushels/acre must be obtained. Under “normal growing 

conditions” the refuge is able to meet this target. Furthermore, using reported conversions of one 

acre of corn providing enough energy for 233 ducks for 110 days equates to the refuge’s 117 acres 

providing for approximately 27,261 ducks per season. Assuming an average winter population of 

15,000–20,000 ducks, it appears the refuge is planting and providing enough corn for wintering 

waterfowl needs. It is worthwhile to note these calculations do not include any food consumption or 

energy obtained from moist soil management. 

In deciding to scale back the Eufaula Refuge’s farming program from approximately 500 to 300 acres, 

several questions were addressed: (1) Is the program adequately balanced between acres planted to 

row crops and acres managed as moist soil units? (2) Is cooperative farming the best conservation 

approach to providing food resources for wintering waterfowl? Can contract farming accomplish the 

same goals with less resource impacts? (3) If the refuge switches to contract farming, will adequate 

annual base funding be improved to cover the new expenses? The refuge staff feels a balanced 

farming program is important to provide food resources for wintering waterfowl. Additionally, other 

wildlife species benefit from farming as well. Force-account farming by the refuge staff is an option; 

however, additional maintenance staff is needed to meet this objective. Adapting the scale and the 

methods of farming as a land management tool to meet changing refuge demands is the challenge. 

Strategies: 

y	 Continue current cooperative farming program until an alternative method is adopted and 

annual funding support is found. 

y	 Review acreage needed for corn production for waterfowl use. 

76 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y Continue to manage and expand when possible buffer strips and field borders around all 

agricultural fields. 

y Plan to end cooperative farm agreements by 2007–2008 and switch to alternative “force 

account” farming. 

y Identify and manage appropriate cropland fields for waterfowl feeding and sanctuary 

areas. 

y	 Secure the necessary increase in annual base funding to administer new force account 

farming. 

y	 Initiate planning process to restore and manage excess farm fields to native habitats. 

Restore Davis Clark hayfield to native habitat. 

y	 Develop scopes of work, consultant lists, and other necessary contract administration to 

carry out above tasks. 

y	 Use refuge staff to carry out force-account farming program. 

y	 Secure approvals to obtain additional employees for force-account farming. 

y	 Identify and manage appropriate cropland fields (Kennedy Unit, Bradley Unit) for waterfowl 

feeding and sanctuary areas. 

y	 Secure additional equipment and training to conduct farming. 

y	 Initiate planning to restore and manage excess farm fields to native habitats. 

Objective: Forest Management – Use silvicultural treatments to improve 2,800 acres of refuge 

forestland to provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. 

Discussion: Prior to 2001, the Eufaula Refuge had conducted very few timber sales. Both natural 

and planted pine forests were characterized by mature trees with closed canopies and poor 

regeneration. Southern pine beetle outbreaks in 2000 and 2001 required the timber to be thinned. In 

other areas, the beetle infestations have gradually killed timber over the past 10 years. Problems 

with insect outbreaks are typical of overstocked stands with closed canopies. Periodic thinning and 

burning result in healthy forests with productive and diverse wildlife habitat. The refuge’s Forest 

Management Plan (1971) calls for silvicultural treatments every eight years based on an 80 year 

rotation cycle. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77 
 

 

 

 

 

In conducting timber sales, the refuge’s goal is to reduce the existing timber basal area of pine to 

approximately 40 square feet per acre or less. The average basal area for maintaining pine forests in 

the South is approximately 80 feet/acre. The management goal in pine and pine/hardwood stands is 

to increase plant diversity and habitat conditions for bobwhite quail, migratory birds (e.g., Bachman’s 

sparrow, woodcock, brown-headed nuthatch), and wild turkey. Subsequent to thinning, the areas are 

burned during winter. Hardwood trees in pine/hardwood stands are removed using timber stand 

improvement (TSI) methods. The healthiest, dominant, large crown trees are left, removing the 

smaller, subdominant, deformed ones. Streamside protection zones are left around perennial 

streams and shorelines. Standing snags and dead trees are retained. Bottomland hardwood stands 

are found primarily in narrow, isolated strips along the river and creek drains. No management action 

is proposed for these areas. 

Within the last 10 years, interest and funding for restoration of longleaf pine habitats has increased.
 

The refuge is within the historical range of longleaf pine and contains remnant longleaf pine stands. 

These stands have poor regeneration due to invasion by loblolly pine. Restoration of these former 

longleaf pine habitats has begun and should continue into the future. Historical aerial photography
 

document that these forests had a more open canopy and ground cover conditions than in recent times. 

Long-time residents speak of the grassy open understory and of quail hunting in these forests.
 

Thinning out the remaining loblolly pine and replanting longleaf combined with growing season burns 

will accomplish the restoration efforts. 

Reforestation of fallow fields and excess agricultural fields are other options. Many field edges in
 

upland areas are dominated by exotic Chinaberry trees, which should be removed and replaced with 

native species. 

As stated in the Corps of Engineers permit, the refuge is allowed to keep receipts from all timber sales. 

This additional funding has supplemented normal operating expenses, allowing the refuge to update its 

equipment, conduct many habitat management activities, and fund several research projects.
 

Strategies: 

y	 Manage forested habitats to restore and conserve historic native habitats and species. 

y	 Restore and manage all pine forest habitats for open canopy conditions dominated by a 

grass/forb understory. 

y	 Restore longleaf pine habitats into all suitable areas. The objective is approximately 1,000 

acres of restored longleaf pine forests by 2015. 

y	 Revise and complete a refuge Forest Plan by 2010. Contract it out to a private consultant 

or use a USFWS forester. 

y	 Continue to plan, obtain approvals, and schedule future forest treatments for disease 

prevention, longleaf pine restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement. 

y	 Incorporate growing season burns into all forest management plans. 

y	 Treat and control invasive plants that infest refuge forests. Focus on chinaberry, Chinese 

privet and Japanese honeysuckle. 

78 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

y	 Maintain dominant large crown pines for potential eagle nest sites. 

y	 Determine survival response of planted longleaf pines and adjust techniques to improve if 

needed. 

Objective: Fire Management – Use fire as a management tool on approximately 800–1,000 

acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation. 

Discussion: The primary ecological force for managing most refuge habitats is fire. Eufaula NWR 

has an active prescribed fire program after a few years of low activity. The lack of a RXB3 Burn 

Boss, turnover in personnel, and insufficient staff hampered efforts. Today, the refuge has an RXB3 

Burn Boss, more qualified staff, and better logistical support. Good relationships have been 

established with Okefenokee NWR and Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR for burning assistance. The 

refuge is capable of conducting low complexity prescribed burns. Due to its location within the 

Eufaula city limits and its proximity to Lakepoint Resort State Park, the refuge has wildland/urban 

interface issues, primarily smoke management concerns. For moderately complex prescribed burns, 

assistance must be sought from the neighboring refuges and a RXB2 Burn Boss. This does cause 

logistical problems and limits burning window opportunities. 

The refuge has an approved Fire Management Plan (2001). Its aim is to burn on a 2–3 year rotation 

depending on vegetation responses; burns are conducted primarily in the winter, or in the fall in the 

case of fallow or old field habitats. Prescribed burning in impoundments is conducted in early spring. 

As the refuge staff gains additional experience, growing season burns in longleaf pine habitats will be 

conducted. Current challenges with the refuge’s fire program revolve around smoke management, 

dependence upon a RXB 2 Burn boss, and the need for additional assistance from other refuges. 

Subdividing burn units into a series of 50–100 acre blocks and burning them separately will help 

reduce smoke management problems and fire complexity issues. The refuge’s equipment needs 

include an improved fire plow and a fuel trailer. Permanent firebreaks are also needed in most areas. 

Strategies: 

y	 Use fire as a management tool in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation. 

y	 Establish prescribed fire burning rotations and plans for all refuge habitats. 

y	 Update and revise Fire Management Plan as necessary. 

y	 Prepare prescribed burn plans for the following units: Kennedy, Houston, Molnar, and Dirt 

Pit. 

y	 Prepare prescribe burn plans for miscellaneous small areas, islands, and other locations. 

y	 Incorporate periodic growing season burns into all forested areas. 

Objective: Moist Soil Management – Intensify management of moist soil wetlands 

(approximately 1,200 acres) with emphasis on waterfowl and other aquatic birds foraging and 

life-history requirements. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79 
 

Discussion: To be successful, moist soil wetland management requires excellent water control and 

intensive monitoring, plus a situation where the terrain is suitable for such management. Without 

water and moisture control provided by pumps, levees, gates, and ditches, as well as the equipment 

and manpower to set back succession, such management often becomes a hit-or-miss action that is 

as much art as science due to the vagaries of local weather and the uniqueness of moist soil sites in 

terms of hydrology, hydroperiod, seed banks, previous land use, etc. Intensive management can 

produce over 1,000 pounds of seed per acre, but most impoundments under fair management 

conditions should consider 400 pounds per acre as a factor for waterfowl forage production. 

Managing wetlands for moist soil plants, seeds, roots, and tubers that are beneficial to waterfowl is 

recommended as a means of diversifying wetland habitats and supplying foods with nutrients not 

generally available in agricultural grains. 

Water depth, timing of inundation, and sustained/frequent monitoring and record-keeping are also 

needed to help assure adequate moist soil production on an annual basis. Moist soil management is 

labor- and equipment-intensive, and usually every 2–3 years sites will need to be disturbed 

(manipulated) to keep plant succession at the stages where desirable plant species dominate. Also, 

these sites need to be monitored weekly during spring/summer to fine-tune water levels/soil moisture 

and to execute vegetation control methods if undesirable plant species are the dominant germinators. 

Most refuges do not have the personnel, equipment, or funds to execute such intensive management 

on thousands of acres. 

Strategies: 

y	 Strive for more intensive management of moist soil wetlands (approximately 1,000 acres) 

with emphasis on waterfowl and other aquatic birds’ foraging and life-history requirements. 

y	 Maintain good dewatering and flooding capabilities at all impounded sites to enable more 

exact water level control. 

y	 Employ additional biological personnel to intensively record all operations of each moist 

soil impoundment (Biological Science Technician). 

y	 Improve capability to conduct more rigorous and repeatable inventory/monitoring/ 

evaluations of moist soil responses to different treatments. 

y	 Utilize biologist/technicians to record all weekly operations, water evaluations, and 

treatment activities during early spring/summer drawdown periods. 

y	 Sample moist soil sites to see if at least 50 percent of the plant composition in each unit is 

species of fair/good value for waterfowl (i.e., conduct moist soil plant composition 

surveys). Once the composition falls below 50 percent, the area needs to be treated. 

y	 Strive for a mosaic of moist soil habitats throughout the refuge; do not dewater all 

impoundments at same time; have a rotational drawdown management scheme. Also, 

stagger drawdowns throughout the late spring and summer. 

y	 Produce an annual Water Development Plan for each refuge impoundment; keep written 

records of management activities, plant responses, etc. 

80 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective: Nonnative and Invasive Plant Control – Aggressively control aquatic invasive plant 

species at approximately 25 shoreline miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually and 

preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species. 

Discussion: Exotic and invasive species are the most serious threat to the conservation of natural 

resources at Eufaula NWR. A recent plant communities survey found 29 exotic species occurring in 

refuge habitats (Schotz 2002). Three aquatic plants (water hyacinth, hydrilla, and common waterweed), 

feral hogs, the Mediterranean gecko, and others should be added to the list. Hydrilla and water hyacinth 

in the Chattahoochee have severe implications for the management of aquatic resources. Native invasive 

and weedy upland plants including sicklepod, cocklebur, mourning glory, and sesbania are problems in 

agricultural fields and impoundments. Chinese privet, Chinaberry, and Japanese honeysuckle are 

pervasive along forest edges, invading deep into the stand interior. Plant diversity along shorelines has 

been adversely impacted by alligatorweed, water willow, maidencane, giant cutgrass, and primrosewillow. Treating areas infested with alligatorweed, maidencane, primrose-willow, sesbania, water 

smartweed or waterpepper, American lotus, and others occurs within the impoundment. Exotic and 

invasive plants form monotypic stands of very low food value to wintering waterfowl. 

Management and control of invasive and exotics plants at Eufaula includes mechanical, biological, and 

chemical methods, or combinations of these. Mechanical methods include mowing, and disking or 

plowing using farm tractors. These methods are not effective, providing only temporary relief. The very 

high occurrence of invasive seeds in seed banks and their rhizomatous nature allows quick reestablishment and growth. 

The primary biological method has been the release of alligatorweed beetles. These beetles are hostspecific for alligatorweed. Beetles are obtained by the Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville, Florida, and 

shipped to the refuge each spring. The quantities released each year vary, normally between 2,000– 

3,000. The release of these beetles has had limited success in reducing alligatorweed. In 2004–2005, 

research comparing the herbicides Renovate and Habitat on controlling alligatorweed was conducted by a 

graduate student at Auburn University. The refuge provided full funding for this research. The use of 

herbicides has provided partial control of some invasive species. The primary herbicides used are 

Roundup (glyphosate) and 2,4-D amine (organo-phosphate). Others include Rodeo (glyphosate), 

Arsenal (imazapyr), and Tordon (picloram). Atrazine was previously used by the refuge’s cooperative 

farmer for control of sicklepod in corn, but is now banned from use on all refuges. Refuges must now use 

Roundup or other herbicides approved by the Washington Office. 

The refuge’s management strategy for exotics focuses on drying up impoundments and using tractormounted boom sprayers to apply herbicides. The key is to apply herbicides before the plants become tall, 

dominant, and produce seed. This means treating as early as ground conditions allow equipment in the 

fields. Abundant spring and summer rains delay treatments, allowing for weeds to become established. 

Most invasives are broadleaf weeds (dicots) and 2,4-D is used for selective control, allowing the 

grasses and sedges to become established, shading out invasives. 2,4-D is also an economical 

herbicide to apply. Other herbicides such as Roundup and Aresenal are nonselective and will kill both 

dicots and preferred monocot grasses and sedges. Roundup is applied in areas infested with 

maidencane in impoundments. Other application methods include backpack sprayers and an ATVmounted boom sprayer. Helicopter applications may also be used in the future. They are more 

effective in working in smaller infested areas than fixed-wing aircraft. In agricultural fields, the 

cooperative farmer applies approved herbicides for weed control in corn, soybeans, winter wheat, 

oats, and rye. The loss of Atrazine now requires the farmer to rely upon planting Roundup Ready 

corn and soybeans. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81 
Strategies: 

y	 Identify and monitor distributions of pest species by means of annual surveys of species 

presence and distribution. 

y	 Develop databases using GIS to map species distributions and changes over time. Map 

treatment areas and responses. 

y	 Use public education and outreach methods to publicize impacts of nonnative and native 

pest species upon refuge resources. 

y	 Partner with the Corps of Engineers to monitor the presence and distribution of 

cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) in hydrilla colonies on refuge waters. 

y	 Control and eradicate nonnative species, by determining appropriate control method and 

application technique, applying selected control method, and evaluating and monitor 

results. 

y	 Control distribution and impacts of native pest species by determining appropriate control 

method and application technique, applying selected control method, and evaluating and 

monitoring the results. 

y	 Cooperate with the Corps of Engineers to install educational signage at boat ramps to 

inform the public about the spread of hydrilla and other exotics. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal: Provide the public with quality wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, 

and interpretation that lead to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and their 

habitats. 

Discussion: The main public uses on the refuge are hunting and fishing and the refuge has active 

programs in these areas. Eufaula NWR is part of Lake Eufaula/Walter F. George Reservoir, which 

hosts more than 3.5 million visits annually, including large national fishing tournaments. Located on 

U.S. Highway 431, the primary route for the public driving from Atlanta to the Florida Panhandle, 

there is a huge potential for more visitation, since more than 5 million people travel through Eufaula 

NWR annually. 

Objective: Hunting – In addition to maintaining all existing hunts and seasons, consider 

adding additional hunts. 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR is open to hunting of waterfowl, deer, dove, squirrel, and rabbit. Hunting is 

permitted in designated areas only. The refuge staff participates in the Georgia and Alabama state 

hunt coordination meetings annually and coordinates the hunting seasons with both states when 

possible. The refuge is in the recreational fee demonstration program, and currently charges only for 

quota hunts. The staff manages 28 to 30 permitted hunts each year. 

The refuge will evaluate the turkey population on the refuge over the next 15 years and work towards 

adding a youth turkey hunt in the future. Due to safety concerns and a small turkey population, this 

would be a limited entry quota hunt. The methods outlined in the current Feral Hog Management 

82 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

Plan are sufficient to control feral hogs without expanding or adding any additional hunts at this time. 

The refuge is currently working with Dr. Bill Birkhead at Columbus State University to monitor the 

alligator population on the refuge. Once Dr. Birkhead and the refuge staff has collected three years 

of population data, the refuge will consider opening the open water portions of the refuge to alligator 

hunting following the state season and bag limits. 

Camping and ATVs are prohibited. Retrieving dogs are allowed for waterfowl hunts only. 

Refuge areas are open to disabled access, but no universally accessible routes are available 

between parking lots and the blinds for deer hunters with disabilities. There is no universally 

accessible blind for waterfowl hunters, although one is planned at the Bradley and Kennedy units. 

The refuge does not have a full-time law enforcement officer. Instead, hunting laws are enforced by 

collateral duty law enforcement officers, and all of the refuge staff works the check stations. Other public 

use activities are prohibited in the hunting areas during quota gun hunts. However, during the dove gun 

hunt, the Wildlife Drive and observation tower and platform remain open, posing a possible safety hazard. 

Strategies: 

y	 Close areas to other public uses during hunts (e.g., Wildlife Drive during the dove hunt). 

Provide information on alternatives. 

y	 Create a no-hunting zone around the Houston Observation Tower. 

y	 Evaluate the benefits of participation in a fee demonstration program to include a permit for all 

hunts. Increase quota hunt fees by 2008 ($20 per hunter / $60 for adult waterfowl permits). 

Implement a $20 per year hunting fee for all hunting which includes archery deer and small 

game. Add a permanent Park Ranger to process permits and answer hunter inquiries. 

y	 When the refuge modifies participation in the fee demonstration program, hire a 6-month 

intern to handle administration of the fee program and help at the check station. 

y	 Evaluate the turkey population on the refuge over the next 15 years and work toward 

adding a youth turkey hunt in the future. 

y	 Monitor the alligator population on the refuge for three years and use data to consider 

opening the open water portions of the refuge to alligator hunting following the state 

season and bag limits. 

y	 As soon as funding becomes available, hire a full-time law enforcement officer (RONS 

99002, Add Full-time LE Officer to Staff). 

Objective: Fishing – By 2015, document impact of sport fishing and fishing tournaments on 

sensitive wildlife and habitat resources on the refuge to serve as a basis for discussions with 

the Army Corps of Engineers and Alabama and Georgia authorities on possibility of 

establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. Enhance boat launch facilities and bank 

fishing opportunities on the refuge by 2015. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83 
 

 

 

 

Discussion: Approximately 4,000 of Eufaula NWR’s 11,184 acres is open water. This is part of the 

45,191-acre Lake Eufaula (Walter F. George Reservoir) operated by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Three boat launches are maintained by partner agencies (Lakepoint State Park by the State of 

Alabama; Florence Marina State Park by the State of Georgia; and Rood Creek Landing by the 

Corps). Two boat launch areas are the responsibility of Eufaula NWR: the Houston Bottoms boat 

launch and the Gammage Road boat launch. 

Since being impounded in the mid-1960s, Lake Eufaula has had a national reputation for its excellent 

largemouth bass fishing, and is often referred to as the “Bass Capital of the World.” Lake Eufaula 

has hosted numerous major national fishing tournaments. Sport fishing within refuge boundaries is 

one of the major economic engines of the local economy. 

Bank fishing is also popular, often by subsistence fishermen. The refuge allows fishermen to park at the 

gate and walk or ride a bicycle into each unit to find bank fishing opportunities. When the pumps are 

pumping water out of the impoundments, many fishermen will congregate around the pumps. In the 

Houston Unit, they often park their vehicles along the Wildlife Drive to access the bank fishing adjacent to 

the refuge pumps. These areas are a possible safety hazard. Littering is a problem in some heavily used 

bank fishing areas and a permanent law enforcement officer is needed to patrol these areas. 

Special needs bank fishermen are not accommodated. The refuge would like to construct a 

universally accessible pier for both wildlife observation and bank fishing at the Houston Bottoms, 

which could accommodate special needs anglers. 

The refuge has erected signs in the water as boaters traverse the river to let them know once they 

enter the refuge boundary. The refuge has also placed signs at non-refuge maintained boat launches 

(Lakepoint, Rood Creek, Florence Marina) to advise boaters that the waters are managed by the 

refuge. Small gravel parking areas are located at the refuge-maintained boat launches, but are not 

marked as such. For bank fishing, parking areas are located at the entrance gate to each of the 

units. No restroom facilities are available at any bank fishing areas. 

State officers are primarily responsible for enforcement of fishing regulations on the open water. 

Fishing regulation brochures are available at the refuge headquarters, but not at the entrance to the 

bank fishing areas or at the boat launches. 

There is concern that sport fishing and associated boat use in general, and large fishing tournaments 

in particular, may be disturbing sensitive wildlife and habitat resources on the refuge. However, firm 

documentation is lacking, and this will need to be provided if a case for no-wake zones is to be made 

to partnering agencies (Alabama, Georgia, and the ACE). 

Strategies: 

y	 Erect sign to indicate the boat launch at Houston Bottoms and include symbol on maps. 

y	 Create more user-friendly bank fishing areas. 

y	 Implement a plan for an accessible fishing/wildlife observation pier at Houston Bottoms. 

y	 Erect sign and maintain Gammage Road to boat launch bank area (MMS 00016, 

Rehabilitate Houston and Gammage Road Boat Ramp). 

84 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

y	 Design study to document potential impacts of boat traffic and wakes on wildlife and 

habitat within refuge with emphasis on threatened and endangered species. As 

appropriate, consider use of interns, students, volunteers, or outside researchers to make 

observations or collect data. 

Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Maintain all existing facilities and within 

10 years of CCP approval (1) designate one-way loop in the Houston Bottoms, and add 

additional pull-offs to existing Wildlife Drive; (2) improve existing interpretive trail and add 

foot trails between Lakepoint State Park and refuge; (3) add one photo blind in Houston 

Impoundment or Goose Pen Impoundment; and (4) construct an observation platform 

adjacent to the Hour Glass Impoundment on the Wildlife Drive and assess the need for an 

additional viewing platform in the Houston Bottoms area. 

Discussion: There is a 7-mile auto tour at the Upland and Houston units. The route on the Houston Unit 

is open year-round, and the route on the Upland Unit is open in the summer only (March 1 through 

November 14) to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. There are no pull-outs along the Wildlife 

Drive, with the exception of the parking areas near the gates. There are currently no interpretive panels 

along the Wildlife Drive. The refuge maintains the Houston observation tower and an observation 

platform at the Upland Unit. Currently, there are no photography blinds. A 0.6-mile interpretive walking 

trail is located near the old refuge headquarters. The trail is currently not maintained. 

The Eufaula Refuge is a designated site on the Georgia Southern Rivers Birding Trail and a birding 

trail in Alabama. 

Strategies: 

y	 Continue to work with the Southern Rivers Birding Trail in Georgia and the designated 

birding trail in Alabama. 

y	 At the observation platform, do not plant corn in the area that will obstruct view of platform 

from parking lot. 

y	 Erect “distance to” signs at trailhead at both the platform and tower. 

y	 Promote Eufaula NWR to the birding community (e.g., Audubon Society, birding websites) 

and partner with the local Chamber of Commerce to “sell” Eufaula as a birding destination. 

y	 Explore having Eufaula NWR listed as an Important Bird Area (IBA), a designation by the 

American Bird Conservancy. 

y	 Rehabilitate interpretive trail at old office by providing hand rails and benches (MMS 

43560, Replace Footbridge and Regravel Walking Trail). 

y	 Extend interpretive trail at old office into a longer, seasonal trail that loops over to Sneads 

Pond. 

y	 Develop interpretive panels for the Wildlife Drive. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85 
y	 At the observation tower, build a universally accessible parking pad and pave the walkway 

to increase its accessibility for visitors with disabilities. 

y	 Create observation pullout or viewing platform with interpretive signs on Wildlife Drive 

across from Bird Island (short term: pullout; long term: deck). 

y	 Develop a canoe trail along Wylaunee Creek. 

y	 Work with Lakepoint State Park to plan and develop one or more foot trails connecting the 

refuge and the park. 

y	 Consider constructing a new observation platform in the Houston Bottoms area to provide 

visitors with a better view of refuge impoundments and the Chattahoochee River. 

y	 Construct observation platform overlooking the Hour Glass Impoundment in a way that 

visitors accessing the platform would be screened from the birds to minimize disturbance. 

Objective: Environmental Education and Interpretation – Maintain existing opportunities and 

facilities, and by 2022, establish a new visitor center on the refuge. 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR does not have an environmental education (EE) plan. Refuge staff 

provides numerous EE programs throughout the year, responding to requests from teachers and the 

general public. This program consists primarily of in-class visits, although it also includes some field 

trips on the refuge. Since Lakepoint State Park no longer provides EE programs, the need in the 

surrounding community has grown. 

The refuge plans to hire a refuge Ranger/Interpretive Specialist who will be responsible for developing an 

EE program (RONS 00003, Initiate Aggressive Outreach Program). Certain volunteers have been 

identified in the community to work with the staff to develop the EE program. Current materials include 

coloring books, posters, the refuge-specific video, and a presentation about the refuge. 

The refuge offers interpretive panels at the wildlife observation tower, observation platform, and at an 

interpretive kiosk near the entrance sign. Exhibits and interpretive messages are also displayed in 

the refuge headquarters. Because the interpretive trail is currently not maintained, the directional 

signage at the trailhead to the interpretive trail has been temporarily removed. 

The general refuge brochure is available at the kiosk near the entrance sign and at the headquarters, which 

offers additional interpretive information. Tear sheets are available at area hotels and other businesses. 

The planned visitor center, in close proximity to U.S. Highway 431, will stimulate both the EE and 

interpretive programs at the Eufaula Refuge. 

Strategies: 

y	 Hire an Outreach and Interpretive Specialist (RONS 0003, Initiate Aggressive Outreach 

Program). 

y	 Currently focus EE on in-class visits. 

86 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y Maintain database of groups/teachers that come to the refuge, and communicate regularly 

with them. 

y Ensure that programs meet relevant state educational standards. 

y Explore membership in Environmental Educational Association groups in Georgia and 

Alabama. 

y	 Staff conducting EE should determine target audiences and plan a series of specific 

programs to offer and develop these presentations so that they are not dependent on a 

specific person. These programs should be adaptable to various grade levels. 

y Identify and train a group of teachers to advise and help develop programs. 

y Identify and train a group of volunteers to help provide the programs. 

y Develop kits on topics that teachers can use.
 

y Partner with the Kirbo Environmental Learning Center. 

y Plan interpretive programs and messages that coincide with the purposes of Eufaula 

NWR. 

y Explain refuge farming at observation deck. 

y For the short interpretive trail near the old office, develop an inspirational trail similar to the 

one on Black Bayou Lake. 

y Replace and update existing interpretive panels on the refuge. 

y Place interpretive panels on Wildlife Drive. 

y Explain the levees and water management in interpretive literature and panels and at 

display(s) in new visitor center. 

y Explain timber management and prescribed burning in interpretive literature and panels 

and at display(s) in new visitor center. 

y Construct a kiosk with a map and interpretive panels at the Refuge Headquarters so that 

information is available to the public after hours. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal: Provide for sufficient staffing, facilities and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s purpose 

and the goals and objectives of its Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Discussion: Implementation of this CCP will depend on sufficient staff, equipment, facilities, and 

infrastructure to follow through on objectives and strategies. At the present time, the refuge has six 

permanent full-time employees: Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Wildlife Biologist, 

Office Assistant, Engineering Equipment Operator, and Maintenance Worker. The refuge has a new 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87 
 

 

 

office headquarters (but no visitor center), a maintenance area and equipment storage facility located 

near the old office, and various types of infrastructure (e.g., dikes, levees, pumps, roads) that require 

ongoing maintenance if they are to function. 

Objective: Refuge Staffing – Add Biological Science Technician, Maintenance Position, (2) 

Park Ranger non-LE, and Law Enforcement Officer; 5 FTE’s added. Total staff = 11. 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR currently has six permanent full-time employees: a Refuge Manager 

(GS-13), Assistant Refuge Manager (GS-11), Wildlife Biologist (GS-11), Office Assistant (GS-7), 

Engineering Equipment Operator (WG-10), and a Maintenance Worker (WG-8). For the past several 

years a temporary tractor operator (WG-6) has also been hired. The refuge does not have a full-time 

law enforcement officer but does have two collateral duty law enforcement officers, the Refuge 

Manager and Assistant Refuge Manager. The CCP planning team believes that five new positions 

are necessary to fully implement the CCP’s objectives and strategies. 

Strategies: 

y	 The Biological Science Technician will be used to assist the Wildlife Biologist on projects 

related to habitat management, wildlife studies, wildlife and vegetation surveys, silviculture 

timber harvest (planning, mitigation, oversight, and analyzing effects) and miscellaneous 

tasks such as the proposed research on the possible impacts of boat traffic on the refuge. 

y	 Maintenance position will be used in a variety of facility, equipment, and infrastructure 

repair, maintenance and management in the field, as well as in habitat management, such 

as mowing. This position will provide support for the new visitor center and assist with 

force account farming operations. 

y	 The Supervisory Park Ranger will be used to help plan and execute environmental 

education and interpretive facilities and functions in the proposed visitor center and 

elsewhere on and off the refuge. 

y	 The second Park Ranger position will staff the visitor center and provide support for the 

recreation fee program by collecting funds, processing hunt applications, conducting quota 

hunt drawings, and staffing hunter check stations. 

y	 Law Enforcement Officer will supply full-time law enforcement function to the refuge, 

replacing collateral duty officers. The officer will be involved in providing security for 

refuge resources, visitors and staff, preventing and solving crimes, and enforcing hunting 

and fishing regulations on the refuge, in close coordination and cooperation with Eufaula’s 

many partners. 

Objective: Cultural Resources – Within 15 years of CCP approval, develop and begin to 

implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). 

Discussion: Eufaula NWR follows standard National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 procedures to 

protect the public’s interest in preserving its cultural/historic legacy that may potentially occur on the 

refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving 

equipment like tractors, graders and bulldozers, such as for the development of new moist soil units or 

levees, or the construction of the recently completed office headquarters, the refuge contracts with a 

qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the subject 

88 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

property. The results of this survey are submitted to the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

(RHPO) as well as Alabama’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), which in Alabama is the 

Alabama Historical Commission. The SHPO 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 (NRHP) 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 refuge 

have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Strategies: 

y	 Within 10 years of plan approval, conduct a Phase I archeological survey of the nonflooded areas of the refuge, by qualified personnel, as a necessary first step in cultural 

resources management. 

y	 Conduct a Phase II investigation if archeological resources are identified during the Phase 

I survey. In this, the eligibility of identified resources for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) is evaluated prior to any disturbance. 

y	 Conduct a Phase III data recovery if resources identified in Phases I and II are determined 

to be eligible. This will recover data and mitigate adverse effects of any undertaking. 

y	 Within 15 years of plan approval, prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan 

(CRMP) for the refuge. 

y	 Follow procedures outlined in CRMP for consultation with RHPO, SHPO, and potentially 

interested American Indian tribes. 

y	 Follow procedures detailed in CRMP for inadvertent discoveries of human remains. 

y	 Ensure that archeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into 

consideration prior to implementing undertakings. 

y	 Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify archeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program. 

Objective: Partnerships – Increase cooperation with Corps and state agencies on invasive 

species management, and with Alabama/Georgia authorities on overall refuge management, 

including restoration of longleaf pine forest. Increase partnership opportunities with nonprofit 

organizations like Ducks Unlimited and the National Wild Turkey Federation. Work to 

establish a refuge Friends group (support group) by 2022. 

Discussion: The refuge has a number of partnerships with agencies, institutions and individuals, 

including the Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services, Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Lakepoint State Park, Georgia Wildlife 

Resources Division, Eufaula Chamber of Commerce, Barbour County Chamber of Commerce, Ducks 

Unlimited, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Auburn and other universities, and private 

landowners in the area. The Nature Conservancy, a national, nonprofit, nongovernmental 

conservation organization with chapters in both states, cooperates with the refuge on resource 

management issues. 

Eufaula also has an active and growing volunteer program. Volunteers contributed 1,477 hours in 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89 
 

 

2004 conducting wildlife surveys, assisting with the hunter check stations, performing general 

maintenance, monitoring and maintaining bluebird and wood duck boxes, rehabilitating walking trails, 

and helping with the Fall Festival activities. In other years, volunteers have worked on the 

construction of a new asphalt shingle roof at the nature trail kiosk, built brochure racks for refuge 

kiosks, installed shelves in the maintenance building carpentry shop, built duck blinds, and many 

other projects. Currently, the refuge does not have an official Friends group. 

The refuge has two camper pads. Two to three couples come to the refuge annually and spend a 

few months volunteering. There are also a few local, skilled individuals that volunteer doing 

environmental education and maintenance work. 

Strategies: 

y	 Hire Park Ranger to assist with visitor service-related volunteer activities. 

y	 Prepare a brochure listing potential volunteer activities such as those cited in the 

discussion above and thus listed in the strategy below. 

y	 Prepare a list of potential activities, projects and programs amenable to participation or 

assistance by volunteers, with or without immediate supervision, such as habitat 

restoration projects, plantings, weed removal/control, construction and signing of nature 

trails, construction and maintenance of visitor-related facilities and interpretive exhibits, 

leading tours, and onsite and offsite environmental education. 

y	 Via the news media, local organizations, and personal contacts, inform the public in 

surrounding communities of various opportunities for volunteering on the refuge. 

y	 Investigate opportunities for additional partnering with national, regional, and local 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as The Nature Conservancy, National 

Wildlife Federation, Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation, Audubon Society, Boy 

Scouts, and Girl Scouts. 

y	 Once a loyal corps of volunteers exists, encourage the establishment of a Friends group 

that could raise awareness of the refuge and seek its own funding to carry out projects. 

Offer to provide assistance in this formation drawing on the Service’s experience with 

Friends groups at other refuges in the Southeast Region. 

y	 Encourage the Eufaula Refuge staff to actively collaborate with other government 

agencies, NGOs, and private organizations in the area on projects conferring mutual 

benefits. 

y	 Consider developing a volunteer plan that would identify things that volunteers can do (per 

lists above), develop job descriptions, and specify who supervises any given type of volunteer. 

y	 Assign a staff member to be a volunteer coordinator, preferably the Park Ranger, if hired, 

or other professional staff, if lacking a Park Ranger. 

y	 Recruit volunteers at campground. 

y	 Tie in to Take Pride in America. 

90 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

y	 Use newspaper articles to recruit by (for example) publishing different job descriptions 

weekly in local newspapers. 

y	 Use existing volunteer materials from other refuges. 

y	 Produce and provide a volunteer packet. 

y	 Develop a series of volunteer-led interpretation/EE programs (i.e., nature walks, bird walk, 

etc.) that do not require specialized expertise. 

Objective: Visitor Center – By 2022, or within 15 years of CCP approval, construct and begin 

to operate a visitor center. This would include adequate staff to operate and maintain the 

facility. 

Discussion: A visitor center for Eufaula NWR is on the Service’s top 20 national list of planned visitor 

centers. However, it is unknown when funding will become available for construction. 

Strategies: 

y	 One location for the proposed visitor center is at the Kennedy Impoundment, although this 

location is several miles from the new refuge headquarters. (MMS 00001, 0200001A, and 

020001B - Visitor Center/Office - Centennial Legacy Project - Phases I, II, and III). 

y	 Be clear on talking points, what is going to be offered through the visitor center that is new 

or different. 

y	 In discussing the visitor center with local interests, emphasize the potential economic impact. 

y	 Develop a fact sheet highlighting what the visitor center will bring to the refuge, the City of 

Eufaula, and the Lake Eufaula community. 

y	 Host tours for the Congressional delegation. 

y	 Procure an artist’s rendering of the visitor center. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91 
92 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
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 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 wildlife-dependent 

recreation and environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this plan for Eufaula National 

Wildlife Refuge, this chapter identifies the 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 associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, the planning team, and the refuge staff based upon available information. These 

projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The 

primary linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project # 00001, Station Rank #2 – $128,000 

Provide a Biological Technician to conduct important wildlife surveys and habitat management 

activities (such as invasive exotic plant control measures), and manage growing public hunting 

programs. This position will help improve habitats to benefit a host of wildlife species and the many 

visitors who enjoy them. The position would also assist with conducting conservation easement 

compliance checks and wildlife management practices. Eufaula NWR is responsible for overseeing 

21 easements and 3 fee title tracts in southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia, ranging in distance 

from the Eufaula NWR office 120 miles west, 150 east, 60 miles north, and 70 miles south. Annual 

compliance checks by ground are difficult to complete. Aerial flights will be scheduled semiannually. 

Potential violations will then be ground-truthed. Boundary lines will be inspected annually and 

corrected. Other potential biological activities such as reforestation, prescribed burning, and needed 

surveys cannot be pursued due to inadequate funding. Some of these activities would be contracted 

and supervised by the station biologist. The project would benefit pitcher plant bogs, endangered 

gopher tortoises, and longleaf pine habitat. Reforestation efforts would consist of longleaf pine 

habitat restoration. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project # 99003, Station Rank #3 – $50,000 

Reforest 100 acres of agricultural fields to a diverse native forest of hardwood species on Eufaula 

Refuge, and reforest 2,000 acres of off-refuge agricultural fields on willing private landowner’s 

property through an established partnership with the Georgia Natural Resource Conservation 

Service. Hardwood habitats are one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's priority habitats for this area of 

the country. This project would be accomplished with a contract planter preparing sites, securing 

quality seedlings, and planting specified species. 

Project # 99001, Station Rank # 1 – $200,000 

Proposal is to restore managed wetlands to native species by reducing dense stands of invasive and 

undesirable plant species. Invasion of pest plants is the greatest threat to wetland habitat on Eufaula 

NWR. The invasive plants out-compete native species unless controlled; these include Hydrilla, American 

lotus, alligator-weed, cattail, primrose, black willow, sesbania, maiden cane, giant cut grass, water 

hyacinth and potentially Salvinia. Failure to control these species will result in the refuge's inability to 

provide the natural foods for waterfowl species, which is the main purpose for refuge establishment. The 

refuge will work in cooperation with Corps of Engineer personnel to establish a maintenance program 

including spraying, burning, disking, flooding and mowing that would allow the wetland plant communities 

to function as natural communities and not as monoculture stands of invasive plants. We plan to develop 

a model program that other resource managers would benefit from. 

Project # 97003, Station Rank # 5 – $30,000 

Project would provide the operational expenses to conduct the annual water management program. 

This station depends on the ability to flood impoundments in the fall and then dewater them in the 

spring to manage 1,100 acres (14 subunits) of wetland habitat. Pumping is essential to support the 

refuge’s waterfowl hunts, which provide opportunities for over 500 hunters annually to enjoy a quality 

outdoor experience. Pumping during the growing season provides for an alternate means of 

controlling invasive plants by drowning plants, but declining operating margins have prevented this 

management activity in recent years. Without this management tool, the refuge would be unable to 

meet critical program obligations for waterfowl, shorebirds, other migratory birds, and the endangered 

wood stork and would have to reduce or eliminate public hunting. This project is an annual need for 

Eufaula NWR to effectively manage moist soil habitat. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project # 00003, Station Rank #4 – $154,000 

Initiate and maintain an aggressive outreach program at the Eufaula Refuge by providing a supervisory 

outreach specialist (Supervisory Park Ranger) to lead education and recreational programs for tens of 

thousands of visitors and school children. As part of that mission, this position will manage the 10,000­

square-foot visitor and education center which is in the preliminary design phase at Eufaula NWR. The 

Eufaula Visitor Learning Center is currently one of 20 centers nationwide planned under the Centennial 

Legacy Plan. Eufaula NWR is uniquely located in an area of the southeastern U.S. where wildlife-related 

recreation is the major source of income in the local economy. Lake Eufaula and the surrounding vicinity 

attracts more than three million visitors annually, including hunters, fishermen, and wildlife viewers, and it 

has been designated three years running by Sports Afield magazine as the number one destination in 

Alabama for families to enjoy outdoor recreation. 

94 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Project # 00004, Station Rank #4 – $118,000 

This project would establish a Park Ranger position to staff the visitor center and provide support for 

the recreation fee program by collecting funds, processing hunt applications, conducting quota hunt 

drawings, and staffing hunter check stations. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project # 00005, Station Rank #5 – $129,000 

Provide a maintenance worker to properly care for newly developed grounds and facilities as part of a 

10,000-square-foot visitor and education center in the preliminary design phase at Eufaula NWR. 

This position would also assist with maintenance of facilities, grounds, trails, signs, and other visitorrelated facilities throughout the refuge. The position will also assist with the refuge’s force-account 

farming operations. 

Project # 99002, Station Rank # 1 – $140,000 

Add a full-time refuge Law Enforcement Officer to provide resource protection and public safety for 

refuge visitors. Eufaula NWR is located on Lake Eufaula, where station visitation exceeds 300,000 

annually. Law enforcement is needed to support visitor activities such as hunting, fishing, boating, 

and skiing; provide archaeological protection and search and rescue; and prevent controlled 

substances use and marijuana cultivation on the refuge. Cooperation is required with multiple law 

enforcement offices, including state agencies from Georgia and Alabama, two counties in both states, 

two municipal police forces, and the Corps of Engineers. The refuge conducts extensive hunting and 

fishing programs and attracts visitors to two wildlife observation points and a wildlife drive. Twentyfour conservation easements in southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia will also receive added 

protection. 

MMS 00001, 0200001A, and 020001B - Visitor Center/Office Construction 

This project is not included among the other existing RONS list of projects (although it was on the 

MMS—now SAMMS—list) but is a high priority of the refuge and Region 4. By 2022 or within 15 

years of CCP approval, the Eufaula Refuge aims to construct and begin to operate a visitor center. 

This would include adequate staff to operate and maintain the facility. A visitor center for Eufaula 

NWR is on the Service’s top 20 national list of planned refuge visitor centers. However, it is unknown 

when funding will become available for construction. One potential location for the proposed visitor 

center is at the Kennedy Impoundment, although this location is several miles from the new refuge 

headquarters. (MMS 00001, 0200001A, and 020001B - Visitor Center/Office - Centennial Legacy 

Project - Phases I, II, and III). 

Project # 00006, Station Rank # 3 – $80,000 

This project would provide the annual costs of operating this new visitor center facility. Costs would 

include janitorial services, building and grounds upkeep, pest control, utility costs, educational 

materials, computers, and other supplies for the visitors. This would be an annual need to operate 

the public use facility. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95 
 

 

Project # 98012, Station Rank # 9 – $30,000 

Project would fund an archaeological survey of Eufaula NWR which would facilitate the clearance 

process for future construction projects identified by the CCP process and help joint law enforcement 

efforts with the Corps of Engineers and state agencies in Alabama and Georgia to protect identified 

sites. Eufaula NWR is rich in archaeological history. The refuge and the adjacent Corps properties 

have two areas currently identified and protected, with many more inadequately documented or 

suspected. A refuge-wide reconnaissance would provide compliance with the several laws and legal 

mandates as management, construction, and law enforcement activities are conducted. The 

reconnaissance would be completed by a contractor in coordination with the Region 4 archaeologist. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

The current staff at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge consists of nine positions (Figure 8), although 

two of these positions are currently vacant. Implementing the CCP generally and the above projects 

specifically will necessitate commitments of funding and personnel outlined in Table 8. Figure 9 

depicts a proposed staffing chart that adds those positions needed to fully implement the CCP. 

PARTNERSHIP AND VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In 

the immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish or enhance partnerships with 

Lakepoint State Park; Eufaula Chamber of Commerce; Barbour County Chamber of Commerce; the 

Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Department of Agriculture - Wildlife Services; and private landowners. 

At regional and state levels, partnerships may be established or enhanced with organizations such as 

the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries; Alabama Department of Conservation and 

Natural Resources; Georgia Wildlife Resources Division; Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites; 

Auburn University; and The Nature Conservancy. 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A Comprehensive Conservation Plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. 

A step-down management plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and 

visitor services management. These plans (Table 9) 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 refuge. 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 nontarget species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

96 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s 

annual work plans and budget. It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision 

will occur if and when conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a 

change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final plan will be augmented by 

detailed step-down management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of 

the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the stepdown management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97 
Figure 8. Current organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge 

Manager 

43560 

GS-0485-13 

Assistant 

Refuge 

Manager 

43560 

GS-0485­

09/11 

Wildlife 

Biologist 

43560 

GS-0486-11 

Office 

Assistant 

43560 

GS-0303-07 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

43560 

WG-5716-10 

Maintenance 

Worker 

43560 

WG-4749-08 

Park Ranger 

(1040 Temp) 

43560 

GS-0025-05 

Tracto

Operat

(Temp

43560 

WG-5705

(Vacan

98 Eufaula Na
Figure 9. Proposed future organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge 

Manager 

43560 

GS-0485-13 

Assistant Refuge 

Manager 

43560 

GS-0485-11/12 

Wildlife Biologist 

43560 

GS-0486-11 

Office Assistant 

43560 

GS-0303-07 

Engineering 

Equipment 

Operator 

43560 

WG-5716-10 

Maintenance 

Worker 

43560 

WG-4749-08 

Maintenance 

Worker 

43560 

WG-4749-08 

Tractor Operator 

(Temp) 

43560 

WG-5705-06 

Biological 

Science Tech 

(Wildlife) 

(Temp) 

GS-0404-06 

Supervisor

Park Range

(Visitor Servic

GS-0025-9/1

Park Range

(Visitor Servic

43560 

GS-0025-0

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
Table 8. Summary of projects. 

RECURRING PROJECT FIRST YEAR NEW STAFF PROJECT TITLE ANNUAL NUMBER COST (FTEs) 

1.0 

Provide Biological Technician 

position to conduct wildlife surveys 

and habitat management activities 

COST 

# 00001 $128,000 $128,000

#99003 

Reforest 100 acres of agricultural 

fields to a diverse native forest and 

reforest 2,000 acres of off-refuge 

agricultural fields 

$50,000 $2,000 ---

#99001 

Restore managed wetlands to 

native species by reducing dense 

stands of invasive and undesirable 

plant species 

$200,000 $30,000 ---

#97003 Conduct annual water 

management program $30,000 $25,000 ---

#00003 

Initiate and maintain outreach 

program at Eufaula by providing a 

supervisory outreach specialist 

$154,000 $154,000 1.0 

#00004 

Establish Park Ranger position to 

greet visitors, provide educational 

programs, conduct recreation fee 

program, and staff hunter check 

stations. 

$118,000 $118,000 1.0 

#00005 

Provide Maintenance Worker 

position to properly care for newly 

developed grounds and facilities 

and assist with force account 

farming 

$129,000 $129,000 1.0 

#99002 

Add a full-time refuge Law 

Enforcement Officer to provide 

resource protection and public 

safety for refuge visitors 

$140,000 $140,000 1.0 

#00006 Operate and maintain new visitor 

center/office $80,000 $80,000 ---

#98012 Fund an archaeological survey of 

Eufaula NWR $30,000 --- ---

100 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Table 9. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals 

and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Step-down Plan / Completion date Revision Date 

Forest Management Plan completed 1971 2010 

Feral Hog Management Plan completed 2006 2015 

Pest Control Plan N/A need IPM 2015 

Croplands Management Plan completed 1988 2015 

Fire Management Plan completed 2001 2011 

Water Development Plan for each impoundment 2007 annually 

Cultural Resources Management Plan N/A 2022 

Habitat Management Plan to be completed by 2010 2015 

Fishing Plan completed 1983 2022 

Hunting Plan completed 1983 2022 

Visitor Services Plan completed 1985 and updated in 1993 2015 

Law Enforcement Plan completed 1988 2010 

Hurricane and Disaster Plan completed 2007 2008 

Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101 
102 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge has been prepared in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It discusses the purpose and need for 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge, which is located in Barbour and 

Russell counties, Alabama, and Stewart and Quitman counties, Georgia, and provides an 

analysis of the environmental impacts that could be expected from each of the management 

proposals outlined in the plan. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in determining if 

it will need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for the refuge’s proposed CCP. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Nation’s primary conservation agency concerned with the 

protection and long-term management of wildlife resources. The Service administers the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, a system of more than 540 national wildlife refuges embracing over 95 

million acres, much of which is primarily managed for the enhancement of migratory bird populations 

and federally listed threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP/EA is to establish and implement management direction for Eufaula National 

Wildlife Refuge for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and to 

describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a 

range of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative D (Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management and Public Use Activities) as the proposed 

management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning team, Alternative D is the best 

approach to guide the refuge’s future direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of 

the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an 

alternative to implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. The finalized CCP will include a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), 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 mission of the 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 103 
Service and the National Wildlife Refuge System; the purpose(s) for which the refuge was 

established; and other legal mandates. Assuming that no significant impact is found, 

implementation of the plan will begin after the FONSI is signed, and the plan will be monitored 

annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located on both banks of the Chattahoochee River in 

southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia. The refuge is superimposed on the Walter F. George 

Reservoir (also referred to as Lake Eufaula), a river and harbor project of the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers. The reservoir resulted from the impoundment of the Chattahoochee River between 

Alabama and Georgia. Named after the city of Eufaula, Alabama, the refuge provides 11,184 acres 

of land and water for public enjoyment in a wide range of outdoor activities. The refuge contains 

7,953 acres in Barbour and Russell counties, Alabama, and 3,231 acres in Stewart and Quitman 

counties, Georgia. The refuge also administers a conservation easement program covering 44 

counties in Georgia and Alabama. Eighteen of these counties are located in Alabama and 26 in 

Georgia. There are 21 conservation easements in 11 counties (Alabama and Georgia) totaling 1,360 

acres, and three fee title tracts in three counties (Georgia) totaling 591 acres. The refuge is crossed 

by U.S. Highway 431, Gammage Road, and Georgia Route 39. 

This environmental assessment will identify management on refuge lands. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service has developed this plan 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 within this plan also meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

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. 

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.” 

104 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

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, environmental education and interpretation. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge. This plan has been written with input and 

assistance from interested citizens; conservation organizations; and local, state, and federal 

agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting 

the management direction for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Preplanning activities began in 2003. A biological review was conducted at the refuge in August 

2003. This was later followed by a visitor services review conducted in the same year. Preplanning 

continued with information gathering and the identification of data gaps. A Notice of Intent to prepare 

a comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge was published in the Federal Register on January 

26, 2006. The refuge then held a public scoping meeting on January 31, 2006. Approximately 30 

citizens attended this meeting. In addition to the comments that were collected at the public scoping 

meeting, other comments were received through e-mail and standard mail. A total of 23 comment 

forms and letters were received during the public scoping period. 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues 

that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be 

addressed within this planning process. The planning team did consider all issues that were raised 

throughout this planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the refuge’s 

management priorities based on best management practices, best available information, and the 

competing opinions regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Appendix IV, Public Involvement. 

For more detailed information about the planning process and the identification of issues, please refer 

to Chapter III, Plan Development, in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 105 
106 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, please refer to Chapter II, Refuge Overview, in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 107 
108 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision and the goals identified in the CCP; the priorities 

and goals of the Northeast Gulf Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge System; and the mission 

on the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, 

concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The four alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. The refuge staff assessed the 

biological conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information 

contributed to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a 

result, each alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge 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 refuge administration. Please refer to Chapter III, Plan 

Development, in the Draft CCP (Section A) for summaries of the priority issues. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the purposes of the refuge 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 refuge over a 15-year timeframe, while still meeting the refuge’s purposes and goals. The four 

alternatives are summarized below. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

In general, Alternative A, the no action alternative, would maintain the refuge’s current 

management direction, that is, the refuge’s habitats and wildlife populations would continue to be 

managed as they have been in recent years. Public use patterns would remain relatively 

unchanged from those that exist at present. This alternative would pursue the same four broad 

refuge goals as each of the other alternatives. 

Goal A concerns wildlife. It calls for Eufaula NWR to conserve, protect and enhance native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative A, the refuge would 

work toward achieving a number of objectives in pursuit of the wildlife goal. 

Eufaula would provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging 

needs of 15,000 wintering ducks. This would assist the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. The refuge would also provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization 

and feeding of at least 350 geese and cranes. In addition, staff and/or volunteers would maintain 100 

wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 109 
Under Alternative A, forest management would continue at current levels and intensity. The refuge 

would maintain 175 acres of grassland habitat for the benefit of grassland birds. In addition, it would 

use various tools to maintain tall emergent vegetation sufficient to support a population of 10 king 

rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

For the benefit of wading birds, known rookeries would be protected but there would continue to be 

no active management of foraging habitat for herons and egrets. Likewise, no active management 

for shorebirds would take place. However, Eufaula Refuge would provide protective conservation 

measures for federally or state listed species and habitats for future ecological existence. 

Refuge staff would employ sound scientific principles to manage healthy populations of resident 

wildlife species. They would control domestic, feral, or pest animals, especially feral hogs, removing 

an average of 65 hogs annually. 

Goal B concerns habitat. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide suitable habitats for native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative A, the refuge would 

work toward achieving several objectives in pursuit of the habitat goal. 

Eufaula would utilize farming on 500 acres to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife 

and other species as well as manage approximately 2,600 acres of the refuge that are forestland to 

provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. 

The refuge would use fire as a management tool on approximately 300 acres annually in suitable 

habitats for species and habitat conservation. It would also continue management of moist soil 

wetlands (approximately 1,175 acres), with emphasis on providing for waterfowl and other aquatic 

birds foraging and life-history requirements 

Eufaula NWR would continue to control invasive plant species at current levels of approximately 25 

shoreline miles and 750 acres annually (aquatic plants) and preventive and maintenance control of 

upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands). 

Goal C concerns public use. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide the public with quality wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education and interpretation that lead to greater understanding 

and enjoyment of fish, wildlife and their habitats. Under Alternative A, the refuge would work toward 

achieving several objectives in pursuit of the public use goal. 

The refuge’s hunting program would continue to be carried out in accordance with National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS) policy and state and federal laws, including seasons for deer, waterfowl, 

squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves. Incidental management and enforcement of fishing 

regulations on the refuge would occur. Eufaula would maintain existing wildlife observation facilities 

for visitors, including two observation platforms, the Wildlife Drive, and the interpretive trail. Current 

staff would also continue to provide the existing environmental education program on and off the 

refuge, without a public use specialist, and with limited interpretation provided at the headquarters 

and on the interpretive trail. 

Goal D concerns refuge administration. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide for sufficient staffing, 

facilities and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and the goals and objectives of its 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Under Alternative A, the refuge would maintain its current staff of 

six, including the Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Biologist, Office Assistant, and two 

equipment operators. 

110 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

There would continue to be limited management of cultural resources based on known locations of 

identified cultural, historical, and archeological resources. The refuge would follow standard procedures 

to protect cultural resources whenever projects involving excavation are undertaken. Refuge staff would 

cooperate with the Corps of Engineers and both states on the management of invasive species, and with 

the Corps and Alabama/Georgia authorities on overall refuge management. 

Under Alternative A, the Eufaula Refuge would continue to plan but not build a new visitor center. 

Visitor contact would take place at the new refuge office/headquarters. 

ALTERNATIVE B: ENHANCED WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Alternative B aims to intensify and expand wildlife and habitat management at the Eufaula Refuge, 

thereby increasing benefits for wildlife species and thus, fulfilling the refuge’s purposes and goals. 

Public use opportunities, and the refuge’s efforts to provide these, would remain approximately the 

same as they are now. This alternative would pursue the same four broad refuge goals as each of 

the other alternatives. 

Goal A concerns wildlife. It calls for Eufaula NWR to conserve, protect and enhance native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative B, the refuge would 

work toward achieving a number of objectives in pursuit of the wildlife goal. 

Eufaula would provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging 

needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. This would assist the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. The refuge would also provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization 

and feeding of at least 500 geese and cranes. In addition, staff and/or volunteers would maintain 200 

wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Under Alternative B, Eufaula would provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both 

priority pine and hardwood associated bird species by 2010. The refuge would provide high quality 

grassland habitat to support grassland bird species on as many acres as possible, while achieving 

priority waterfowl objectives, by 2008. In addition, by 2010, it would promote tall emergent vegetation 

sufficient to support a population of 10–40 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

For the benefit of wading birds, by 2010, the refuge would provide for both secure nesting sites and 

ample foraging habitat. Also by 2010, Eufaula would furnish at least two areas of up to 20 acres each 

for shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. The refuge would provide 

protective conservation measures for federally or state listed species and habitats for future 

ecological existence. 

Refuge staff would expand their capability and effort to implement sound scientific principles to better 

manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. They would control domestic, feral, or pest 

animals, especially feral hogs, removing an average of 100-plus hogs annually, or as needed. 

Goal B concerns habitat. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide suitable habitats for native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative B, the refuge would 

work toward achieving several objectives to fulfill this habitat goal. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 111 
 

 

 

 

 

Eufaula would gradually reduce cooperative farmer cropland acreage to 300 acres (from 500 acres at 

present) over the 15-year life of the CCP. Additionally, the refuge itself would cultivate crops on 100 

acres to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. 

The refuge would employ silvicultural treatments to improve 2,800 acres of refuge forestland to 

provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. It would also use fire as a management tool on 

approximately 800–1,000 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation. 

Management of moist soil wetlands (approximately 1,200 acres) would be intensified, with emphasis 

on waterfowl and other aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Eufaula NWR would aggressively control aquatic invasive plant species at approximately 25 shoreline 

miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually. It would also conduct preventive and maintenance 

control of upland invasive plant species. 

Goal C concerns public use. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide the public with quality wildlife-dependent 

recreation, environmental education and interpretation that lead to greater understanding and enjoyment 

of fish, wildlife and their habitats. Under Alternative B, the refuge would work toward achieving several 

objectives in pursuit of the public use goal. Because Alternative B emphasizes expanded habitat and 

wildlife management, on public use matters Alternative B is very similar to Alternative A. 

The refuge’s hunting program would continue to be carried out in accordance with NWRS policy and state 

and federal laws, including seasons for deer, waterfowl, squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves. By 2010, 

refuge staff would document the impact of sport fishing and fishing tournaments on sensitive wildlife and 

habitat resources on the refuge to serve as a basis for discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and 

Alabama and Georgia authorities on the possibility of establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. 

Eufaula would maintain existing wildlife observation facilities for visitors, including two observation 

platforms, the Wildlife Drive, and the interpretive trail. Current staff would also continue to provide the 

existing environmental education program on and off-refuge, without a public use specialist, and limited 

interpretation at the headquarters and on the interpretive trail. 

Goal D concerns refuge administration. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide for sufficient staffing, 

facilities and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and the goals and objectives of its 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Under Alternative B, the refuge would enlarge its current staff of 

six by adding three full-time equivalent (FTE) positions: a Biological Science Technician, a 

Maintenance position, and a Law Enforcement Officer. The total staff would then be nine. 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, Eufaula NWR would develop and begin to implement a Cultural 

Resources Management Plan (CRMP). In the meantime, there would continue to be limited 

management of cultural resources based on known locations of identified cultural, historical, and 

archeological resources. The refuge would follow standard procedures to protect cultural resources 

whenever projects involving excavation are undertaken. 

Refuge staff would increase cooperation with the Corps and both states on invasives management, 

and with Alabama and Georgia authorities on overall refuge management, including restoration of 

longleaf pine forest. Eufaula would work to establish a refuge Friends group (support group) by 2022. 

Under Alternative B, the Eufaula Refuge would continue to plan but not build a new visitor center. 

Visitor contact would take place at the new refuge office/headquarters. 

112 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

ALTERNATIVE C: ENHANCED WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

Alternative C would emphasize enhanced wildlife-dependent public use at Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. Additional efforts and expenditures would be made to expand the public use program, visitor 

facilities, and the overall level of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public. 

Special emphasis would be accorded to promoting the “Big Six” public uses identified in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Alternative C would pursue the same four 

broad refuge goals as each of the other alternatives. 

Goal A concerns wildlife. It calls for Eufaula NWR to conserve, protect and enhance native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative C, the refuge would 

work toward achieving a number of objectives in pursuit of the wildlife goal. 

Eufaula would provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging 

needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. This would assist the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. The refuge would also provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization 

and feeding of at least 500 geese and cranes. In addition, staff and/or volunteers would maintain 200 

wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Under Alternative C, Eufaula would provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both 

priority pine and hardwood associated bird species by 2010. The refuge would provide high quality 

grassland habitat to support grassland bird species on as many acres as possible, while achieving 

priority waterfowl objectives, by 2008. In addition, by 2010, it would promote tall emergent vegetation 

sufficient to support a population of 10–40 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

For the benefit of wading birds, by 2010, the refuge would provide for both secure nesting sites and ample 

foraging habitat. Also by 2010, Eufaula would furnish at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for 

shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. The refuge would provide protective 

conservation measures for federally or state listed species and habitats for future ecological existence. 

Refuge staff would expand their capability and effort to implement sound scientific principles to better 

manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. They would control domestic, feral, or pest 

animals, especially feral hogs, removing an average of 100-plus hogs annually, or as needed, by 

considering implementation of a feral hog season on the refuge. 

Goal B concerns habitat. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide suitable habitats for native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative C, the refuge would 

work toward achieving several objectives in pursuit of the habitat goal. 

Eufaula would gradually reduce cooperative farmer cropland acreage to 300 acres (from 500 acres at 

present) over the 15-year life of the CCP. Additionally, the refuge itself would cultivate crops on 100 

acres to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. 

The refuge would manage approximately 2,600 acres of the refuge that is forestland to provide 

benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. It would also use fire as a management tool on approximately 

300 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation. Management of moist 

soil wetlands (approximately 1,200 acres) would be intensified, with emphasis on waterfowl and other 

aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 113 
Eufaula NWR would aggressively control aquatic invasive plant species at approximately 25 shoreline 

miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually. It would also conduct preventive and maintenance 

control of upland invasive plant species. 

Goal C concerns public use. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide the public with quality wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education and interpretation that lead to greater understanding 

and enjoyment of fish, wildlife and their habitats. Under Alternative C, staff would work toward 

expanding overall public use opportunities available on the refuge. 

In addition to maintaining all existing hunts and seasons, Eufaula would consider adding a youth wild 

turkey quota hunt and an alligator hunt on open water areas of the refuge by 2012. Boat launch 

facilities and bank fishing opportunities on the refuge would be expanded by 2010. All existing 

wildlife observation and photography facilities would be maintained, and within 10 years of CCP 

approval, Eufaula would: (1) designate a one-way loop in the Houston Bottoms and add additional 

pull-offs to the existing Wildlife Drive; (2) improve the existing interpretive trail and add foot trails 

between Lakepoint State Park and the refuge; and (3) add one photo blind in the Houston 

Impoundment or Goose Pen Impoundment. 

In terms of environmental education and interpretation, the refuge would maintain its existing 

opportunities and facilities, and by 2022, establish a new visitor center on the peninsula near 

the Kennedy Unit. 

Goal D concerns refuge administration. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide for sufficient staffing, 

facilities and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and the goals and objectives of its 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Under Alternative C, the refuge would enlarge its current staff of 

six by adding four FTE positions: a Biological Science Technician, a Maintenance position, a non-law 

enforcement Park Ranger, and a Law Enforcement Officer. The total staff would then be ten. 

There would continue to be limited management of Eufaula’s cultural resources based on known 

locations of identified cultural, historical, and archeological resources. The refuge would follow 

standard procedures to protect cultural resources whenever projects involving excavation are 

undertaken. Refuge staff would cooperate with the Corps of Engineers and both states on 

management of invasive species, and with the Corps and Alabama and Georgia authorities on overall 

refuge management. 

Under Alternative C, by 2022 or within 15 years of CCP approval, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

would construct and begin to operate a visitor center east of U.S. 431 adjacent to the Kennedy Unit. 

This center would serve as a focal point of public use opportunities on the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE D: BALANCED WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC USE ACTIVITIES 

(PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under Alternative D, the proposed action alternative, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge would expand 

both wildlife and habitat management efforts as well as public use opportunities in a balanced 

fashion. In so doing, Alternative D would seek to fulfill the same four broad refuge goals as each of 

the other alternatives. 

Goal A concerns wildlife. It calls for Eufaula NWR to conserve, protect and enhance native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative D, the refuge would 

work toward achieving a number of objectives in pursuit of the wildlife goal. 

114 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Eufaula would provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging 

needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. This would assist the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. The refuge would also provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization 

and feeding of at least 500 geese and cranes. In addition, staff and/or volunteers would maintain 200 

wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Under Alternative D, Eufaula would provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both 

priority pine and hardwood associated bird species by 2010. The refuge would provide high quality 

grassland habitat to support grassland bird species on 220 to 300 acres, while achieving priority 

waterfowl objectives, by 2008. This would include planting native warm season grass species on old 

farm fields. In addition, by 2010, it would promote tall emergent vegetation sufficient to support a 

population of 10-20 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

For the benefit of wading birds, by 2010, the refuge would provide for both secure nesting sites and 

ample foraging habitat. Also by 2010, Eufaula would furnish at least two areas of up to 20 acres each 

for shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. In addition, the refuge would 

provide protective conservation measures for federally or state listed species and habitats for future 

ecological existence. 

Refuge staff would expand their capability and effort to implement sound scientific principles to better 

manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. Staff would also control domestic, feral, or 

pest animals, especially feral hogs, removing an average of 100-plus hogs annually, or as needed. 

Goal B concerns habitat. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide suitable habitats for native wildlife 

populations representative of the middle Chattahoochee River Valley, including waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and threatened and endangered species. Under Alternative D, the refuge would 

work toward achieving several objectives to fulfill this habitat goal. 

Eufaula would gradually reduce cooperative farmer cropland acreage to 300 acres (from 500 acres at 

present) over the 15-year life of the CCP. Additionally, the refuge itself would cultivate crops on 100 

to 300 acres to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. This would 

provide adequate habitat for wintering waterfowl and provide quality dove hunting opportunities. 

The refuge would employ silvicultural treatments to improve 2,800 acres of refuge forestland to 

provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. It would also use fire as a management tool on 

approximately 800–1,000 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation. 

Management of moist soil wetlands (approximately 1,200 acres) would be intensified, with emphasis 

on waterfowl and other aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Under Alternative D, Eufaula NWR would aggressively control aquatic invasive plant species on 

approximately 25 shoreline miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually. It would also conduct 

preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive plant species. 

Goal C concerns public use. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide the public with quality wildlifedependent recreation, environmental education and interpretation that lead to greater understanding 

and enjoyment of fish, wildlife and their habitats. Under Alternative D, the refuge would work toward 

expanding overall public use opportunities available on the refuge. 

In addition to maintaining all existing hunts and seasons, Eufaula would consider adding a youth wild 

turkey quota hunt by 2015. Boat launch facilities and bank fishing opportunities on the refuge would 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 115 
be expanded by 2015. Also by 2015, Eufaula would document the impact of sport fishing and fishing 

tournaments on sensitive wildlife and habitat resources on the refuge to serve as basis for 

discussions with the Army Corps of Engineers and Alabama and Georgia authorities on the possibility 

of establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. 

All existing wildlife observation and photography facilities would be maintained, and within 10 years of 

CCP approval, Eufaula would: (1) designate a one-way loop in the Houston Bottoms and add 

additional pull-offs to the existing Wildlife Drive; (2) improve the existing interpretive trail and add foot 

trails between Lakepoint State Park and the refuge; (3) add one photo blind in the Houston 

Impoundment or Goose Pen Impoundment; and (4) construct an observation platform adjacent to the 

Hour Glass Impoundment on the Wildlife Drive and assess the need for an additional viewing platform 

in the Houston Bottoms area. 

In terms of environmental education and interpretation, the Eufaula Refuge would maintain its 

existing opportunities and facilities, and by 2022, establish a new visitor center. 

Goal D concerns refuge administration. It calls for Eufaula NWR to provide for sufficient staffing, facilities 

and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and the goals and objectives of its Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. Under Alternative D, the refuge would enlarge its current staff of six by adding five 

FTE positions: a Biological Science Technician, a Maintenance position, two non-law enforcement Park 

Rangers, and a Law Enforcement Officer. The total staffing level would then be eleven. 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, Eufaula NWR would develop and begin to implement a Cultural 

Resources Management Plan (CRMP). In the meantime, there would continue to be limited 

management of cultural resources based on known locations of identified cultural, historical, and 

archeological resources. The refuge would follow standard procedures to protect cultural resources 

whenever projects involving excavation are undertaken. 

Refuge staff would increase cooperation with the Corps and both states on invasives management, 

and with Alabama and Georgia authorities on overall refuge management, including restoration of 

longleaf pine forest. Eufaula would work to establish a refuge Friends group (support group) by 2022. 

Under Alternative D, by 2022 or within 15 years of CCP approval, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

would construct and begin to operate a visitor center east of U.S. 431 adjacent to the Kennedy Unit. 

This center would serve as a focal point of public use opportunities on the refuge. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These common 

features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

y Migratory birds – Each of the alternatives would manage for migratory birds, including wintering 

ducks, wintering geese and cranes, breeding waterfowl (primarily wood ducks), forest birds, 

neotropical migrants, shorebirds, and grassland birds. 

y Marsh birds and wading birds – Each alternative would provide foraging habitat for marsh birds 

such as the king rail and wading birds (herons and egrets); rookeries would also be protected.
 

y Threatened and endangered species – Each alternative would provide protective conservation 

measures for federally or state listed species and habitats to ensure their continued existence. 

116 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

y Resident wildlife – Each alternative would utilize sound scientific principles to manage healthy 

populations of resident wildlife species such as deer, turkey, and quail.
 

y Non-native species control – Each alternative would provide for some level of non-native species 

control, particularly of feral hogs. 

y Farming – Each alternative would maintain some level of farming on the refuge. 

y Forest and fire management – Each alternative would attempt to enhance forests on the refuge to 

improve their habitat value to wildlife and each would utilize wildland and prescribed fire as an 

important habitat management tool. 

y Moil soil management – Each alternative includes management of moist soil wetlands to help 

waterfowl and other aquatic birds meet their foraging and life-history requirements. 

y Non-native and invasive plant control – Each alternative includes efforts to control both aquatic 

and upland invasive species.
 

y Public use opportunities – Each alternative includes the “Big Six” public uses, namely hunting, 

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

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Table 10 compares each of the four alternatives by management issues for Eufaula National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 117 
Table 10. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Wintering Waterfowl Management 

Provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging needs of 15,000 wintering ducks. 

Provide a complex of habitats, both moist soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Geese/Cranes Provide adequate open 

space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization and feeding of at least 350 geese/cranes 

Provide adequate open space (upland crop fields) for winter utilization and feeding of at least 500 geese/cranes 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Wood Ducks Maintain 100 wood duck 

boxes on the refuge. 

Maintain 200 wood duck boxes on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Forest Birds Continue forest 

management at current levels. 

Provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both priority pine and hardwood associated bird species by 2010. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

118 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Grassland Birds Maintain 175 acres of 

grassland habitat on the refuge for the benefit of grassland birds. 

Provide high quality grassland habitat to support grassland bird species on 220 to 300 acres while achieving priority waterfowl objectives, by 2008. This includes planting native warm season grass species on old farm fields. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Marsh Birds Maintain tall emergent 

vegetation sufficient to support a population of 10 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

By 2010, promote tall emergent vegetation sufficient to support a population of 10-40 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 

Same as Alternative B. By 20

emergsufficpopulrails aspecie

Wading Birds Protection of known 

rookeries but no active management of foraging habitat. 

By 2010, provide for both secure nesting sites and ample foraging habitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Shorebirds No active management 

for shorebirds. 

By 2010, provide for at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Provide protective conservation measures for federally or state listed species and habitats for future ecological existence. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same 

Resident Wildlife Employ sound scientific 

principles to manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. 

Expand capability and effort to implement sound scientific principles to better manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Pest and NonNative Species Control 

Control domestic, feral, or pest animals, especially feral hogs, removing an average of 65 hogs annually. 

Control domestic, feral, or pest animals, especially feral hogs, removing 100­plus hogs annually, or as needed. 

Control domestic, feral, or pest animals, especially feral hogs, removing 100­plus hogs annually, or as needed, by considering implementation of a feral hog season on the refuge . 

Same 

120 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Farming Utilize farming on 500 

acres to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. 

Gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over 15-year life of the CCP. Cultivate crops on 100 acres (refuge maintained) to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. 

Gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over 15-year life of the CCP. Cultivate crops on 100 to 300 acres (refuge maintained) to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. This will provide adequate habitat for wintering waterfowl and provide quality dove hunting opportunities. 

Same 

Forest Management 

Manage approximately 2,600 acres of the refuge that is forestland to provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. 

Use silvicultural treatments to improve 2,800 acres of refuge forestland to provide benefits to forestdependent wildlife. 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

Fire Management 

Use fire as a management tool on 

Use fire as a management tool on 

Same as Alternative A. Same 

approximately 300 acres approximately 800-1,000 annually in suitable acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitats for species and habitat conservation. habitat conservation. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Moist Soil Management 

Continue management of moist soil wetlands (approximately 1,175 acres) with emphasis on waterfowl and other aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Intensify management of moist soil wetlands (approximately 1,200 acres) with emphasis on waterfowl and other aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Non-Native and Invasive Plant Control 

Continue to control invasive plant species at current levels of approximately 25 shoreline miles and 750 acres annually (aquatic plants) and preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands). 

Aggressively control aquatic invasive plant species at approximately 25 shoreline miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually and preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species. 

Same as Alternative B. Same 

Hunting Conduct refuge hunting 

program in accordance with NWRS policy and state and federal laws, including seasons for deer, waterfowl, squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves. 

Same as Alternative A. In addition to maintaining 

all existing hunts and seasons, consider adding a youth wild turkey quota hunt and possibly an alligator hunt on open water areas of the refuge by 2015. 

In addall exseasoa youhunt b

122 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Fishing Incidental management By 2015, document Enhance boat launch Comb

and enforcement of fishing regulations on the refuge. 

impact of sport fishing and fishing tournaments on sensitive wildlife and habitat resources on the refuge to serve as basis for discussions with ACE and AL and GA authorities on possibility of establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. 

facilities and bank fishing Altern

opportunities on the refuge by 2015. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Maintain existing facilities, including two observation platforms, Wildlife Drive, and interpretive trail. 

Same as Alternative A. Maintain all existing 

facilities and within 10 years of CCP approval, 1) designate one-way loop in the Houston Bottoms, and add additional pull-offs to existing Wildlife Drive; 2) improve existing interpretive trail and add foot trails between Lakepoint State Park and refuge; 3) add one photo blind in Houston Impoundment or Goose Pen Impoundment; and 4) construct an observation platform adjacent to the Hour Glass Impoundment on the Wildlife Drive and assess the need for an additional viewing platform in the Houston Bottoms area. 

Same 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

EE program on and offrefuge provided by current staff, without 

Same as Alternative A. Maintain existing 

opportunities and facilities, and by 2022, 

Same 

public use specialist, establish new visitor and limited interpretation center on the refuge. at HQ and on interpretive trail. 

124 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Refuge Staffing Cultural Resources 

Maintain current staff of 

six, including Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, Biologist, Office Assistant, and two equipment operators. Total Staff = 6 Limited management based on known locations of resources. 

Add Biological Science Technician, Maintenance Position, and Law Enforcement Officer; 3 FTE’s added. Total Staff = 9 Within 15 years of CCP approval, develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). 

Add Biological Science Same Technician, Maintenance Position, Supervisory Total Park Ranger non-LE, Park Ranger non-LE and Law Enforcement Officer; 5 FTE’s added. Total Staff = 11 Same as Alternative A. Same 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Partnerships Visitor Center 

Cooperate with Corps 

and state on invasive species management, and with Corps and AL/GA authorities on overall refuge management. 

Refuge continues to 

plan but not build visitor center. 

Increase cooperation with Corps and state agencies on invasive species management, and with AL/GA authorities on overall refuge management, including restoration of longleaf pine forest. Increase partnership opportunities with non profit organizations like DU and the NWTF. Same as Alternative A. 

Increase cooperation with Corps and state agencies on invasive species management, and with AL/GA authorities on overall refuge management, including restoration of longleaf pine forest. Increase partnership opportunities with non-profit organizations like DU and the NWTF. Work to establish a refuge Friends group (support group) by 2022. 

By 2022, or within 15 

years of CCP approval, construct and begin to operate a visitor center. This would include adequate staff to operate and maintain the facility. 

Same Same 

126 Eufaula Na
 

 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Refuge System Improvement Act is 

designed to allow consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management 

approaches. During the alternatives development process, many different solutions were considered. 

The following alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this Draft 

CCP/EA for the reason(s) described. 

PRE-SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS 

This alternative is often used as a baseline in the development of CCP alternatives. Pre-settlement 

conditions typically refer to extant habitat conditions that existed prior to significant Euro-American 

settlement of North America over the last several centuries. In the case of Eufaula NWR, most 

upland sites would be covered by hardwood forests, pine forests, and mixed forests. There would be 

no cropland or grassy fields. The Walter F. George Reservoir would not exist and the Chattahoochee 

River would flow unimpeded through the refuge, bordered on both sides by bottomland hardwood 

forests. 

This alternative was considered by the planning team but rejected on the basis of its impracticability. 

In particular, removal of the Corps of Engineer’s Walter F. George Reservoir (Lake Eufaula) is 

unfeasible politically because of its significant adverse effects on navigation, recreation, and flood 

control. In addition, the potential environmental impacts of such an action would be significant 

enough as to require a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement and supporting technical analyses. 

CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT OF UPLAND AND WETLAND HABITAT 

Under this alternative scenario, the refuge staff would cease all management of both upland and 

wetland habitat at Eufaula NWR. Staff would allow natural succession to proceed unhindered on 

upland sites and not control invasive emergent vegetation on Lake Eufaula. Fire management would 

be limited to fire suppression rather than use of prescribed fire to manipulate habitats and set back 

succession. No upland invasive plant species control would be carried out and no forest thinning 

would take place. Moist soil units would cease to be actively managed. The refuge staff would focus 

their efforts on research and data collection related to successional trends and on management of 

public visitation to Eufaula. 

This alternative was considered and abandoned from detailed consideration because of the unsatisfactory 

outcomes it would lead to in all probability for both wildlife and habitat. In particular, if the refuge were to 

implement this alternative, it would be ignoring its purposes and goals, such as providing for the needs of 

wintering migratory waterfowl. Permitting the uncontrolled proliferation of invasive aquatic species would 

not only reduce the habitat value, but also the recreational value (fishing) of Lake Eufaula. Furthermore, 

the refuge’s partnering agencies—including the Corps of Engineers, Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Georgia Wildlife 

Resources Division, and Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites—would never agree to what they would 

see as an abdication of their management responsibilities. 

CONTROL OF LAKE EUFAULA WATER LEVELS 

Under this alternative, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge would manage the water levels in Lake 

Eufaula for the benefit of nesting and wintering bird populations in the refuge. The current 

management of those water levels by the Army Corps of Engineers is sub-optimal for wildlife. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 127 
 

 

 

This alternative was considered but dismissed because the Corps has the legal right and obligation to 

manipulate reservoir water levels to meet a variety of competing and sometimes conflicting needs, of 

which wildlife is but one. The Corps would not and could not relinquish this responsibility to the Service. 

SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 

Under this alternative, Eufaula NWR would undertake a large increase of recreational opportunities on the 

refuge, including the development of more trails, boat ramps, docks, wildlife observation decks and 

platforms, an expanded Wildlife Drive, canoe trails, increased hunting opportunities, and camping. 

This alternative was considered but rejected because for several reasons, including staffing and 

budgetary constraints, conflicts between excessive recreational presence/visitation and 

sanctuary/rest for wildlife, as well as the fact that ample recreational opportunities are available in the 

non-refuge portions of Lake Eufaula and at Lakepoint State Park. 

128 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter 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. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

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 would 

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 with 

land management responsibilities under its direction 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.” 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 129 
 

 

 

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. 

Preserving natural habitat for wildlife is at the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife 

refuges. The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would preserve 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 refuge’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 Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund; the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund; Corps of Engineers mitigation programs; or donations from conservation and 

private organizations. 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 accept conservation easements. Some tracts within the refuge’s approved 

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. 

Eufaula NWR does not have an approved refuge boundary expansion program. Expanding the 

refuge or purchasing new land is not a priority at this time. Acquisition is not contemplated under any 

of the four alternatives assessed in this environmental assessment. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging, construction of new trails or facilities such as the proposed visitor center, and 

development or major maintenance of water impoundments. In most cases, these management 

actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist in consultation with the 

Alabama and Georgia Historic Preservation Offices, as mandated by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action within an 

alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process that would occur 

during the planning stages of every project. 

130 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, 

and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 

Land acquisition, within the current acquisition boundary, 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 

The majority of the refuge is Corps of Engineers overlay, but revenue-sharing payments are made to 

the counties where the refuge holds fee title lands. Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to 

Barbour County, Alabama; Colquitt County, Georgia; Taliaferro County, Georgia; and Miller County, 

Georgia, would continue at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to 

the refuge, the payments would increase accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water 

quality and quantity; air quality; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; 

environmental justice (minority and low-income populations); hazardous materials; waste 

management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following sections describe the environmental consequences of adopting each of the four refuge 

management alternatives. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

Alternative A would maintain current management direction, that is, the refuge’s habitats, wildlife 

populations, and public use would continue to be managed as they have in recent years. As a result, 

waterfowl populations would not be expected to change substantially, and this would partially 

contribute to the habitat and population objectives of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan (NAWMP). The number of geese and cranes is likely to remain the same. Numbers of nesting 

wood ducks on the refuge are also likely to remain the same as at present; wood duck production in 

artificial nest boxes and overall would is expected to stay constant. 

In general, populations of other migratory birds are not expected to increase or decrease under 

Alternative A. Forest bird numbers would tend to be unchanged, as would grassland birds, marsh 

birds, wading birds, and shorebirds. Those neotropical migrants which breed on the refuge now, 

many of which are forest birds such as warblers, would be expected to remain as abundant as they 

are at present, unless other factors beyond the control of the refuge, such as the quality and quantity 

of their wintering habitat in the Caribbean, Central and South America, were to change. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 131 
Bald eagles and the federally listed wood stork are occasional visitors at the Eufaula Refuge. Neither 

currently nests at the refuge. They are likely to remain occasional visitors, although with bald eagles 

increasing nationally and regionally and currently nesting within several miles of the refuge, there is a 

chance that one or more nests of this raptor will become established over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Populations of resident wildlife species, including mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, are expected 

to remain healthy and unchanged under Alternative A. Numbers of game species would not change 

appreciably. Removing an average of 65 hogs annually would likely control but not eliminate this 

invasive species from the refuge, limiting its spread, habitat damage and competition with native 

fauna. There would be no mosquito control to reduce the numbers of this noxious and potentially 

dangerous vector. 

Under Alternative A, the comparative areas of habitat would remain largely unchanged from what 

they are at present. The area of cropland would remain at 500 acres, all of which would be forceaccount farmed. While artificial “habitat,” this acreage would benefit a number of wildlife species by 

providing food and forage. The refuge would manage the current 2,600 acres of forest on the refuge 

as forestland to provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife, both native and migratory. Use of 

prescribed fire on approximately 300 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat 

conservation would furnish both habitat and wildlife benefits. Eufaula would also keep 1,175 acres of 

moist soil wetlands, which would provide foraging for waterfowl and other aquatic birds. 

Proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 750 acres annually) of aquatic plants and preventive 

and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) would help 

keep invasive species in check, but would not eliminate the problem. 

Each of the refuge’s public use activities would be supported at the same level of visitor services as 

at present. Existing hunting opportunities for deer, waterfowl, squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves 

satisfies much but not all of the hunting demand. Fishing opportunities on the refuge would continue 

to be available at current levels. 

The refuge’s existing wildlife observation and photography facilities and opportunities would be 

maintained under Alternative A. Current environmental education and interpretive programs on and 

off the refuge are limited, and these would continue at the same limited level under this alternative. 

Cultural resources at the Eufaula Refuge would continue to be preserved but management would be 

limited. There would be no Cultural Resources Management Plan, and no additional efforts (e.g., 

surveys) at discovery of archeological sites, data recovery, or interpretation, except as necessary. In 

the case of construction projects involving excavation, a cultural resources survey would be 

conducted to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and Service cultural resource 

protection procedures, as described earlier in this CCP. 

Implementing Alternative A would entail continued substantial economic and social benefits to local 

communities in Alabama and Georgia. Economic benefits flow from the use of the refuge, the nearby 

state park, and Lake Eufaula by recreational anglers, boaters, hunters, wildlife watchers, and other 

outdoor recreationists. Expenditures of these visitors, from both local and distant communities, on 

purchases ranging from equipment and supplies to food and lodging, inject money into the local 

economy, supporting local businesses, jobs, and sales tax revenues. 

132 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
ALTERNATIVE B: ENHANCED WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Alternative B aims to intensify and expand wildlife and habitat management at the Eufaula Refuge, 

thereby increasing benefits for wildlife species and thus, fulfilling the refuge’s purposes and goals. 

Public use opportunities, and the refuge’s efforts to provide these, would remain approximately the 

same as they are now. 

Under Alternative B, waterfowl populations would likely increase in response to the proposed 

increases in habitat quality that would occur with this alternative. Alternative B would contribute more 

to the NAWMP’s habitat and population objectives for wintering waterfowl than the No Action 

alternative (A). Geese and crane numbers are likely to increase somewhat. Given the proposed 

increase in maintained nest boxes, the numbers of nesting wood ducks are likely to increase. There 

would be an expected increase in wood duck production as well. 

In general, populations of other migratory birds are expected to increase modestly from current levels 

under Alternative B. Priority pine- and hardwood-associated bird species are likely to increase 

somewhat with improved and increased habitat that is suitable for these species. The population of 

grassland birds would also tend to increase somewhat. Promotion of tall emergent vegetation is likely 

to increase the population of king rails and benefit other marsh birds. The modest increase in nesting 

sites and foraging habitat likely to occur would probably increase wading bird numbers somewhat. 

Providing at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for shorebirds is likely to increase their numbers 

during both northbound and southbound migrations. 

With regard to management of threatened and endangered species, Alternative B would be 

essentially the same as Alternative A. The occurrence of bald eagles and the federally listed wood 

stork on the refuge is likely to remain occasional. With the overall increase in bald eagle numbers, it 

is possible that these raptors may nest on the refuge during the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Modest increases in resident wildlife populations are anticipated. Intensified control of feral hogs is 

likely to reduce but not eliminate their population on the refuge. There would be no mosquito control, 

and the abundant seasonal numbers of this nuisance insect would probably not change. 

Alternative B would gradually reduce cropland acreage to 200 acres over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

This remaining acreage would provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species. 

However, the conversion or restoration of about 200 acres of cropland to more natural habitats would 

be considered beneficial. 

Reforestation of 200 acres would take place under Alternative B, increasing the total forested area to 

2,800 acres from 2,600 acres at present. Refuge forests would be treated silviculturally to provide 

benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. The use of prescribed fire would be stepped up; it would be 

applied to approximately 800–1,000 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat 

conservation. Prescribed fire would reduce the density of the understory and midstory in Eufaula’s 

forests, achieving a more natural forest composition and structure; more open forests would promote 

the growth of grasses and forbs beneficial to native wildlife. Alternative B would maintain 1,200 acres 

of moist soil wetlands, 25 acres more than in Alternative A. This habitat would provide foraging for 

waterfowl and other aquatic birds. 

Proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 1,250 acres annually) of aquatic plants and 

preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) 

would probably keep invasive plants in check but would not eliminate the problem they pose. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 133 
 

 

 

Alternative B would provide the same level of visitor service support for each of the public use 

activities on the refuge as at present. Thus, the impacts of this alternative on public uses would 

be very similar to those of Alternative A. Existing hunting opportunities for deer, waterfowl, 

squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves would continue to satisfy much but not all of the hunting 

demand. Fishing opportunities on refuge would continue to be available but with access possibly 

restricted by establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. While such restrictions would not 

affect fishing access per se, by slowing down boat traffic and increasing travel times, they might 

still be opposed by boaters and fishermen who believe them to be unduly restrictive, unfair, or 

ineffective at what they purport to achieve. 

The refuge’s existing wildlife observation and photography facilities and opportunities would be 

maintained under the Alternative B. Environmental education and interpretive programs on and off 

the refuge would remain limited. 

Preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan under this alternative 

would promote enhanced preservation of cultural resources on the refuge. 

As in the case of Alternative A, implementing Alternative B would continue yielding substantial 

economic and social benefits to local communities in Alabama and Georgia. 

ALTERNATIVE C: ENHANCED WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

Alternative C would emphasize enhanced wildlife-dependent public use at Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. Additional efforts and expenditures would be made to expand the public use program, visitor 

facilities, and the overall level of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public. 

Under Alternative C, as in Alternative B, waterfowl populations would likely increase in response to 

the proposed increases in habitat quality that would occur with this alternative. Alternative C would 

contribute more to the NAWMP’s habitat and population objectives for wintering waterfowl than the 

No Action alternative. Geese and crane numbers are likely to increase somewhat. Given the 

proposed increase in maintained nest boxes, numbers of nesting wood ducks are likely to increase. 

There would be an expected increase in wood duck production as well. 

In general, populations of other migratory birds are expected to increase modestly from current levels 

under Alternative C. Priority pine- and hardwood-associated bird species are likely to increase 

somewhat with improved and increased habitat that is suitable for these species. The population of 

grassland birds would also tend to increase somewhat. Promotion of tall emergent vegetation is likely 

to increase the population of king rails and benefit other marsh birds. The modest increase in nesting 

sites and foraging habitat likely to occur would probably increase wading bird numbers somewhat. 

Providing at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for shorebirds is likely to increase their numbers 

during both northbound and southbound migrations. 

With regard to management of threatened and endangered species, Alternative C would be 

essentially the same as Alternative A. The occurrence of bald eagles and the federally listed wood 

stork on the refuge is likely to remain occasional. With the overall increase in bald eagle numbers, it 

is possible that these raptors may nest on the refuge during the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Alternative C is expected to result in modest increases in resident wildlife populations. Implementing 

a hunting season on feral hogs would likely reduce their numbers more than Alternatives A or B. 

There would be no mosquito control, and the abundant seasonal numbers of this nuisance insect are 

expected to continue. 

134 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Like Alternative B, Alternative C would gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over the 15­

year life of the CCP. The remaining acreage would provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for 

wildlife and other species. However, the conversion or restoration of about 200 acres of cropland to 

more natural habitats would be considered beneficial. 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would continue to manage the current 2,600 acres of forest on the 

refuge as forestland to provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife, both native and migratory. Use 

of prescribed fire on approximately 300 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat 

conservation would furnish both habitat and wildlife benefits. Eufaula would increase the area of 

moist soil units by 25 acres to 1,200 acres, which would provide foraging for waterfowl and other 

aquatic birds. 

Proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 1,250 acres annually) of aquatic plants and 

preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) 

would likely keep invasive plants in check but would not eliminate the problem. Control efforts would 

probably be required in perpetuity. 

Alternative C’s emphasis on expanding visitor services would have beneficial impacts on the various 

public uses that occur at the Eufaula Refuge. Adding a youth wild turkey quota hunt and an alligator 

hunt on open water areas of the refuge would expand existing hunting opportunities. Boat launch 

facilities and bank fishing opportunities would both be enhanced, leading to greater public benefits. 

Wildlife observation and photography facilities and opportunities would be expanded and enhanced, which 

would be a positive impact. Environmental education and interpretive facilities and programs would also be 

expanded and enhanced by establishing a new visitor center on the peninsula near the Kennedy Unit. 

Cultural resource impacts at the Eufaula Refuge under Alternative C would be comparable to those 

from Alternative A. Cultural resources would continue to be preserved but management would be 

limited. There would be no Cultural Resources Management Plan, and no additional efforts (e.g., 

surveys) at discovery of archeological sites, data recovery, or interpretation, except as necessary. In 

the case of construction projects involving excavation, a cultural resources survey would be 

conducted to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and Service cultural resource 

protection procedures, as described earlier in this CCP. 

Under Alternative C, the already substantial economic and social benefits of Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge are likely to increase, because of the proposed new visitor center and the overall increased 

visitation that may occur under this alternative. Thus, Alternative C would have beneficial 

socioeconomic effects on the surrounding communities, especially the nearby town of Eufaula itself. 

ALTERNATIVE D: BALANCED WILDLIFE/HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND PUBLIC USE 

ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under Alternative D, the proposed action alternative, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge would expand both 

wildlife and habitat management efforts as well as public use opportunities in a balanced fashion. 

Waterfowl populations would likely increase in response to the proposed increases in habitat quality 

that would occur with this alternative. Alternative D would contribute more to the NAWMP’s habitat 

and population objectives for wintering waterfowl than the No Action alternative. Geese and crane 

numbers are likely to increase somewhat. Given the proposed increase in maintained nest boxes, 

numbers of nesting wood ducks are likely to increase. There would be an expected increase in wood 

duck production as well. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 135 
 

 

 

In general, populations of other migratory birds are expected to increase modestly from current levels 

under Alternative D. Priority pine- and hardwood-associated bird species are likely to increase 

somewhat with improved and increased habitat that is suitable for these species. The population of 

grassland birds would also tend to increase somewhat. Promotion of tall emergent vegetation is likely 

to increase the population of king rails and benefit other marsh birds. King rail and other marsh bird 

numbers would probably increase to a level between the levels of Alternative A and Alternative B. 

The modest increase in nesting sites and foraging habitat likely to occur would probably increase 

wading bird numbers somewhat. Providing at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for shorebirds is 

likely to increase their numbers during both northbound and southbound migrations. 

With regard to management of threatened and endangered species, Alternative D would be 

essentially the same as Alternative A and indeed each of the other alternatives. The occurrence of 

bald eagles and the federally listed wood stork on the refuge is likely to remain occasional. With the 

overall increase in bald eagle numbers, it is possible that these raptors may nest on the refuge during 

the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Modest increases in resident wildlife populations are anticipated under Alternative D. Intensified 

control of feral hogs is likely to reduce but not eliminate their population on the refuge. There 

would be no mosquito control, and the abundant seasonal numbers of this nuisance insect would 

probably not change. 

Like Alternative B, Alternative D would gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over the 15­

year life of the CCP. This remaining acreage would provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for 

wildlife and other species. However, the conversion or restoration of about 200 acres of cropland to 

more natural habitats would be considered beneficial. 

Reforestation of 200 acres would take place under Alternative D, increasing the total forested area to 

2,800 acres from 2,600 acres at present. Refuge forests would be treated silviculturally to provide 

benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. The use of prescribed fire would be stepped up; it would be 

applied to approximately 800–1,000 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat 

conservation. Prescribed fire would reduce the density of the understory and midstory in Eufaula’s 

forests, achieving a more natural forest composition and structure; more open forests would promote 

the growth of grasses and forbs beneficial to native wildlife. 

Alternative D would maintain 1,200 acres of moist soil wetlands, 25 acres more than in Alternative A. 

This habitat would provide foraging for waterfowl and other aquatic birds. 

Alternative D’s proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 1,250 acres annually) of aquatic plants 

and preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) 

would probably keep invasive plants in check but would not eliminate the problem they pose. 

Alternative D’s emphasis on expanding visitor services is similar to Alternative C’s, and would also 

have beneficial impacts on the various public uses that occur at the Eufaula Refuge. Adding a youth 

wild turkey quota hunt would expand existing hunting opportunities. 

Fishing opportunities on the refuge would continue to be available but with access possibly restricted 

by establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas. Boat launch facilities and bank fishing 

opportunities would be enhanced under Alternative D. 

136 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Under Alternative D, as in Alternative C, wildlife observation and photography facilities and 

opportunities would be expanded and enhanced, which would constitute a positive impact. 

Environmental education and interpretive facilities and programs would also be expanded and 

enhanced by establishing a new visitor center under Alternative D. This would be an additional 

beneficial impact of the alternative. 

Cultural resource impacts at the Eufaula Refuge under Alternative D would be comparable to those 

from Alternative B. Cultural resources would continue to be preserved and management would be 

increased somewhat. Preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan 

under this alternative would promote enhanced preservation of the cultural resources on the refuge. 

This could encourage eventual efforts (e.g., surveys) at discovery of archeological sites, data recovery, 

and cultural resources interpretation and education. As with each alternative, in the case of 

construction projects involving excavation, a cultural resources survey would be conducted to comply 

with the National Historic Preservation Act and Service cultural resource protection procedures, as 

described earlier in this CCP. 

Implementing Alternative D would entail continued substantial economic and social benefits to local 

communities in Alabama and Georgia. Economic benefits accrue from the use of the refuge, the 

nearby state park, and Lake Eufaula by recreational anglers, boaters, hunters, wildlife watchers, and 

other outdoor recreationists. Expenditures of these visitors, from both local and distant communities, 

on purchases ranging from equipment and supplies to food and lodging, inject money into the local 

economy, supporting local businesses, jobs, and sales tax revenues. 

These already considerable economic and social benefits of the refuge are likely to increase further 

because of the proposed new visitor center and the overall increased visitation that would be 

associated with Alternative D. 

Table 11 summarizes and compares the environmental consequences of each of the four 

alternatives, and is organized by broad issue categories. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 137 
Table 11. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Wintering Waterfowl Waterfowl populations would not change 

substantially, partially contributing to NAWMP habitat and population objectives 

Waterfowl populations would likely increase in response to increases in habitat quality; would contribute more to NAWMP habitat and population objectives 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Geese/Cranes Number of geese and 

cranes likely to remain the same 

Geese and crane numbers likely to increase somewhat 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Wood Ducks Numbers of nesting 

wood ducks likely to remain the same as at present; production stays constant 

Numbers of nesting wood ducks likely to increase; production likely to increase as well 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Forest Birds Population of forest 

birds would tend to be unchanged 

Priority pine and hardwood associated bird species likely to increase somewhat with improved and increased habitat 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Grassland Birds Population of grassland 

birds would tend to be unchanged 

Population of grassland birds would tend to increase due to the establishment of warm season grasses on old farm fields. 

Same as Alternative B Same 

138 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Marsh Birds Marsh bird population 

likely to remain constant 

Promotion of tall emergent vegetation likely to increase population of king rails and benefit other marsh birds 

Same as Alternative B King r

bird nprobalevel AlternAltern

Wading Birds Wading bird population 

likely to remain constant 

Modest increase in nesting sites and foraging habitat likely to increase wading bird numbers somewhat 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Shorebirds Population of migrating 

and resident shorebirds unlikely to change 

Providing at least two areas of up to 20 acres each for shorebirds is likely to increase their numbers during both northbound and southbound migrations 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Occurrence of federally listed wood stork on refuge likely to remain occasional 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same 

Resident Wildlife Populations of resident 

wildlife species expected to remain healthy and unchanged 

Modest increases in resident wildlife populations 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Pest and NonNative Species Removing an average of 65 hogs annually likely 

to control but not eliminate this invasive species; no mosquito control 

Intensified control of feral hogs likely to reduce but not eliminate population on refuge; no mosquito control 

Implementing a hunting season on feral hogs would likely reduce their numbers more than Alternative B 

Same 

Farming Continue to farm on 500 

acres 

Gradually reduce cropland acreage to 300 acres over 15-year life of the CCP to provide food, cover, and sanctuary areas for wildlife and other species 

Same as Alternative B Addin

quota existinoppor

Forests 2,600 acres of refuge 

managed as forestland to provide benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. 

2,800 acres of refuge forests treated silviculturally to provide benefits to forestdependent wildlife 

Same as Alternative A Same 

Wildland Fire Prescribed fire used on 

approximately 300 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation 

Prescribed fire used on approximately 800-1,000 acres annually in suitable habitats for species and habitat conservation 

Same as Alternative A Same 

Moist Soils 1,175 acres of moist soil 

wetlands provide foraging for waterfowl and other aquatic birds 

1,200 acres of moist soil wetlands provide foraging for waterfowl and other aquatic birds 

Same as Alternative B Same 

140 Eufaula Na
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Non-Native and Invasive Plants 

Proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 750 acres annually) of aquatic plants and preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) keeps invasives in check but do not eliminate problem 

Proposed control efforts (25 shoreline miles and 1,250 acres annually) of aquatic plants and preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive species (500 acres annually in croplands) keeps invasives in check but do not eliminate problem 

Same as Alternative B Same 

Hunting Existing hunting 

opportunities for deer, waterfowl, squirrels, rabbits, and mourning doves satisfies much but not all of the hunting demand 

Same as Alternative A Adding a youth wild turkey 

quota hunt and an alligator hunt on open water areas of the refuge expands existing hunting opportunities 

Addinquota existinoppor

Fishing Fishing opportunities on 

refuge continue to be available at current levels 

Fishing opportunities on refuge continue to be available but with access possibly restricted by establishing no-wake zones in sensitive areas 

Boat launch facilities and bank fishing opportunities enhanced 

Fishinrefuge availapossiestabzones boat lbank enhan

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Existing facilities and opportunities maintained 

Same as Alternative A Facilities and 

opportunities expanded and enhanced 

Same 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 
Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Enhanced Wildlife and 

Habitat Management 

Alternative C: 

Enhanced WildlifeDependent Public Use 

Ba

Hab

a

(Pro

Environmental Education and Interpretation Cultural Resources Socioeconomics 

Same 

interpretive programs on Limited EE and Same as Alternative A EE and interpretive 

facilities and programs 

and off-refuge continue would be expanded and 

enhanced by establishing new visitor center on peninsula near the Kennedy Unit 

Continue to be Preparation and Same as Alternative A Same 

preserved but implementation of a management is limited CRMP leads to enhanced 

preservation 

Refuge continues to Same as Alternative A Already substantial Same 

provide substantial economic and social economic and social benefits of refuge likely to benefits to local increase further because communities in Alabama of visitor center and and Georgia overall increased 

visitation 

142 Eufaula Na
 

 

 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A, the No Action alternative, there are a number of unavoidable impacts, including 

law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting significant visitor uses; insufficient visitor services 

to support most public uses; continued degradation of the biological functions of native plant 

communities and wildlife habitat due to the invasion of exotic plants (especially aquatic plants on 

Lake Eufaula) and nuisance animals, principally the feral hog; and a continued decrease in 

biodiversity. Over time, if these issues are not addressed, they are likely to further compromise the 

refuge’s resources and its ability to meet its purpose, vision, and goals. 

Unavoidable impacts of Alternative B—enhanced wildlife and habitat management—would be 

fewer than those of Alternative A, at least in regards to habitat and wildlife. The major 

unavoidable impacts of this alternative would all pertain to public uses, which would be 

inadequately supported. In particular, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, and interpretation would all be shortchanged. 

Alternative C emphasizes enhanced wildlife-dependent public use. Its unavoidable impacts stem 

from less active habitat management and restoration, which would result in habitat of overall 

lower quality. Both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity would be reduced in this alternative 

compared to alternatives B and D. 

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 refuge would attempt to 

minimize these impacts whenever possible. The following sections describe the measures the 

refuge 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; 

and the construction of observation towers, boat ramps, and a headquarters and visitor center are 

expected to be localized in extent, of minor intensity, and of short duration. To further reduce 

potential impacts, the refuge would use best management practices to minimize the erosion of 

soils into water bodies. 

Foot traffic on new and extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. 

To minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge would include informational signs that request 

trail users to remain on the trails, in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems. 

Long-term herbicide use for exotic plant control could result in a slight decrease in water quality 

in areas prone to exotic 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 plant infestations. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities such as wildlife observation may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative would be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 143 
 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered 

to be significant. Nevertheless, the refuge 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. As noted, the refuge would work to implement one or more 

no-wake zones if indicated. Hunting would also be managed with restrictions that ensure minimal 

impact on other resources. General wildlife observation may potentially result in minimal 

disturbance to wildlife. If the refuge 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. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Adverse impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of 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 and invasive 

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 trails. The refuge would minimize this impact by enforcing 

the regulations for access to the refuge’s water bodies, and by installing informational signs that 

request users to stay on the trails. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, conflicts between competing user groups could potentially occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge would adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge would use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts on this and other refuges and parks. These methods include establishing 

separate use areas; different use periods; and limits on the numbers of users, in order to provide 

safe, high quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Except for temporary inconvenience from such management actions as prescribed fire, 

implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, 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 refuge would provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain 

the refuge’s existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; and provide increased educational efforts 

at the 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 refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary are currently undeveloped. If these lands are acquired as additions to the refuge, they 

would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, and opened to 

wildlife-compatible public uses, where feasible. 

144 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Potential development of the refuge’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to minor shortterm adverse impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building the visitor center and 

other facilities, efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally-sensitive treated 

lumber. The visitor center would be constructed 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 nonfederal) 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 would affect it in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. Thus, 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 

would likely happen to it. 

The refuge is unaware of any past, present or future planned actions that would result in a 

significant cumulative adverse impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined 

in the proposed alternative. 

Nevertheless, because of concerns expressed about the cumulative effects of hunting in particular, 

this section analyzes and discusses in some detail the cumulative impacts of the hunting program of 

each alternative on a variety of resources at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Migratory Birds 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times 

when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. These frameworks 

are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and sustenance; aid federal, 

state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels 

compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless specifically opened by the 

Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 CFR Part 20) establishing 

the frameworks from which the states may select season dates, bag limits, shooting hours, and other 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 145 
options for the each migratory bird hunting season. The frameworks are essentially permissive in that 

hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in effect, federal annual 

regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. 

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States 

and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when 

"hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 

export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt 

regulations for this purpose. These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of 

temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines 

of migratory flight of such birds,” and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has 

been delegated to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting 

conditions, the Service has administratively divided the nation into four flyways for the primary 

purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) 

has a Flyway Council, a formal organization generally composed of one member from each state and 

province in that flyway. Eufaula NWR is within the Atlantic Flyway. 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR Part 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the 

rule making process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available 

for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations 

includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on "early" and "late" hunting 

season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g., 

dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. 

Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or 

after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no 

differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, 

Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this 

information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and 

presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties (USFWS 2006). 

Under each of the four alternatives, including the proposed action, there would be no significant 

increase in the annual harvest of approximately 1,000 to 2,000 ducks on the refuge; thus, there would 

be no additional cumulative impact of this action on duck populations in Alabama, Georgia, and the 

Atlantic Flyway. Overall, the populations of ducks in the Atlantic Flyway are reasonably healthy, while 

fluctuating up and down in response to a number of natural and human factors. Peak wintering 

populations of ducks at the Eufaula Refuge reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s, while in recent 

years, populations have peaked at 12,000–20,000. This decline is believed to be largely a function of 

weather patterns, not local hunting pressure. 

Because the Service is required to take the abundance of migratory birds and other factors into 

consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with 

the Canadian Wildlife Service, state and provincial wildlife management agencies, and others. To 

determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as 

population size and trend; geographical distribution; annual breeding effort; the condition of breeding 

and wintering habitats; the number of hunters; and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are 

established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game 

146 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
bird management becomes a cooperative effort of state and federal governments. After the Service’s 

establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season dates, bag 

limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more conservative 

in their selections than the federal frameworks, but never more liberal. Season dates and bag limits 

for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state regulations. In 

fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a national wildlife 

refuge opens a new hunting activity, the season dates and bag limits may be more restrictive than the 

state allows. At Eufaula NWR, the season length is the same as Alabama and Georgia allow. The 

refuge further limits the number of waterfowl hunters by means of a quota system and restricts 

waterfowl hunting to the Bradley and Kennedy units only. Quota hunts are conducted on these units 

no more than one day per week during the season, from legal shooting hours until 12:00 noon. 

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the 

programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice of Availability in 

the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and a Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 

(53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered under a 

separate environmental assessment entitled, “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-07,” and an August 

24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 2005, 

Federal Register (70 FR 53376), the Service announced its intent to develop a new Supplemental 

EIS for the migratory bird hunting program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, 

as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (71 FR 12216). More information may be 

obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NWR, Washington, DC 20240. 

Resident Big Game 

Deer 

Eufaula NWR conducts an annual non-quota, archery deer hunt requiring a refuge permit and state 

hunting license. Approximately 2,800 use days (25 hunters/day for 115 days) for archery hunting 

occurred in 2002–2003 (USFWS 2003a). Each of the alternatives would continue to allow deer 

hunting at approximately the current levels. Deer hunting does not have regional population impacts 

due to the restricted home ranges of white-tailed deer. In spite of the hunting pressure experienced 

at Eufaula, white-tailed deer continue to be present in high numbers on the refuge. Therefore, 

continuation of deer hunting on refuge lands should not have negative cumulative impacts on the 

area’s and state’s deer herd. 

Feral Hogs 

Feral hogs are an extremely invasive, nonnative species that degrades habitat and displaces native 

species like deer and wild turkey. They are already a severe problem in the Bradley Impoundment in 

Georgia and are quickly becoming a problem in the Houston Unit in Alabama. Currently the refuge 

has no organized hunt for feral hogs. Live trapping has been conducted in recent years but has not 

proved effective. Alternative methods including contract hunters or trappers must be pursued to limit 

the impacts of these highly destructive animals. A Feral Hog Management Plan has been recently 

prepared by the refuge describing guidelines for approved control methods. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 147 
 

One of the four alternatives (Alternative C) would consider implementing a feral hog season on the 

refuge, while the other three alternatives would continue or step up other means of controlling this 

species. Thus, there could be a cumulative impact on local feral hog numbers, and if such a 

reduction were to occur, this would be considered beneficial. 

Wild Turkey 

Presently there is no hunt for wild turkey on Eufaula NWR. Alternatives A and B would maintain this 

closure, while Alternatives C and D would consider implementing a youth quota hunt for wild turkey 

by 2015. Wild turkey numbers are predicted to increase at Eufaula in the near future due to expected 

habitat changes in response to forest management. Thus, staff biologists believe the turkey 

population could support modest, controlled hunting pressure. If the refuge proceeds with such a 

hunt, it would be managed in such a manner as to avoid cumulative adverse effects on turkey 

numbers. Before a hunt would be instituted, brood counts and or call counts would need to be 

conducted to provide accurate population estimates. Prescribed burning will need to continue at its 

current level or increase as recommended in Alternatives B and D to sustain turkey populations. 

Resident Small Game 

Small game hunted on the refuge includes mourning dove, gray squirrel, and cottontail rabbit. None 

of the alternatives would increase hunting opportunities for small game. Relatively few hunters 

participate and populations of these species appear to be stable both on the refuge and in both 

states. If there were indications that numbers of one or more of these species were in decline, the 

refuge would implement measures to restrict the harvest. 

Nongame Wildlife 

Nongame or nonhunted wildlife would include nonhunted migratory birds such as songbirds, wading 

birds, raptors, and woodpeckers; small mammals such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; 

reptiles and amphibians such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and 

invertebrates such as butterflies, moths, other insects and spiders. Except for migratory birds and 

some species of migratory bats, butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges 

and hunting could not affect their populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be discussed. 

Disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds could have regional, local, and flyway effects. Regional 

and flyway effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate, such as most woodpeckers 

and some songbirds including cardinals, titmice, wrens, chickadees, etc. The cumulative effects of 

disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds under the proposed action are expected to be negligible for 

the following reasons. The hunting season would not coincide with the nesting season. Long-term 

future impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant for this 

reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities of birds, such as feeding and resting, might 

occur. Disturbance to birds by hunters would probably be commensurate with that caused by 

nonconsumptive users. The cumulative effects of disturbance to nonhunted migratory birds under the 

proposed action are expected to be negligible for the above reasons. 

With regard to other wildlife, disturbance would be unlikely for the following reasons. Small 

mammals, including bats, are inactive during the winter when the hunting season occurs. These 

species are also nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter interactions with small mammals very 

rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and amphibians also limits their activity during the 

hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians 

during most of the hunting season. Encounters with reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few 

148 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

and should not have cumulative negative effects on reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates 

are also not active during cold weather and would have few interactions with hunters during the 

hunting season. Refuge regulations further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to nonhunted 

wildlife. Vehicles are restricted to roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the 

game species that is legal for the season is not permitted. 

Although the ingestion of lead shot by nonhunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not 

relevant to Eufaula NWR because the use of lead shot is not and will not be permitted on the refuge 

for small game, dove, or waterfowl hunting. If the refuge opens a youth turkey season, lead shot 

would be permitted for this activity per 50 CFR 32.2 (k). 

Some species of bats, butterflies and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at the 

“flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed through 

Alabama and Georgia by the peak hunting season in November–January. Some hunting occurs 

during September and October when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would 

be commensurate with that of nonconsumptive users. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The endangered wood stork is commonly seen on the refuge between May and October, especially when 

the lake levels and impoundment water levels are low enough to provide isolated pools for foraging. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation under the Endangered Species Act is included as Appendix VII in 

this Draft CCP. It concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on the wood stork. While this 

species does occur regularly on the refuge, hunters are unlikely to mistake wood storks for ducks, deer, 

doves, squirrels, or rabbits. The cumulative adverse impact on listed species would be nil to negligible, 

and would be comparable to that caused by anglers, boaters, and nonconsumptive users. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON REFUGE PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, AND SURROUNDING 

COMMUNITIES 

Wildlife-dependent Recreation 

As public use levels expand as projected over time, unanticipated conflicts between user groups may 

occur at Eufaula NWR. The refuge’s visitor use programs would be adjusted as needed to eliminate or 

minimize each problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience on 

many national wildlife refuges has proven that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use 

areas, use periods, and restrictions on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts 

between user groups. In the context of the present proposed action, one of the strategies under the 

hunting objective would be to close areas to other public uses during hunts (e.g., Wildlife Drive during the 

dove hunt) and to provide information on alternative sites to motorists. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on other wildlife-dependent recreation at the Eufaula 

Refuge would be negligible to minor. 

Refuge Facilities 

The Service defines facilities as: “Real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, 

roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” Those facilities most utilized by hunters are 

roads, parking lots, trails and boat launching ramps. Maintenance or improvement of existing 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 149 
 

facilities (i.e., parking areas, roads, trails, and boat ramps) would cause minimal short-term impacts to 

localized soils and waters and may cause some wildlife disturbances and damage to vegetation. The 

facility maintenance and improvement activities described are periodically conducted to 

accommodate daily refuge management operations and general public uses such as wildlife 

observation and photography. These activities would be conducted at times (seasonal and/or daily) 

to cause the least amount of disturbance to wildlife. Siltation barriers will be used to minimize soil 

erosion, and all disturbed sites will be restored to as natural a condition as possible. During times 

when roads are impassible due to flood events or other natural causes, those roads, parking lots, 

trails and boat ramps impacted by the event would be closed to vehicular use. 

Overall, the cumulative impact of hunting on the refuge’s facilities would be negligible. 

Cultural Resources 

Hunting, regardless of method or species targeted, is a consumptive activity that does not pose any 

threat to historic properties on or near the refuge. In fact, hunting meets only one of the two criteria 

used to identify an “undertaking” that triggers a federal agency’s need to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. These criteria, which are delineated in 36 CFR Part 800, state: 

1. An undertaking is any project, activity, or program that can alter the character or use of an 

archaeological or historic site located within the “area of potential effect;” and 

2. the project, activity, or program must also be either funded, sponsored, performed, licensed, 

or have received assistance from the agency. 

Consultation with the pertinent State Historic Preservation Offices and federally recognized tribes are, 

therefore, not required. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-income Populations," was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations to achieve environmental protection of all communities. In part, the order is intended to 

promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment and to provide minority and low-income communities access to public information and 

participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

There are low-income and minority populations in the area, but there is no evidence of adverse 

disproportionate environmental justice issues associated with the refuge’s existing hunting program 

or proposed expansion. Any affected populations would generally be affected in the same ways as 

the regional population as a whole. 

Environmental Resources 

The refuge expects no appreciable adverse impacts of the proposed action on the Eufaula Refuge 

environment, which consists of soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality and solitude. Some 

disturbance to surface soils and vegetation would occur in areas selected for hunting; however, the 

impacts would be minimal. Litter left behind by hunters would also be expected, although unlike the 

litter associated with fishing, which often concentrates near or at certain heavily fished locations, litter 

from hunters is likely to be more widely scattered and therefore less conspicuous. Hunting would be 

expected to benefit vegetation, since it is used to maintain many resident wildlife populations, 

150 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
particularly deer, in balance with the habitat’s carrying capacity. When and where necessary, the 

refuge would also control access or close areas to minimize habitat degradation. 

The refuge expects impacts to air and water quality to be minimal and only due to refuge visitors’ 

automobile and outboard motor emissions. The effect of these refuge-related activities, as well as 

other management activities, on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be 

negligible, compared to the contributions of industrial centers, power plants, and non-refuge vehicle 

traffic in this portion of Cameron Parish. Existing state water quality criteria and use classifications 

are adequate to achieve desired on-refuge conditions; thus, implementation of the proposed action 

and alternatives would not impact adjacent landowners or users beyond the constraints already 

implemented under existing state standards and laws. 

Impacts associated with solitude are expected to be minimal given time and space zone management 

techniques, such as seasonal access and area closures, used to avoid conflicts among user groups. 

Surrounding Communities 

The refuge would work closely with state, federal, and private partners to minimize adverse 

cumulative impacts to adjacent lands and its associated natural resources; however, no cumulative 

impacts are anticipated. The newly opened hunt(s) would result in a net gain of public hunting 

opportunities, which are expected to positively impact the general public, nearby residents, and 

refuge visitors. Residents in the area and neighboring communities are likely to view continued 

hunting opportunities favorably. The refuge expects continuing visitation and tourism, some of it due 

to hunting, to generate revenues to local communities, but this spending would be very small in 

comparison with the size of the local economy. 

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, would 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 the water control 

structures, as well as expanding or creating new foot trails; construction of the accessible fishing/ 

wildlife observation pier and visitor center; and providing greater visitor access through improvements 

to the boat launch areas. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed 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 a visitor center, or creation of new trails. While these activities would cause 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 151 
short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public support gained from the 

improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. 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. 

152 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative which are presented in this Draft CCP. It lists the 

meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP. 

The following meetings, contacts, and presentations were undertaken by the Service during the 

preparation of the Draft CCP. 

The planning team gathered input from a variety of internal and external sources to identify the 

key issues, concerns, and opportunities that needed to be addressed in the CCP. Sources of 

internal scoping included the refuge staff itself and other Service biologists and professionals in 

the region. External scoping sources included concerned private citizens; research and 

educational institutions; members of conservation, sportsmen and civic groups; refuge neighbors; 

members of the local community; and state, tribal, and local agencies. These various interests 

are sometimes referred to collectively as stakeholders, that is, those individuals and groups that 

have a stake in how the refuge is managed. In developing the CCP for Eufaula NWR, the 

planning team conducted both internal and external scoping. 

The first step in developing the refuge’s CCP was a biological review that took place during the week 

of August 11–15, 2003. The biological review team included 15 Service biologists, managers, 

foresters and non-Service managers and biologists. The review involved onsite evaluations to help 

the refuge meet its purpose and determine the role(s) the refuge could play regarding wildlife needs 

and objectives at various geographical scales (i.e., local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The 

approach was to take a holistic look at achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs, 

while still giving priority to accomplishing the original purpose of refuge establishment. 

A visitor services review was also conducted in 2003 in preparation for the upcoming CCP. The 

five-member visitor services review team consisted of Service personnel from the Visitor Services 

and Outreach Division, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia; a representative of Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge; and a representative of the Piedmont and Bond Swamp national wildlife 

refuges. The review team met with the refuge staff to discuss the visitor services program. The 

staff explained the refuge’s current visitor services program and the recreational, educational and 

interpretive opportunities on the refuge. The Refuge Manager and Biological Technician took the 

review team to all the different public use areas on the refuge. After discussions with some of 

the staff and the refuge tour, the review team met to discuss the current status of the programs 

and to make recommendations. 

The CCP planning team, composed of the Refuge Manager, Assistant Refuge Manager, and Wildlife 

Biologist; a natural resources planner from the Service’s Jackson, Mississippi, Field Office; and an 

outside professional consultant, met for the first time on November 16–17, 2005, for a tour of the 

refuge and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and 

opportunities. At that time, the planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and 

prepared a preliminary schedule and plans for public involvement. 

Section B. Environmental Assessment 153 
 

 

The planning team then held an open house and public scoping meeting on January 31, 2006, at the 

Bevill Center on the campus of Wallace Community College in Eufaula, Alabama. Approximately 30 

citizens attended the open house and scoping meeting. The attendees were able to meet with the refuge 

staff and view the exhibits and maps on hand. Refuge Manager Troy Littrell opened the meeting with a 

brief slide show and overview of the refuge, followed by a presentation on the comprehensive 

conservation planning process by Natural Resources Planner Mike Dawson. Contractor Leon 

Kolankiewicz, a consultant with the Mangi Environmental Group, then facilitated an open-floor question 

and comment period. During this period, the attendees were given the opportunity to express their 

concerns about the refuge and their ideas and suggestions for its future management. In addition, a 

comment form was distributed for the attendees and other interested parties to submit written comments. 

The written comments could either be submitted at the meeting or sent subsequently via mail or e-mail. A 

total of 23 comment forms and letters were received during this public scoping process. 

CORE PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The core planning team consisted of the following members: 

y	 Troy Littrell, Refuge Manager, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS 

y	 Danny Moss, Assistant Refuge Manager, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS 

y	 Milton Hubbard, Biologist, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS 

y	 Mike Dawson, Natural Resources Planner, USFWS, Jackson, Mississippi Field Office 

y	 Leon Kolankiewicz, Wildlife Biologist/Planner, Mangi Environmental Group 

EXTENDED PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS 

The following individuals participated in a two-day workshop to develop a vision, goals, management 

alternatives, and objectives for the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge CCP in May 2006: 

y	 Don Burdette, State Parks Forester, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources 

y	 Roger Clay, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y	 Bill Gray, Supervising Wildlife Biologist – District 6, Alabama Division of Wildlife and 

Freshwater Fisheries 

y	 Gary Hepp, Professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife Science, Auburn University 

y	 Adam Pritchett, Wildlife Biologist, Barbour Wildlife Management Area, Alabama Division of 

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

y	 Julie Robbins, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources 

y	 Jim Royal, Superintendent, Lakepoint State Park 

y	 Jody Timmons, Park Ranger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

154 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: 

Alluvial: 

Alternative: 

Anadromous: 

Biological Diversity: 

Carrying Capacity: 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

CFR:
 

Compatible Use: 

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. 

Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

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). 

Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

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. 

The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

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). 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

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. 

Appendices 155 
 

 

 

 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP): 

Concern: 

Cover Type: 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

Cultural Resources: 

Designated Wilderness 

Area: 

Disturbance: 

Ecosystem: 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

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). 

See Issue 

The present vegetation of an area. 

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). 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, it’s 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). 

The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

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). 

Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

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. 

156 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

Estuary: 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

Goal: 

Habitat: 

Habitat Restoration: 

Habitat Type: 

Improvement Act.: 

Informed Consent: 

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. 

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. 

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). 

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 long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

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). 

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). 

Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

See Vegetation Type. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

The grudging willingness of opponents to “to along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 

Appendices 157 
 

 

 

Issue: 

Management 

Alternative: 

Management Concern: 

Management 

Opportunity: 

Migration: 

Mission Statement: 

Monitoring: 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA): 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission: 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

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). 

See Alternative 

See Issue 

See Issue 

The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

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). 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the 

six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation). 

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. 

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. 

158 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

Native Species: 

Notice of Intent (NOI): 

Noxious Weed: 

Objective: 

Plant Association: 

Plant Community: 

Preferred Alternative: 

Prescribed Fire: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

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. 

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). 

A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax 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; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

This is the alternative determined [by the decision maker] to best 

achieve the Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses the significant issues; and is 

consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

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. 

Appendices 159 
Priority Species: 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Public Involvement: 

Public: 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

Refuge Goal: 

Fish and wildlife species that the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe 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. 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

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. 

Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of Federal, State, and 

local government agencies; Indian 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. 

“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). 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director and Secretary, 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). 

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). 

See Goal. 

160 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Refuge Purposes: 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

Strategy: 

Study Area: 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

Tiering: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

Unit Objective: 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

Vision Statement: 

See Purposes of the Refuge 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

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). 

A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge 

expansion areas. 

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. 

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. 

The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

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. 

See Objective 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

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). 

Appendices 161 
 

Wilderness Study	 Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

Areas: 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 

 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 

162 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE environmental education 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS or USFWS) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Appendices 163 
164 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

Appendix II. References and Literature Cited 

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. n.d. Alabama Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Accessed on 7 April 2006 at: 

http://www.outdooralabama.com/research-mgmt/cwcs/ . 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 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. 119 pp. Accessed online at: 

http://caddodefense.org/download/BankingOnNature2002.pdf . 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 119 pp. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/Refuges/policyMakers/pdfs/BankingOnNature_2004_finalt.pdf . 

Caudill, James and Andrew Laughland. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002. Division of Economics, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 118 pp. 

Ducks Unlimited. N.d. Southeastern Coastal Plain. Web page. Accessed on 7 April, 2006 at: 

http://southern.ducks.org/SECoastal.php. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities to 

1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources. n.d. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for 

Georgia. Web page. Accessed on 7 April 2006 at: http://www.gadnr.org/cwcs/index.html . 

Guyer, C. and M. Greene. 1992. A Herpetofaunal Survey of the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University. 

Kucher, A.W. 1964. Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States. New York: 

American Geographical Society, Special Publication 36. 

Environment Canada. 2006. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 

Accessed online at: http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/sauvagine/html/nawmp.html . 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

Laughland, A. and J. Caudill. 1997. Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. Division of Economics. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 118 pp. 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 299 pp. 

McAuley, Daniel and David A. Clugston. n.d. American Woodcock. Web page. Accessed on 

6 April 2006 at: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ne122.htm . 

Appendices 165 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 2005. Bird Conservation Regions. May, 2005. 

Accessed online at: http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.html . 

New Employee Handbook. n.d. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2006. Weather/Climate Events. NOAA Satellite 

and Information Service. Accessed at: 

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climateresearch.html#dandp . 

Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 2004. About PARC. Accessed online at: 

http://www.parcplace.org/about.html . 

Partners in Flight. 2006. What is Partners in Flight (PIF)? Accessed online at: 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/description.cfm . 

Schnell, Frank T., Jr. and Vernon J. Knight. 1978. A Cultural Resources Background Survey and 

Archeological Reconnaissance at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia and Alabama. 

Volume I: Text. Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Columbus Museum of Arts 

and Sciences, Inc., Columbus, Georgia. May 1978. 

Schotz, Alfred R. 2002. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge Natural Community and Rare Plant Survey. 

Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Nature Conservancy, Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Montgomery, Alabama. 

Scorecard. 2005. Rankings: Health Risks, Exposures, and Emissions, Russell County, Alabama. 

Scorecard, the Pollution Information Site, accessed online at: 

http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/cap/ranking.tcl?fips_county_code=01113 . 

STATS Indiana. 2006. USA Counties In Profile. Indiana Department of Commerce, accessed at: 

http://www.stats.indiana.edu/uspr/a/us_profile_frame.html . 

Stein, B.A., L.S. Kutner and J.A. Adams, eds. 2000. Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in 

the United States. The Nature Conservancy and Association for Biodiversity Information. 

Oxford University Press. 399 pp. 

University of Alabama. 2006. Climate maps. Accessed online at: 

http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/contemporarymaps/alabama/climate/index.html . 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 2007. Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, Flint Rivers 

Project, Walter F. George, Hydrilla History. 14 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed online at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d.a. Overview of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and 

Council. Accessed on 6 April 2006 at: 

http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/overview.htm 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. n.d.b. Ecosystem Units. Accessed on 13 April 2006 at: 

http://www.fws.gov/offices/ecounits.html 

166 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1964. Narrative Report, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. Eufaula 

NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1971. Forest Management Plan, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Croplands Management Plan, Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Fire Management Plan, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003a. Biological Review Handbook, Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. August, 2003. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003b. Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year 2002, Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge. May, 2002. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003c. Public Use Review Report , Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

(Draft, unpublished). July, 2003. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Annual Narrative Report, Calendar Year 2004, Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006a. Final Biological Review Report, Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. April 2006. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Final Public Use Review Report, Eufaula National Wildlife 

Refuge. January 2006. Eufaula NWR, Eufaula, Alabama. 

Appendices 167 
168 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Appendix III. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

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. 

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 Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

Freedom Act of 1978 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 Secretary of the 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 Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

Protection Act of 1940, as eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

amended the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Appendices 169 
STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

Tenant Act of 1937 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. 

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. 

Coastal Barrier Resources Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the act are to minimize 

loss of human life, reduce wasteful Federal expenditures, and 

minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most Federal 

expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA, expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs)”. 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with Federal agencies that propose spending Federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a National coastal wetlands 

grant program. 

170 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Act of 1972, as amended Commerce to encourage coastal States to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any Federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a State’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Resources Act of 1986 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 Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

1973, as amended 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 endangered and threatened 

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. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

Federal agencies and the States, to study and inventory estuaries 

of the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, 

and to determine whether such areas should be acquired for 

protection. The Secretary is also required to encourage State and 

local governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relates to Federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 

Appendices 171 
 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This law creates a Federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

as amended (Farm Bill) 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 The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which Federal 

Act of 1981, as amended programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

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 The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

of 1990, as amended 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 landmanaging 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. 

172 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 Requires the Service to monitor nongame bird species, identify 

Conservation Act of 1980, species of management concern, and implement conservation 

as amended measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 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. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

Improvement and National that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

Wildlife Refuge System 2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Centennial Act of 2000 Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100th 

anniversary of the System, coordinate activities to celebrate that 

event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The commission is also responsible for developing a longterm plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the System, and improve public use 

programs and facilities. 

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. 

Appendices 173 
STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 plant 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. 

Marine Mammal Protection The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a Federal 

Act of 1972, as amended responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. 

With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium 

on the taking and importation of marine mammals as well as 

products taken from them. 

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 Also commonly referred to as the Duck Stamp Act”, requires 

Conservation Stamp Act of waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

1934 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. 

174 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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, 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 Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

1920, as amended 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-ways 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 Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fullService Act of 1990 and/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 Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

Policy Act of 1969 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. 

National Historic It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

Preservation Act of 1966, as of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

amended 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 Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

(1968), as amended 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. 

Appendices 175 
 

 

 

 

 

 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible 

for managing and protecting the System, and requires the 

development of a comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges 

outside of Alaska. 

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 Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

Conservation Act of 1989 the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S. and Mexico. 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). 

Refuge Recreation Act of This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

1962, as amended 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 oriented 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging fees for public uses. 

176 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

Act of 1935, as amended 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 Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

amended Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. 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. 

Transfer of Certain Real This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

Property for Wildlife the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

Conservation Purposes Act needed by a Federal agency can be transferred, without 

of 1948 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 Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

for the 21 

st 

Century (1998) 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. 

Appendices 177 
 

 

 

 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 This act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

of 1968, as amended 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 Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

Act of 1970 programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 

178 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement States that if the Service proposes any development 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 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 Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

(1977) 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 Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

Federal Programs (1982) 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 179 
 

 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments, 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

connection w/ transfer of certain applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

functions to Secretary of DHS. importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is 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 States and Tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

Practices (1996) 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 Act 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 Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

Governments (2000) 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). 

180 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
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 181 
182 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to wildlife and habitat management at Eufaula NWR: 

y Exotic and invasive species pose a very serious threat to the conservation of natural 

resources on the refuge. 

y Prescribed burning and smoke management in the urban interface is a concern. 

y Longleaf pine and hardwood reforestation are needed to increase habitat diversity. 

y It is important to manage fallow fields and buffer strips. 

y Maintenance and improvement of wildlife habitat is an important issue. 

y There is a lack of attention provided to boundary lands along borders of refuge – for example, 

the problem with beetle infestation on South Fork Cowickee in an area that has been 

completely ignored by refuge management. 

y Balance prohibiting waterfowl disturbance with providing public access. 

y Help educate Lakepoint administration so that they can become more conservation minded. 

Birds and other wildlife don’t recognize man made boundaries. It would be great if Lakepoint 

would do a conservation/environmental plan that reflects & enhances refuge philosophies. 

y Assist in development of waterfowl habitat on private lands. 

y Consider alternative crops for wildlife, such as rice/ plant millet and other crops which attract 

waterfowl. 

y Mosquito control is needed. 

y Mammal conservation should be made a priority, incorporating both a deer hunting program 

and beaver control. 

y Suitable habitat should be maintained for mammals such as woodrats, several species of 

mice, spotted and striped skunks, and cottontail and swamp rabbits. 

y Because the refuge is not on a main flyway, more emphasis should be focused on attracting 

and holding waterfowl. Have more flooded impoundments with food and resting areas. 

Eliminate farming leases because they do nothing for waterfowl, since all the crops are 

gathered before most of the wintering waterfowl arrive. Nothing is left in the field after harvest. 

Appendices 183 
y	 Eufaula NWR is a refuge, and should be a place of peace, with a place for birds to rest, not be 

hunted. 

Resource Protection 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to resource protection at Eufaula NWR: 

y	 Hire a full-time law enforcement officer. 

y	 Litter control is needed. 

Visitor Services 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to visitor services at Eufaula NWR: 

y	 There are safety concerns about the nonconsumptive public use activities occurring too close 

to hunting activities. Close hunting areas to other public uses during hunts to ensure public 

safety, and create a no-hunting zone around the Houston Observation Tower. 

y	 Eufaula NWR is located on U.S. 431, the primary route for the public driving from Atlanta to 

the Florida Panhandle. More than 5 million people travel through Eufaula NWR annually, 

providing huge potential for visitation. 

y	 Evaluate current environmental education and outreach program, including audience, 

message, and outreach tools (website, events, field trips, presentations) used to reach those 

audiences. Revise environmental education and outreach programs to target primary 

audiences more efficiently. 

y	 Promote Eufaula NWR to the birding community by opening a portion of the Bradley Unit as a 

birding drive, working with birding trail organizers in Georgia and Alabama, and partnering 

with the Chamber, Audubon and others to promote Eufaula NWR as a birding destination. 

y	 Develop an up-to-date Visitor Services Plan that reflects current legislation, director’s orders, 

initiatives, policy, and the mission of Eufaula NWR, the NWR System and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. The plan should also address the current and future visitor services and 

recreation needs of refuge visitors. 

y	 Develop Sneads Pond Road for public use, including signage, culvert, road maintenance, and 

parking. 

y	 Implement a plan for an accessible fishing/wildlife observation pier at Houston Bottoms. 

y	 Open a portion of the Bradley Unit as a birding drive. 

y	 Develop a canoe trail along Wylaunee Creek. 

184 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
y	 Give seniors a better chance to hunt. Applicants for the waterfowl hunt should be sorted into 

two groups: one 16 years and up to 59 years of age, and the other 60 years and older. 

y	 There should be more public school involvement with education programs and more programs 

to educate the public about the refuge. Family programs should be created and presented on 

a regular schedule. 

y	 Observation areas need to be located where people can really see a lot of species. 

y	 The quota system for duck hunting should be revised to provide the public with a greater 

opportunity to be selected by taking into account prior year rejections. A rejection notice 

system would give those who have not had an opportunity to hunt in recent years a greater 

chance at being selected for a given year’s duck hunt. 

y	 Continue to include hunting as a priority recreational use; put more emphasis on providing 

quality dove and waterfowl hunts. 

Refuge Administration 

Attendees at the public scoping meeting and others who submitted written comments made the 

following points with regard to refuge administration at Eufaula NWR: 

y Increase the volunteer program by defining volunteer needs and strategically recruiting 

volunteers. 

y	 Develop a Friends group. A Friends group could do volunteer work that would benefit the refuge. 

It would also serve as a tax-deductible fund for donations by businesses and individual 

contributors that would be used on behalf of habitat improvements, birds, waterfowl, etc. 

y Hire an Outreach and Interpretive Specialist.
 

y Acquire additional lands for refuge expansion. 

y Build a new Visitor Center which provides interpretation and an education/nature center with 

classrooms.
 

y Continue to enhance partnerships.
 

Appendices 185 
186 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

Appendix V. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 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 

is 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 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: 

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 and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. 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. We consider 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 Administration 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlife-dependent 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 . . . .” The law also states “[i]n administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . [i]ssue regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the 

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority general public 

uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

Appendices 187 
 

 

 

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 (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway 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, E.O. 

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 following 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 and photography, or 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. 

188 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

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 and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Appendices 189 
 

 

 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR ___________________________________________________ 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

190 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR _______________________________________________________
 

Use: Canoeing _______________________________________________________________
 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendices 191 
 

 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR_____________________________________________________________ 

Use: Farming / Haying ________________________________________________________________
 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

192 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR _____________________________________________________________ 

Use: Feral Hog 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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendices 193 
 

 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR_____________________________________________________________ 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

194 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR_____________________________________________________________ 

Use: Jogging Walking ________________________________________________________________
 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendices 195 
 

 

 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR _____________________________________________________________ 

Use: Scientific Field Studies ______________________________________________________
 

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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate _X____ 

Refuge Manager: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence.
 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________ Date: _____________________
 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

196 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Eufaula NWR _____________________________________________________________ 

Use: Forest 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 WILDLIFEDEPENDENT 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_____ Appropriate ___x__ 

Refuge Manager: _______________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. If an 

existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. If found to 

be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: ____________________________ Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 

Appendices 197 
198 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

Appendix VI. Compatibility Determinations 

EUFAULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction: The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the 

comprehensive conservation planning process for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. The descriptions 

and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the Uses through 

Public Review and Comment sections and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations section apply 

to each use. If one of these uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, then those sections become part of that compatibility determination. 

Uses: The following uses were evaluated and found to be compatible with the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of Eufaula National Wildlife: (1) hunting; (2) fishing; (3) 

wildlife observation and photography; (4) environmental education and interpretation; (5) bicycling; (6) 

canoeing; (7) farming and haying; (8) feral hog control; (9) forest management; (10) horseback riding; 

(11) walking and jogging; and (12) scientific research. 

Refuge Name: Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: 1964. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act (16 

U.S.C. 661-667-E); and Refuge Recreation Act (76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d). 

Refuge Purposes: 

“... shall be administered by him [Secretary of the Interior] directly or in accordance with 

cooperative agreements ... and in accordance with such rules and regulations for the 

conservation, maintenance, and management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat 

thereon, ...” 16 U.S.C. § 664 (Fish and Wildlife Coordination 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; 16 U.S.C. § 460k-460k-4, as amended (Refuge Recreation Act ) 

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) 

Appendices 199 
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, USC 668dd) 

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 

Public Review and Comment: 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge’s compatibility determinations are being made available for public 

review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the refuge’s Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). Public 

comments on these compatibility determinations are invited and are due by the deadline stated on 

the cover of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The methods being used to solicit public review and comment include a Notice of Availability for 

public review of the Draft CCP/EA published in the Federal Register; notices posted at the refuge 

headquarters and area locations; news releases sent to area newspapers; public service 

announcements sent to local radio stations; and copies of the Draft CCP/EA distributed to adjacent 

landowners, the general public, and local, state, and federal agencies. 

Description of Use: Hunting – Big Game, Upland Game, Mourning Dove, and Waterfowl 

Under Eufaula NWR’s current approved hunting plan and comprehensive conservation plan, hunting 

for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, gray and fox squirrels, mourning dove, and waterfowl (ducks and 

geese) is permitted. Hunting for these species would occur in designated areas of the refuge during 

specially designated times, as noted in the refuge’s annual Hunting and Fishing Regulations. Hunting 

is a priority public use. 

200 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Big Game: White-tailed deer and feral hog hunting would be permitted on the majority of the refuge, 

with the exception of no hunt zones that are established around administrative facilities and adjacent 

to Lakepoint Resort State Park. Significant archeological sites would be closed to entry. Some 

refuge impoundments in the Houston Unit would be off-limits to all public entry from November 15 

through March 1 to provide waterfowl sanctuary. 

Upland Game: Only the Alabama side of the refuge would be open for rabbit and squirrel hunting, 

with the exception of no hunt zones that are established around administrative facilities and adjacent 

to Lakepoint Resort State Park. Significant archeological sites would be closed to entry. Some 

refuge impoundments would be off-limits to all public entry from November 15 through March 1 to 

provide waterfowl sanctuary. 

Mourning Dove: Hunting for mourning dove would only be permitted in the Houston Unit on 

designated upland fields. 

Waterfowl: Waterfowl hunting would be permitted in the Kennedy Unit in Alabama and the Bradley 

Unit in Georgia. 

Big Game: White-tailed deer and feral hog hunting would occur from September through January in 

Georgia and October through January in Alabama. The area between Rood Creek and 

Bustahatchee Creek in Georgia would not open for archery deer hunting until November 1 each year. 

This area is off-limits for archery hunters due to the youth gun deer hunts during the month of 

October. Archery deer hunting would not be allowed in the Kennedy and Bradley units on the days 

when waterfowl hunting occurs. On these days archery hunters would not be allowed to enter the 

Kennedy and Bradley units until after 12:00 noon. 

Upland Game: Rabbit and squirrel hunting would be allowed on the Alabama portion of the refuge 

during the month of February. The refuge would be closed to this activity prior to February due to the 

archery deer season. 

Mourning Dove: Dove hunting would occur during the south zone season in Alabama. A limited 

number of hunts would be allowed prior to the start of the archery deer season in October. Hunting 

would occur from 12:00 noon until sunset each day. 

Waterfowl: Waterfowl hunting would occur no more than one day a week during the Alabama and 

Georgia seasons, respectively. Hunts would be held on Wednesdays and Saturdays throughout the 

season. The hunt days would alternate each year. Hunting would occur in Alabama on Saturday and 

Georgia on Wednesday one year, and the days would swap the following year. Hunting hours would 

be from legal shooting time until 12:00 noon each day. 

Big Game: White-tailed deer hunting and feral hog hunting would be done with archery equipment. State 

regulations for the state the hunter is in would apply. Deer stands would be removed from the refuge 

daily. Gun hunting for white-tailed deer would be allowed in the Bradley Unit during the month of October 

by successful youth hunters who are drawn for a special quota hunt. Two to four youth gun hunts would 

be held each year. A staffed check station would be used for the youth gun hunts. Youth hunters must 

be supervised by a licensed adult who is at least 21 years of age. Archery hunters would be required to 

report their harvest within 24 hours or to check their deer in at one of the deer check stations on the 

refuge. There would be a deer check station in Alabama and in Georgia. Deer hunters must follow all 

state regulations for their respective state. This includes the Quality Deer Management Program for 

Barbour County, Alabama. The refuge participates in the Quality Deer Management Program. Hog 

hunting would be in accordance with state regulations. Taking of feral hogs would be allowed incidentally 

Appendices 201 
 

 

 

 

 

 

to deer hunting. There would be no size or bag limit on hogs and they would not be permitted to be taken 

alive. A refuge hunting permit is required. 

Upland Game: Dogs are not allowed for rabbit and squirrel hunting on the refuge. Hunters are 

required to use shotguns only. Rifles are not allowed. Nontoxic shot is required (no lead shot). A 

refuge hunting permit is required. 

Mourning Dove: Nontoxic shot is required (no lead shot). Approximately two to four dove hunts 

would be held prior to the start of the archery deer season. Hunters would be required to sign in and 

and out each day and to report their harvest at the conclusion of the hunt. Refuge permits and maps 

of the hunting area would be provided at the entrance to the Houston Unit. 

Waterfowl: Waterfowl hunting is a quota hunt. Successful applicants are notified of their hunt date and 

may bring along two quests. Blinds are provided by the refuge and due to safety concerns no more than 

three people are allowed in each blind. During youth hunts a licensed adult who is at least 21 years of 

age may supervise no more than two youth. Hunters are limited to 25 shells per hunter. Coots cannot be 

taken. All applicable federal and state regulations apply. Hunters must attend a briefing the morning of 

the hunt and will draw for blind selection at that time. A staffed hunter check station would be used and 

hunters are required to check in and check out at the conclusion of the hunt. 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent public use and has occurred on the refuge for over 40 years. 

The hunting program as outlined in this document allows the public the opportunity to utilize a 

renewable resource and still provides for portions of the refuge to be used as a sanctuary. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources Involved in the Administration and Management of the Use: 

y Refuge Manager: Oversight, law enforcement, and coordination with the two state agencies -- 

$20,000 

y Administrative Officer: Issuing permits and collecting fees -- $10,000 

y Refuge Biologist: Collecting data and operating the check stations -- $7,000 

y Annual Hunting Regulations -- $4,000 

Special Equipment, Facilities, or Improvements Necessary to Support the Use: None. The check 

stations are currently in use and operational. 

Maintenance Costs: 

y Maintenance staff: Road preparation, mowing trails, blind repair -- $15,000 

y Utilities for check station -- $2,000 

y Portable restroom facilities -- $2,000 

Monitoring Costs: The refuge may use additional traffic counters to monitor refuge activity on the 

Kennedy, Bradley, Davis-Clark, and Molnar units. The estimated cost is $4,000 initially, with a $1,000 

annual expense in subsequent years. 

202 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Offsetting Revenues: The fees proposed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan include: 

y Youth Gun Deer Hunt -- $20.00 per hunter 

y Youth Waterfowl Hunt -- $20.00 per hunter 

y Youth/Adult Waterfowl Hunt -- $20.00 per hunter 

y Adult Waterfowl Hunt -- $60.00 per permit 

The refuge currently collects between $8,000 and $12,000 annually through hunt fees. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: Limited public hunting should not have a negative impact on the overall refuge 

populations of the listed species being hunted. Hunting prevents overpopulation of deer and feral hogs 

and prevents associated habitat damage from the overpopulation of these species. Waterfowl hunting on 

the refuge is tightly regulated and should not cause any negative impacts to other species. Dove hunting 

is limited in duration and scope on the refuge and should not lead to any negative impacts to other 

species. Upland game hunting for rabbit and squirrel is limited to the month of February. While some 

disturbance may occur to other species during this activity, it is anticipated that the disturbance would be 

minimal and infrequent due to the short hunting season for these species. 

Long-term Impacts: No long-term impacts to wildlife or associated habitat is anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Determination: 

Hunting (Big Game) Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Hunting (Migratory Birds Mourning Dove) Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Hunting (Upland Game) Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Hunting (Waterfowl) Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Refuge hunting permits must be signed and 

carried along with the appropriate state license or hunters safety course card as required by state 

law. State regulations for Alabama and Georgia apply to all refuge hunting for the respective 

state the hunter is in. Law enforcement patrols by refuge officers would ensure compliance with 

refuge regulations as well as state laws related to hunting. Hunting is allowed in designated 

areas only. Areas closed to hunting would be marked with "No Hunting" or "Seasonally Closed" 

signs to ensure compliance. Alcoholic beverages are not permitted. Vehicles and bicycles would 

be restricted to graveled roads maintained for public traffic. ATVs are not allowed. Hunters 

under the age of 16 must be supervised by an adult not less than 21 years old and must remain 

in sight and normal voice contact with the adult. For small game and quota waterfowl hunts, the 

adult may supervise no more than two youths. For big game hunting, the adult may supervise 

only one youth. Airboats are not allowed on the refuge for hunting. Nontoxic shot is required for 

upland hunting, dove hunting, and waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting would be limited to 

morning hunting. All waterfowl hunts would end at 12:00 noon. 

Appendices 203 
The number of hunts, hunters, and units open to hunting at any one time would be modified to 

minimize overharvesting and provide for a safe and quality hunting experience. 

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent public use listed under the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The development of hunting opportunities fulfills both the 

mission of the Refuge System and the goals of Eufaula NWR. Controlled limited hunting is 

compatible with specific refuge objectives, sound wildlife management, and the public's interest on 

Eufaula NWR. The removal of surplus deer and hogs prevents overpopulation, which can be 

detrimental to herd health and negatively impact the resource. Hunting provides the public with an 

opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. Hunting is a traditional use on Eufaula NWR and the 

lower reaches of the Chattahoochee River. 

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- or 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: ___________________ 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Recreational fishing is a common public use activity on the refuge and the surrounding area. The 

refuge contains approximately 4,000 acres of open water that is part of the Walter F. George 

Reservoir (Lake Eufaula). An additional 1,200 acres of refuge wetlands support the fishery resource. 

Fishing is permitted on the refuge year-round in accordance with the appropriate state regulations for 

Alabama and Georgia. Fishing is a priority public use. 

The agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Service states that the water 

areas of the refuge will be open to the public for recreational purposes. All open water portions of the 

refuge that are part of the Walter F. George Reservoir would be open for boat access and fishing. 

Bank access (foot access) for fishing will be provided at designated points along the shoreline of 

Lake Eufaula within the refuge boundaries. Refuge impoundments would also be open to public 

fishing in accordance with state laws. Refuge impoundments and ponds would be closed seasonally 

to fishing from November 15 through March 1 to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. The areas 

would be marked by the appropriate signs and included in the annual Refuge Hunting and Fishing 

Regulations. Sneads Pond would also be open to the public for fishing via foot access. 

Fishing is permitted year-round on refuge waters except for the refuge impoundments, which are 

seasonally closed for waterfowl sanctuary from November 15 through March 1. Bank fishing activity 

is limited to daylight use only. Bank fishing is permitted from sunrise to sunset. The two boat 

launches that the refuge maintains would be open to the public from sunrise to sunset. No overnight 

use would be permitted on the Wildlife Drive boat launch or the Gammage Road boat launch. 

204 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

Fishing in Lake Eufaula is legal with an Alabama or Georgia fishing license; fishing in refugeimpounded waters requires a license for the state in which you are fishing. State regulations on 

species, methods of take, and creel limits would apply. Boats with motors are not permitted in refugeimpounded waters. 

Recreational fishing has been permitted on the refuge since the refuge was established in 1964. The 

refuge overlays on Corps of Engineers property. The 1964 permit granted to the Service from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers states that the water areas of the refuge would be open to the public for 

recreational purposes. Recreational fishing is one of the Big Six priority uses of national wildlife refuges. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the 

use at its current level. Additional resources would be needed to conduct the use as outlined in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Funding is needed for law enforcement, new fishing piers 

adjacent to refuge’s outlet pumps, improved parking, and signage. No special equipment, facilities, 

or improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: 

y Annual trail maintenance from the Wildlife Drive and other roads to bank fishing areas -- 

$2,000 

y Litter control signs -- $500 

y Litter pickup -- $2,000 

y Law Enforcement patrols -- $2,000 

y Future expenses (fishing pier) -- estimated at $20,000 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: Recreational fishing should not adversely affect the fishery resources, wildlife 

resources, or endangered species on the refuge. There may be some limited disturbance to certain 

species of wildlife and some trampling of vegetation; however, this disturbance should be short-lived 

and relatively minor and would not negatively impact wetland values. 

Long-term Impacts: Disturbance to known bird rookery sites could be a concern. This has been 

identified in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan as an area for potential research in the future. 

The refuge will work closely with the Corps of Engineers and the appropriate state agencies to 

resolve any potential conflicts. Over time, the accumulation of litter in some bank fishing areas may 

also be a problem and could lead to a temporary closure of certain areas of the refuge. 

Cumulative Impacts: During construction of the new fishing piers and rehab of parking areas, some 

disturbance to wildlife will occur. Once the proposed improvements are accomplished the refuge 

would experience an increase in use, but the increase is not expected to be detrimental to wildlife. 

Appendices 205 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Determination: 

Fishing (general)	 Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations.
 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Refuge fishing seasons are set within the 

season constraints outlined by the States of Alabama and Georgia, and fishermen would conform 

to state laws and regulations. Lake Eufaula’s size and creel limits, as set by the States of 

Alabama and Georgia, apply in all refuge waters. Bank fishing and the use of the Wildlife Drive 

and Gammage Road boat ramps would be limited to daylight use only. Refuge ponds and 

impoundments are closed to fishing from November 15 through March 1 to reduce disturbance to 

waterfowl. Boats with motors are not permitted in refuge impoundments and ponds. Airboats 

may not be used on the refuge. Fishing in Lake Eufaula is legal with an Alabama or Georgia 

fishing license; fishing in refuge impoundments or ponds requires a license for the state in which 

you are fishing. Firearms are prohibited while fishing all refuge waters. Fires are not allowed. 

Alcoholic beverages are not permitted. Bank fishing may be closed in certain areas at any point 

during the season due to excessive litter. 

Justification: Recreational fishing has been allowed on the refuge since its establishment in 1964. 

Visitation for fishing historically has been and is expected to be the most popular activity on the 

refuge, accounting for over 50% of refuge visitation. Fishing is a high quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreational use that allows the public the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Visitors observe wildlife by walking or using motorized vehicles, bicycles, motorized and 

nonmotorized boats, and horses. Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses. 

The majority of wildlife observation and photography occurs on the refuge’s Houston Unit. This unit 

includes a 7-mile auto tour route, two observation platforms, and a 1/3-mile walking trail. The 

refuge’s Kennedy, Molnar, and Bradley units are open for wildlife observation and photography via 

foot access. Some refuge impoundments are seasonally closed to reduce disturbance to wintering 

waterfowl. These areas would be identified in refuge brochures and clearly marked with signs that 

state, “Area Beyond this Sign is Closed to All Public Access November 15 through March 1." 

Motorized vehicles, bicycles, and horses would be restricted to gravel roads. 

The refuge is open year-round from sunrise to sunset. 

206 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

Wildlife observation and photography would be permitted throughout the year during daylight 

hours only. Certain refuge impoundments would be closed to all entry to provide a waterfowl 

sanctuary. The areas or units closed to entry may vary from year to year, depending on use and 

habitat conditions. Access into waterfowl impoundments would be monitored to minimize 

disturbance. Photographers using temporary or floating binds would be required to remove the 

blinds from the refuge daily. 

Wildlife observation and photography are two of the Big Six priority wildlife-dependent uses of 

national wildlife refuges. The level of interest in these activities is significant and continues to 

increase. Approximately 40,000 visitors engage in these activities on the refuge each year. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to administer the use and ensure 

compatibility. Additional fiscal resources would be needed to carry out this use as proposed in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. These funds would be used for additional observation platforms, 

improvements to the Wildlife Drive, photo blinds, etc. No special equipment, facilities, or 

improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: 

y Grade and maintain refuge roads -- $6,000 

y Signs -- $2,000 

y Litter control -- $1,000 

y Law Enforcement patrols -- $10,000 

y Future expenses (photo blind and observation tower) -- $50,000 

Monitoring Costs: The refuge may use additional traffic counters to monitor refuge activity on the 

Kennedy, Bradley, Davis-Clark, and Molnar units. The estimated cost is $4,000 initially, with a $1,000 

annual expense in subsequent years. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: The anticipated impacts from this use would be minor damage to vegetation, 

littering, increased maintenance activity, potential conflicts with other visitors, and disturbance to 

wildlife. Some wildlife would be killed and injured when crossing refuge roads in front of oncoming 

traffic. 

Long-term Impacts: No long-term impacts to habitat or wildlife are anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts: Wildlife photographers can at times get too close to animals in their quest to 

"get the best shot." This usually results in disturbance of the animal, such as permanent dislocation 

or death. When photo blinds are not properly placed or temporary blinds are left for extended periods 

of time, the animals may stop using a particular area; for example, waterfowl may stop using an 

impoundment due to excessive and repeated disturbance. 

Appendices 207 
 

 

 

Determination: 

Photography (Wildlife) Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Wildlife Observation Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Some refuge impoundments would be 

seasonally closed to all public entry from November 15 through March 1. This would prevent 

unnecessary disturbance during this critical time. These activities would be permitted during daylight 

hours only. Blinds brought in by the public for wildlife observation and photography must be removed 

from the refuge daily. 

Justification: The majority of refuge visitors come to the refuge to see wildlife. While many visitors 

come to the refuge specifically to engage in wildlife photography, most come simply to observe wildlife in 

their natural setting. Approximately 50% of the refuge visitors bring their camera or video camera to 

capture the special moment that is part of their refuge visit. Wildlife observation and photography are two 

of the Big Six priority wildlife-dependent uses on national wildlife refuges. These uses are compatible and 

are not expected to cause significant conflicts with other refuge activities. 

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- or 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: ____________ 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation include those activities that seek to increase the public's 

knowledge and understanding of wildlife and contribute to wildlife conservation. 

Environmental education would be conducted at the refuge headquarters, on the Wildlife Drive, on 

the open water by boat, and on the refuge’s Houston, Kennedy, Molnar, or Bradley units. 

Environmental education and interpretation would primarily be done during normal business hours, 

from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. However, these activities may occur outside that timeframe in order meet 

specific educational requirements, such as when the staff or volunteers lead “creatures of the night” 

programs that would occur after dark. Staff-led trips with university students to observe alligators 

may also occur after hours. Such after hours activities are, however, infrequent and would be 

approved in advance. 

208 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

Environmental education and interpretation would be subject to any applicable federal, state, and 

refuge-specific regulations and occur within the refuge’s designated public use areas. These 

activities include teacher-led programs; staff-led programs; teacher workshops; interpretation of 

wildlife resources; and visits to the refuge’s support facilities, such as the refuge headquarters, visitor 

center, or check station facilities which are also used as environmental education classrooms. 

These uses are two of the Big Six priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to administer the uses and ensure their 

compatibility. Additional fiscal resources would be needed to carry out these uses as proposed in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan, to carry out the number of programs, activities, and facilities (visitor 

center and staff). No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the uses. 

Maintenance Costs: Special events such as International Migratory Bird Day and National Wildlife 

Refuge Week can generate large numbers of visitors. The staff time and expense to conduct such 

events ranges from $1,000 to over $5,000. The refuge currently does not have a public use staff, so 

these activities are a collateral duty for the existing staff. 

Monitoring Costs: None 

Offsetting Revenues: Recreational use fees collected from the refuge’s hunting program are used to 

support environmental education and interpretation activities. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: The use of onsite, hands-on activities for students, boy and girl scouts, and 

other organized groups may impose a low level of impact to the refuge’s public use areas. These 

impacts may include trampling of vegetation and temporary disturbance to wildlife in the immediate 

area of the activity. Potentail conflicts with other refuge visitors may arise with larger groups 

partcipating in these activities. 

Long-term Impacts: No long-term impacts to wildlife or habitat is anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Determination: 

Environmental education (teaching Use is compatible with the following 

students) stipulations. 

Environmental education (teaching Use is compatible with the following 

teachers) stipulations. 

Interpretation Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Special events held onsite would be held were 

minimal disturbance to wildlife would occur. Outdoor classroom areas would be the same areas that 

are open to the general public (away from resting waterfowl, and not in closed areas). 

Appendices 209 
 

 

Justification: Through the use of environmental education and interpretation, the refuge can have a 

positive influence on thousands of visitors each year by providing insights on specific refuge problems, the 

importance of habitat management, and the needs of specific wildlife species. Visitors would leave the 

refuge with a clear message about invasive species control, longleaf pine restoration, waterfowl 

management, and the significance of Eufaula NWR. While providing these types of activities comes at a 

cost, the Service gains many important advocates through the operation of these programs. 

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- or 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: ____________ 

Description of Use: Bicycling 

Bicycling is not a Big Six priority use, but is regulated by the refuge. Bicyling is not a commercial 

activity and is infrequently conducted on the refuge. Less than 100 cyclists utilize the refuge 

annually. The refuge requires no special facilities in support of this use other than the normal road 

maintenance that supports all other refuge and Big 6 activities. 

Bicycling would be restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (trails, firebreaks, 

woods roads, etc.) would be allowed, including all roads closed to the general public whether it is a 

scheduled seasonal or emergency closure. Should numbers increase to an unacceptable level, this 

activity would be reduced or terminated. 

Bicycling would occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the temperatures 

are mild or when families would be on vacation. It would occur to a lesser extent as a means for 

transportation by deer hunters seeking to access remote portions of the refuge. 

All equipment would be provided by the general public. Except on rare occasions, uses would be 

less than 5 on any one day. No additional facilities would be required or provided by the refuge. 

The refuge is allowing this use under the assumption that users are gaining an excellent exposure to 

the refuge with an opportunity to observe wildlife at a level of quality equal to or greater than vehicle 

traffic on the auto tour route. Bicycling off the refuge is available but not in a surrounding to provide 

wildlife observation. It also facilitates hunter access. 

Availability of Resources: No additional refuge resources are needed to support this activity. No 

special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

210 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. It is not in itself a primary Big 

Six recreational use, but it does provide for additional wildlife viewing opportunities; often the activity 

encourages family outings on the refuge in a manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than 

other vehicular traffic. It provides hunter access to remote portions of the refuge. 

Long-term Impacts: There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Road maintenance is currently a high priority because it supports other refuge operations and all of 

the Big Six activities. 

Cumulative Impacts: Bicycling is not a Big Six recreational use, but it does provide for additional 

wildlife viewing opportunities and hunter access; often the activity encourages family outings on the 

refuge in a manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than other vehicular traffic. There would 

be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. Road maintenance is currently a high 

priority because it supports other refuge operations and all of the Big Six activities. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Bicycling is compatible as long as access is 

limited to graveled roads and the number of users does not increase dramatically. 

Justification: Bicycling enhances opportunities to observe wildlife and allows deer hunters to access 

remote portions of the refuge without negatively impacting wildlife or other wildlife-dependent priority 

public uses. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Canoeing 

Canoeing usage is not a Big Six use and is primarily regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The refuge could prohibit its use in coordination with the Corps if wildlife distubance should occur. 

Canoeing is not a commercial activity; there are no facilities in this area to rent canoes, only canoe 

owners using a public lake. Less than 50 canoers and kayakers use the refuge annually. The refuge 

needs no special facilities in support of this use. 

Appendices 211 
 

 

 

Canoeing would likely occur in the refuge’s creeks and coves, not in the big open water where 

motorized boats cause wake action. An estimated 300 acres of the 4,000 acres of reservoir within 

the boundary of the refuge would be used by canoers. There could be minor wildlife disturbance due 

to visual contact, but no more than other compatible uses. Canoeing would offer the highest quality 

of wildlife observation and photography because of the low impact and noise created by this venture. 

Canoeing would most likely occur during an eight-month period from March to October during daylight 

hours. This use period would avoid disturbance to wintering waterfowl, which reach their highest 

numbers from late November to mid-February. Naturally, the heaviest use would be on Saturdays 

and Sundays. 

No special equipment or facilities would be provided by the refuge. Peak one-time use would be in 

the low single digits on a given day, unless there should be a special event. Canoers would launch 

and retrieve their canoes from adjacent state parks, campgrounds, or refuge roads adjacent to the 

reservoir. 

The refuge is allowing this use under the assumption that users are gaining an excellent exposure to 

the refuge with an opportunity to observe wildlife at a level of quality equal to or greater than vehicle 

traffic on the auto tour route. Canoeing off the refuge is available but not in a surrounding to provide 

wildlife observation. It also facilitates hunter access. 

Availability of Resources: No additional resources will be involved in the administration and 

management of this use. No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to 

support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. It is not in itself a primary Big 

Six recreational use, but it does provide for additional wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge in a 

manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than motored boat traffic. 

Long-term Impacts: There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Canoeing is not a Big Six recreational use, but it does provide for 

additional wildlife viewing opportunities; the activity encourages outings on the refuge in a 

manner that is less disturbing to wildlife than other boat traffic. There would be no diversion of 

refuge resources away from other programs. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

212 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

 X
 

 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: This use is compatible unless the use increases 

considerably, which is unlikely, or unacceptable wildlife disturbance is documented or increased use 

should occur during peak waterfowl use or wading/water bird nesting periods. 

Justification: While canoeing is not a Big Six priority use, users of this category experience a high 

quality wildlife observation experience and cause no measurable disturbance to wildlife species or 

habitat. It does not interfere with refuge goals. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Farming and Haying 

Farming and haying involve the continued cultivation by a local farmer (cooperative farmer), using 

approved farming techniques outlined in the refuge's Cropland Management Plan, of less than 1,000 

acres on the refuge (less than 10% of the refuge acreage). Plantings and harvesting by a 

cooperative farmer of high energy foods such as corn, peanuts, grain sorghum, soybeans, and other 

annual grasses such as millets, wheat and oats are for waterfowl, other migratory birds, and various 

wildlife species. This proposal supports several of the Big Six priority public uses. No additional 

facilities, equipment or personnel are needed to continue this activity. 

Farming would be continued in traditional agricultural fields (less than 10% of the total refuge 

acreage). Fields are located in the uplands and in flooded fields near the river where waterfowl and 

migratory birds feed as they pass through or linger during their winter stay. Some species utilize 

these fields and associated old fields and edges year-round. Practices would include a combination 

of cultivation, no-till, or minimum till practices. The proposed use should not impact other areas or the 

public's use of the refuge. These farmed areas support several of the Big Six public use activities. 

Any chemical use associated with the practice would be carefully selected and contained within the 

fields by use of grassed field borders and other vegetation. Planting and harvesting equipment would 

be temporarily stored on the refuge, but not in refuge facilities. 

Farming activities are seasonal, with the most activity occurring daily during the planting season 

(March–April) and during harvest (May and late August–September). 

Farming activities would be carried out by a private farmer (cooperative farmer) and his helpers 

(approximately 3–4 people) using their equipment. Equipment consists of tractors, planting 

implements and sprayers, combines, and trucks to haul harvested grain to market. The only refuge 

facilities utilized are refuge-maintained roads. 

Appendices 213 
 

 X 

Farming is a refuge proposed activity using either cooperative farmers, contracted farmers, or refuge 

personnel and equipment. Cooperative farming is the most economical. Farming is a vital 

management tool that provides food, habitat diversity and protective cover for a variety of wildlife 

species. The refuge provides unique facilities to provide public viewing and shallow water feeding for 

waterfowl not available on private land. Farming supports several Big 6 public use opportunities. 

Availability of Resources: Resources are available to administer this use (currently 5% of existing 

employee's salary to oversee this program). No additional operating funds are needed. No special 

equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: About 5% of the current employees’ salary is required for monitoring for 

compliance. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: Proposal bennefits numerous wildlife species and supports hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation. This 

activity does not significantly impact any other refuge activity. 

Long-term Impacts: Proposal bennefits numerous wildlife species and supports hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation. 

Cumulative Impacts: Proposal bennefits numerous wildlife species and supports hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and environmental interpretation. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: That policy and guidance is followed and that 

practice is conducted according to this station's Cropland Management Plan and any subsequent 

decisions developed through the CCP process. 

Justification: The practice provides the needed foods for the 2,600,000 use-days for waterfowl and 

2,000,000 use-days for other migratory birds. Farming by means of a cooperative farmer where a 

share of the crop is left for wildlife consumption is the most economical way to produce the grain 

foods to feed the wildlife species using the refuge. Options to utilize contracted farmers or refuge 

employees to conduct this program is not available due to budget contraints. 

214 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 X

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Feral Hog Management Program 

Refuge-wide feral hog control is being instituted on Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge in an effort 

to significantly reduce or eliminate the feral hog population. Three management options are 

being considered. 

Individuals will be allowed to live-trap hogs on the refuge under the conditions and guidelines of a 

Special Use Permit. Hogs captured in traps must be killed before they are removed from the refuge. 

Hunting with the aid of hounds will be allowed on the refuge under the conditions and guidelines of a 

Special Use Permit. Hogs captured by hound hunters must be removed from the refuge dead at the 

conclusion of the hunt. 

Recreational hunting during current open refuge deer hunts. Hunters participating in archery deer hunts 

and youth quota gun deer hunts will be permitted to harvest feral hogs. There is no bag limit on hogs. 

Feral hog management will occur throughout the refuge. Approximately 4,000 acres of the refuge is 

open water. The remaining 7,184 acres would be open for feral hog control as deemed necessary by 

the Refuge Manager to protect habitat from destruction by feral hogs. 

Feral hog control by live trapping and hunting with the aid of hounds would occur from mid-February 

through early October to avoid any conflict with public hunts and disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

These activities would be closely monitored by the refuge staff in an effort to mitigate any conflicts 

with the visiting public or disturbance to wildlife. 

Feral hog control by public hunting would be permitted during the archery deer season and the quota 

youth deer hunts. The archery deer season runs from October through the end of January in 

Alabama and from September through the end of January in Georgia. The quota youth deer hunts 

occur on selected weekends during the month of October. 

The Bradley Unit in Georgia is currently open for archery deer hunting and limited quota youth gun 

hunts. The Alabama portion of the refuge is open for archery deer season consistent with state 

regulations. Hunters can harvest hogs during any open deer season on the refuge. There is no bag 

limit. All state and federal regulations must be complied with for hunting hogs. All hogs killed must 

be removed from the refuge at the conclusion of the day’s hunt. Individuals interested in trapping 

hogs or hunting with the aid of hounds on the refuge may do so under a Special Use Permit issued by 

the Refuge Manager. 

Appendices 215 
 

Eufaula NWR was established to provide food and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl and wood 

ducks. The accomplishment of this main objective is being challenged by the disruption caused by 

feral hog populations on and around the refuge. 

For numerous years, feral hogs have roamed at large on Eufaula NWR lands, as well as private lands 

surrounding the refuge. Currently, there are known populations of feral hogs located on the Bradley 

Unit in Georgia and the Houston Unit in Alabama. The hog population on the Bradley Unit has gone 

unchecked and unmanaged, allowing it to grow to a stage where its numbers are affecting native 

wildlife and fauna. The hog population on the Houston Unit was first documented by refuge staff and 

confirmed by researchers from Auburn University in April 2006. The feral hogs are degrading wildlife 

habitat and competing directly with native wildlife for food. Hogs are also having an impact on 

ground-nesting and ground-dwelling species by means of predation. 

It is difficult to establish or estimate the number of hogs that inhabit the refuge due to their extensive 

movements to and from refuge land. The Bradley Unit is surrounded by one adjacent landowner, the 

W.C. Bradley Company. The dense vegetation on the Bradley Unit causes difficulty surveying the 

hog population. Hogs can hide very well among the tall grass of the refuge fields and impoundments, 

as well as the wooded areas on the perimeter of the Bradley Unit. Due to the difficulty in surveying 

the hog population, a threshold level cannot be developed. Managers will use professional judgment 

in determining the needed actions. Damage to refuge habitat and damage to adjacent croplands and 

managed wildlife habitat will be considered and appropriate actions taken. 

Feral hog control would be a vital management tool in order to meet the objectives for which the 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge was established. 

Availability of Resources: This use would be administered by the Refuge Manager. The Refuge 

Biologist would monitor this use and its impacts to wildlife. Random compliance checks would be 

conducted to verify compliance by permittees. The refuge currently has the resources to administer 

this use. No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: The refuge currently operates two unstaffed check stations during the archery 

deer season. During the quota youth deer hunts, the check station is staffed. No additional 

maintenance costs are anticipated for the proposed use. 

Monitoring Costs: The refuge has one biologist on the staff that would monitor the impacts of this 

use. Feral hog removal should lead to improved overall habitat conditions on the refuge. The Refuge 

Manager and Assistant Refuge Manager have law enforcement authority and would perform random 

compliance checks on hunters and permittees. 

Offsetting Revenues: The refuge currently collects permit fees for quota hunts. The fee for the quota 

youth deer hunt held on the Bradley Unit in Georgia is $12.50 per hunter. Twenty youth hunters 

participate in the hunt each year. The total revenue collected is $250.00. No additional fees would 

be collected related to this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: Impacts during management actions include an increase in wildlife disturbance 

during trapping and hunting, with hounds along roadways due to increased vehicular traffic. 

Vegetation may be trampled during the placement of live traps. 

216 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 X

Long-term Impacts: The overall quality of wildlife habitat will dramatically improve as the feral hog 

population decreases. The Bradley Unit in Georgia is currently infested with feral hogs. This unit of 

the refuge is approximately 850 acres and the entire unit has extensive damage related to feral hogs. 

Moist soil plants cannot be managed for waterfowl because of hog disturbance and any crops that 

are planted are destroyed by hogs. Feral hogs are particularly harmful to bird and reptile nests. The 

long term effect of this activity would be a positive improvement over the current habitat conditions. 

Cumulative Impacts: This use would provide improved habitat for migratory birds and also improve 

habitat conditions on adjacent lands surrounding the refuge. The adajacent landowner on the 

Georgia side of the refuge is actively controlling the hog population on his property. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunters harvesting feral hogs during refuge deer hunts would possess a signed Refuge Hunting 

Permit. Individuals using live traps and hunting with the aid of hounds would be permitted to do so 

under a Special Use Permit. 

In order to be considered as a permittee to live-trap feral hogs on federal lands (Eufaula National 

Wildlife Refuge), candidates and helpers must: 

1. Possess a valid state hunting license for the appropriate state (Alabama or Georgia). 

2. Possess a valid and current driver's license. 

3. Possess valid and current vehicle insurance. 

4. Provide three references that can describe and confirm the trapper's past hog-trapping
 

experience. 

5. Live in the local area, within approximately 50 miles, and have the ability to respond in a timely 

manner to any situation arising from hog trapping activities. 

6. Legally possess a firearm for dispatching feral hogs. 

7. Have a minimum of 4 traps to be used on the specific unit. Exceptions could be made 

according to the size of the unit being trapped or the Refuge Manager's discretion.
 

NOTE: Requirement no. 5 may be waived under certain circumstances for previous permittee 

demonstrating a high level of cooperation and program support. 

The use of hounds to kill or chase hogs will be an alternative to be considered by the Refuge 

Manager according to the needs and the location. This method can be very effective if done properly 

with the handler exhibiting good control of the hounds. A Special Use Permit would be issued to an 

assigned individual or group to handle, trap or kill the hogs in the refuge. The permittee will have to 

provide references and proof of previous experience on using hounds to pursue hogs and agree to a 

background check. 

Appendices 217 
 

 

To be considered for a permit to remove feral hogs with the aid of dogs on federal lands (Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge), candidates and assistants must: 

1. Possess a valid state hunting license for the appropriate state (Alabama or Georgia). 

2. Possess a valid and current driver's license. 

3. Possess valid and current vehicle insurance. 

4. Demonstrate the ability, knowledge and equipment required for hunting hogs with the aid of 

dogs through an interview and/or demonstration. 

5. Provide three references that can describe and confirm previous experience on using hounds 

to pursue hogs. 

6. Legally possess a firearm for dispatching feral hogs. 

The selected permittee will be subject to a background investigation for violations of State and/or 

Federal law. Permittee selection will be based off an individual interview, letters of reference and 

possibly a field demonstration. 

Justification: The policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to engage in the necessary control 

of wildlife within the National Wildlife Refuge System to assure a balance of wildlife and fish 

populations consistent with the optimum management of refuge habitat (Refuge Manual 7RM 14.2). 

Title 50 CFR Part 30, Section 11 - Control of feral animals. 

(a) Feral animals, including horses, burros, cattle, swine, sheep, goats, reindeer, dogs, and 

cats, without ownership that have reverted to the wild from a domestic state may be taken by 

authorized Federal or State personnel or by private persons operating under permit in 

accordance with applicable provisions of Federal or State law or regulations. 

Title 50 CFR Part 31, Section 14 - Official animal control operations. 

(a) Animal species which are surplus or detrimental to the management program of a wildlife 

refuge area may be taken in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations by 

Federal or State personnel or by permit issued to private individuals. 

(b) Animal species which are damaging or destroying Federal property within a wildlife refuge 

area may be taken or destroyed by Federal personnel. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

218 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

Description of Use: Forest Management at Eufaula NWR 

Forest management on Eufaula NWR is not a priority public use. Prior to 2001, Eufaula had 

conducted little or no timber stand improvements. Both natural and planted pine forests were typified 

by mature trees with closed canopies and poor regeneration. Southern pine beetle outbreaks in 2000 

and 2001 required the timber to be thinned. In other areas, the beetle infestations have gradually 

killed timber over the past 10 years. Problems with insect outbreaks are typical of overstocked 

stands with closed canopies. Periodic thinning and burning results in healthy forests of productive 

and diverse wildlife habitat. The refuge’s Forest Management Plan (1971) calls for silvicultural 

treatments every 8 years based on an 80-year rotation cycle. In conducting timber sales, the refuge's 

goal is to reduce the existing timber basal area of pine to approximately 40 square feet/acre or less. 

The average basal area for maintaining pine forests in the south is approximately 80. The 

management goal in pine and pine/hardwood stands is to increase plant diversity, and habitat 

conditions for bobwhite quail, migratory birds (Bachman's sparrow, woodcock, brown-headed 

nuthatch), and wild turkey. Subsequent to thinning, the areas would be burned during winter. 

Hardwood trees in pine/hardwood stands are removed using timber stand improvement (TSI) 

methods. The healthiest, dominant, large crown trees are left, removing the smaller, subdominant, 

deformed ones. Streamside protection zones are left around perennial streams and shorelines. 

Standing snags and dead trees are retained. 

The refuge is within the historical range of longleaf pine and contains remnant longleaf pine stands. 

These stands have poor regeneration due to invasion by loblolly. Restoration of these former 

longleaf pine habitats has begun and should continue into the future. Historical aerial photography 

documents that these forests had a more open canopy and ground cover conditions than in recent 

times. Long time residents speak of the grassy open understory and of quail hunting in these forests. 

Thinning out the remaining loblolly pine and replanting longleaf combined with growing season burns 

will accomplish the restoration efforts. 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, lying on the upper reaches of Walter F. George Reservoir, consists 

of 11,184 acres. There are 7,953 acres in Barbour and Russell Counties, Alabama, and 3,231 in 

Stewart and Quitman Counties, Georgia. The refuge is located about 40 miles south of Columbus, 

Georgia, and 80 miles east of Montgomery, Alabama. Much of the refuge lies within the city limits of 

Eufaula. The headquarters is eight miles north of Eufaula off U.S. Highway 431 on Alabama Highway 

165. There are approximately 3,150 acres of pine and pine hardwood forest on the refuge. This area 

will be managed to promote a healthy forest and to meet refuge objectives. 

Forest management activities would occur year-round as necessary to meet specific management 

objectives. Timber harvest operations will be conducted using local contractors who will bid on the 

timber to be harvested. In conducting timber sales, the refuge's goal is to reduce the existing timber 

basal area of pine to approximately 40 square feet/acre or less. The average basal area for 

maintaining pine forests in the south is approximately 80. The management goal in pine and 

pine/hardwood stands is to increase plant diversity, and habitat conditions for bobwhite quail, 

migratory birds (Bachman's sparrow, woodcock, brown-headed nuthatch), and wild turkey. 

Subsequent to thinning, the areas are burned during winter. Hardwood trees in pine/hardwood stands 

are removed using timber stand improvement (TSI) methods. The healthiest, dominant, large crown 

trees are left, removing the smaller, subdominant, deformed ones. Managing the hardwood stands 

for acorn production is another forest management objective. Acorn-producing hardwood stands are 

an important wildlife resource. Larger diameter oaks with crowns fully exposed to sunlight produce 

more acorns than trees with crowns partially or totally shaded. Thinning is important to increase 

acorn production. Streamside protection zones are left around perennial streams and shorelines. 

Appendices 219 
 

 

 

 

Removal of invasive species will be performed by refuge staff or contractors. Species such as 

Chinaberry trees, Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, etc. will be injected or sprayed and the replaced 

with native species. 

This use is being proposed by the refuge as a management tool designed to improve habitat 

conditions on the refuge for trust species. 

Availability of Resources: The refuge staff plans and implements all forest management activities. 

The refuge has sufficient staff to accomplish these activities. No special equipment, facilities, or 

improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: All maintenance costs associated with a commercial timber sale will be borne by 

the Special Use Permit holder. 

Monitoring Costs: Monitoring forest management activities is an administrative function; costs are 

accounted for in personnel salaries. 

Offsetting Revenues: As stated in the Corps of Engineers permit, the refuge is allowed to keep receipts 

from all timber sales. These funds are put back into habitat management on the refuge, such as 

purchasing longleaf pine seedlings. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: The short-term impacts will vary with the scope of the timber harvest technique 

utilized. Thinning and timber stand improvement projects will result in very limited impacts to 

habitats, and virtually no impacts to trust species. Clearcuts and patch cutting will have moderate 

impacts to localized blocks of habitats, and may temporarily displace trust species. 

Long-term Impacts: The long-term impacts will be beneficial for all timber harvest operations, as they 

are designed to improve habitat conditions over time for trust species. Benefits include, but are not 

limited to, increased vigor of key species, increased diversity both in structure and species 

composition of the forest habitats, and improved wildlife habitat. 

Cumulative Impacts: No negative cumulative impacts are expected as a result of timber 

management. Timber management, in concert with other refuge management activities, will greatly 

enhance the suitability of the various habitats on the refuge for a variety of wildlife species. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All commercial activities will be conducted under 

the regulations set forth by Special Use Permits. These regulations will follow all guidelines outlined 

in the Eufaula Forest Management Plan. Forest management activities will follow the Alabama and 

Georgia Forest Best Management Practices. 

220 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

 X
 

 

 

The Special Use Permit holder will utilize management techniques which do not adversely affect soils, 

water bodies, or any other natural resources present. These techniques should include harvesting under 

proper climatic conditions and placing buffer strips where necessary to protect water quality or other 

natural resources. Any special use activity not in compliance will be immediately stopped. 

Justification: Forest management, including thinning and regeneration of the pine and pinehardwood forest on Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, is required to create and maintain the habitat 

needed by Bachman’s sparrow populations and healthy populations of brown-headed nuthatch, 

northern bobwhite, wild turkey, red-headed woodpecker, fox squirrel, southern hognose snake and 

other trust species. 

Silviculture is an important component in meeting Hazard Fuel Reduction (HFR) and/or WildlandUrban Interface (WUI) mitigation goals of the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and the key points of 

the 2001 National Fire Plan. Forest management is compatible, is justified and is a vital part of 

refuge management. 

One goal that is identified in the refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan is to restore longleaf 

pine habitats on approximately 1,000 acres by 2015. Part of the Refuge System’s mission is to 

restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources. In order to restore pine and pine hardwood stands on the 

refuge, timber harvests are required. The only cost-effective way to do this type of forest 

management is through a public bid process and Special Use Permits. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding is not a Big Six use, but is regulated by the refuge. It is not a commercial activity 

and is infrequently conducted on the refuge. Riders are required to remain on refuge roads or the 

immediate shoulder. Less than 25 riders utilize the refuge annually. The refuge requires no special 

facilities in support of this use, other than the normal road maintenance that supports all other refuge 

and Big Six activities. 

Horseback riders would be restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (open fields, 

trails, firebreaks, woods roads, etc.) would be allowed. Restricted use includes all roads and areas 

closed to the general public, whether it is a scheduled seasonal or emergency closure. This is seen 

as a low impact form of transportation and being more suitable to the refuge than permitted 

recreational vehicles (RVs) and school or tour buses. 

Appendices 221 
 

 X 

Horseback riding would occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the 

temperatures are mild. Horses and equipment would be owned and trailered to the refuge by the 

general public. Except on rare occasions, uses would be 2–3 on any one day. No additional facilities 

would be required or provided by the refuge. 

The refuge is allowing this use under the assumption that users are gaining an excellent exposure to 

the refuge with an opportunity to observe wildlife at a level of quality equal to or greater than vehicle 

traffic, including the auto tour route, and it is more acceptable than RVs and buses. Horseback riding 

off the refuge is not available to the public where it provides quality wildlife observation. 

Availability of Resources: No added refuge resources are needed to support this activity. No 

special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. It is not a primary Big 6 

recreational use, but it does provide for additional wildlife viewing opportunities on the refuge in a 

manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than vehicles using refuge roads for Big 6 activities. 

Long-term Impacts: There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Horseback riding is not a Big 6 recreational use, but it does provide for 

additional wildlife viewing opportunities in a manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than 

other vehicular traffic. There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Road maintenance is currently a high priority because it supports other refuge operations and all of 

the Big 6 activities. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Horseback riding is compatible as long as 

access is limited to graveled roads, the use does not increase considerably or unacceptable wildlife 

disturbance is not documented. 

Justification: Horseback riding enhances opportunities to observe wildlife without negatively 

impacting wildlife or other wildlife-dependent priority public uses. It does not damage refuge roads nor 

interfere with refuge goals. It is seen as at least as acceptable as buses and RVs. 

222 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 X

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Jogging and Walking 

Jogging and walking are not Big Six uses, but are regulated by the refuge. It is not a commercial 

activity and is infrequently conducted on the refuge. Joggers and walkers are required to remain on 

refuge roads or the immediate shoulder. Less than 25 joggers and walkers utilize the refuge 

annually. The refuge requires no special facilities in support of this use other than the normal road 

maintenance that supports all other refuge and Big Six activities. 

Joggers and walkers would be restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (open 

fields, trails, firebreaks, woods roads, etc.) would be allowed. Restricted use includes all roads and 

areas closed to the general public ,whether it is a scheduled seasonal or emergency closure. 

Jogging and walking would occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the 

temperatures are mild. 

No special equipment or facilities would be provided by the refuge. Users would be limited to 1 or 2 

users on any one day with many days having no use. 

The refuge is allowing this use under the assumption that users are gaining an excellent exposure to 

the refuge with an opportunity to observe wildlife at a level of quality equal to or greater than vehicle 

traffic, including the auto tour route. Jogging and walking are available off-refuge, but not available to 

the public where it provides quality wildlife observation. 

Availability of Resources: No additional resources will be involved in the administration and 

management of this use. No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary to 

support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. Jogging and walking are not 

a primary Big 6 recreational use, but they do provide for additional wildlife viewing opportunities 

on the refuge in a manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than vehicles using refuge 

roads for Big 6 activities. 

Appendices 223 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Long-term Impacts: There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Jogging and walking are not a Big Six recreational use, but they do provide 

for additional wildlife viewing opportunities in a manner that is not any more disturbing to wildlife 

than other vehicular traffic. There would be no diversion of refuge resources away from other 

programs. Road maintenance is currently a high priority because it supports other refuge 

operations and all of the Big Six activities. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Jogging and walking are compatible as long as 

access is limited to graveled roads, and as long as the use does not increase considerably or 

unacceptable wildlife disturbance is documented. 

Justification: Jogging and walking enhance opportunities to observe wildlife without negatively 

impacting wildlife or other wildlife-dependent priority public uses. It does not damage refuge roads 

nor interfere with refuge goals. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Description of Use: Scientific Field Studies (Research) 

Reseach is an existing activity encouraged by the refuge. Research and studies are limited to 

resource problems and a need to obtain information on how to better conduct refuge habitat and 

management programs, better control invasive plants, how to better manage fish and wildlife 

populations, how to control certain diseases, etc. It is not a Big Six activity and is not an economical 

activity. A maximum of 2–3 research projects are conducted annually. No expanded refuge 

involvement is required. 

Research projects are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and must offer some benefit to the refuge 

by furthering the staff's understanding of an issue that needs an answer or solution. It could be 

conducted on any portion of the refuge or on any subject on the refuge using sound protocol and 

reasoning. No impacts to other users or refuge operations would be anticipated. 

Research could be conducted year-round and by night or day. The duration could be short-term or 

multiyear. 

224 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

Research or special studies would normally be conducted by colleges or university professors and 

students. 

The research will be conducted to enhance the refuge staff's knowledge of how better to manage the 

habitats and species on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Generally, no added resources are needed to conduct these activities 

except during the startup phase. Since the refuge and staff are direct benefactors, it is possible that 

some support would be ongoing during the period of active research such as nominal assistance from 

staff or discussions about progress. No special equipment, facilities, or improvements are necessary 

to support the use. 

Maintenance Costs: None. 

Monitoring Costs: None. 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: There are no anticipated impacts for this activity. It is essentially the same as 

refuge employees carrying out their duties.
 

Long-term Impacts: None. 

Cumulative Impacts: None. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: This use would continue unless researchers 

interfere with the refuge mission. Research projects will be limited to resource management issues 

that make contributions to the refuge’s goals and purposes. 

Justification: Research enhances the refuge's ability to improve all phases of habitat and species 

management. 

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- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 

Appendices 225 
 

 

APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered 

for compatibility outside of the comprehensive conservation plan, the approval signature becomes 

part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ___________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ___________________________________________________

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ___________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ___________________________________________________ 

(Signature/Date) 

226 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

Appendix VII. Intra-Service Section 7 

Biological Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person: Troy Littrell 

Telephone Number: 334-687-5906 

E-Mail: troy_littrell@fws.gov 

Date: April 27, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

X Refuges/Wildlife 

II. State/Agencies: Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

Georgia Wildlife Resources Division 

III. Station Name: Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: 

The proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan would provide overall direction for 

management of wildlife populations, habitat, and public use at Eufaula Refuge over the next 

15 years. The preferred alternative would provide for balanced wildlife/habitat management 

and public use activities. It would support the purposes for which the refuge was established, 

including conservation of endangered or threatened species. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: Please see Figure 4 in the CCP. 

Appendices 227 
 

 

 

 

 

 

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) E 

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 

VI. Location (attach map): See Figures 1 and 2 in the CCP. 

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: #30, Northeast Gulf Watersheds 

B. Counties and States: Barbour and Russell counties, Alabama
 

Stewart and Quitman counties, Georgia 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 31.9° N, 85.1° W 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 7 miles south to Eufaula, AL 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Wood stork – This species is commonly seen on the refuge between May and October, 

especially when lake levels and impoundment water levels are low enough to provide isolated 

pools for foraging. The number of storks using the refuge fluctuates greatly from year to year, 

with as many as 70 birds having been observed. Although the refuge has several active 

wading bird rookeries, no wood stork nesting has occurred in the refuge vicinity. The Molnar 

Unit was established as a management area for wood storks. Nesting platforms and decoys 

were installed but have not been successful to date. Periodically, excess fingerlings, 

minnows, and tadpoles from the Warm Springs Fish Hatchery are released in the Molnar 

Impoundment as a supplemental food resource for storks and other wading birds. Habitat 

management for wood storks is an objective in other impoundments as well. 

228 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

VII. Determination of Effects: 

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

 Actions proposed under CCP would continue to provide for 

 seasonal and temporary use (foraging and resting). Refuge would 

 continue to monitor abundance and distribution of wood storks. 

 The Molnar Unit in particular would continue to be managed for 

wood storks 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

Wood stork 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects: 

SPECIES/ ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

 Impacts of proposed actions would be largely beneficial;

 unnecessary or excessive disturbance of wood storks would be 

 discouraged. 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

Wood stork 

Appendices 229 
 

____________________________ ________________________ 

 

____________________________ 

_____________________________ __________________________ 

_____________________________ __________________________ 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

DETERMINATION1 

REQUESTED 

NE NA AA 

Wood stork X Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 

Signature (originating station) Date 

Title 

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______ 

B. Formal consultation required _______ 

C. Conference required _______ 

D. Informal conference required ________ 

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed): 

Signature Date 

 Title Office 

230 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix VIII. 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: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

2. has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 

3. has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

4. does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands with Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No lands in the refuge were found 

to meet these criteria, in particular criterion #3 (5,000 contiguous roadless acres). Therefore, the 

suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this plan. 

Appendices 231 
232 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix IX. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS 

LOONS Sp S F W 

Common Loon (Gavia immer) o o u u 

Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) x - - -

GREBES Sp S F W 

Pied-billed Grebe* (Podilymbus podiceps) c u c c 

Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) r - r o 

Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) x - - -

SHEARWATERS, PETRELS Sp S F W 

Leach's Storm-petrel (Oceanodrama leucorhoa) ­ - x -

PELICANS AND ALLIES Sp S F W 

Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) c u u c 

Anhinga* (Anhinga anhinga) u u r r 

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) r - r -

White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) r r x x 

HERONS, EGRETS AND ALLIES Sp S F W 

American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) u r o u 

Least Bittern* (Ixobrychus exilis) c c - -

Great Blue Heron* (Ardea herodias) c c c a 

Great Egret* (Ardea alba) c c a a 

Snowy Egret* (Egretta thula) u u o o 

Little Blue Heron* (Egretta caerulea) c c u u 

Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) u u o r 

Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) r - r r 

Cattle Egret* (Bubulcus ibis) c a a u 

Green-backed Heron* (Butorides striatus) c c u r 

Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa nycticorax) c u c c 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (Nyctanassa violacea) u o r -

IBISES, SPOONBILL, STORK Sp S F W 

Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) r r - r 

White Ibis* (Eudocimus albus) u u u u 

Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia) - - x x 

Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) - r r -

Appendices 233 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WATERFOWL Sp S F W 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck (Dendrocygna bicolor) x - - x 

Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus) x - r o 

Greater White-Fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) o - o u 

Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) u - u c 

Canada Goose* (Branta canadensis) c c a a 

Wood Duck* (Aix sponsa) c a a a 

Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) c - a a 

American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) u - u u 

Mallard (Anas platyrhynvchos) a c a a 

Northern Pintail (Anas acuta) u - a a 

Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) c o a u 

Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata) c - c a 

Gadwall (Anas strepera) u - a a 

American Wigeon (Anas americana) c o a a 

Canvasback (Aytha valisineria) o - o u 

Redhead (Aythya americana) o - u u 

Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) c - a a 

Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) - - - r 

Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) u - c c 

Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) x - - x 

Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) o - r u 

Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) u - u c 

Hooded Merganser* (Lophodytes cucullatus) u r u c 

Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) r - o o 

Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) o - u u 

Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) u - u c 

VULTURES, HAWKS AND ALLIES Sp S F W 

Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) u u u u 

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) c u c c 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) u u u o 

Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis) - r - -

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) o o o u 

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) u - c c 

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) u o u u 

Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) u o u u 

Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) u u u u 

Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) o o o r 

Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) - - x x 

Red-tailed Hawk* (Buteo jamaicensis) c u c c 

Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) - - x x 

Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) - r r o 

American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) o o c c 

Merlin (Falco columbarius) r - o o 

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) r - r r 

234 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS Sp S F W 

Wild Turkey* (Meleagris gallopavo) o o o o 

Northern Bobwhite* (Colinus virginianus) a a a a 

RAILS, GALLINULES, COOTS AND CRANES Sp S F W 

Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) x r - x 

Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis) x ---

King Rail* (Rallus elegans) u u u o 

Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) o - x r 

Sora (Porzana carolina) o x o o 

Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica) u u o r 

Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) c c u u 

American Coot (Fulica americana) c u a a 

Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) r - x r 

SHOREBIRDS Sp S F W 

Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) u r u o 

American Golden Plover (Pluvialis dominica) u - u -

Wilson's Plover (Charadrius wilsonia) -- x -

Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) u o o x 

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) r r --

Killdeer* (Charadrius vociferous) c c a a 

Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) - x --

American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) - r r r 

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) c u u u 

Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) c u c u 

Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) u o o r 

Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) o r o r 

Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) c u u o 

Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) u r r -

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) - x --

Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) - x --

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) x x x -

Red Knot (Calidris canutus) -- x -

Sanderling (Calidris alba) o o o -

Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) u u u r 

Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) u r o u 

Least Sandpiper (Calidris minutilla) c u c c 

White-rumped Sandpiper (Calidris fuscicollis) u x r -

Baird's Sandpiper (Calidris bairdii) r r o -

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotus) c u c u 

Dunlin (Calidris alpina) u - c c 

Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) o o o -

Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subrufcollis) x r r -

Ruff (Philomachus pugnax) x x --

Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) o o u u 

Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) u x u -

Appendices 235 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) a u c c 

American Woodcock* (Scolopax minor) o r u u 

Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) o r o -

Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) - x - -

Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria) - - x -

Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) o o r o 

Bonaparte's Gull (Larus philadelphia) u - u u 

Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) c o c a 

Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) u o u u 

Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) - - - x 

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) u o r r 

Royal Tern (Sterna maxima) - x - -

Sandwich Tern (Sterna sandvicensis) - x - -

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) x x - r 

Forster's Tern (Sterna forsteri) u u c u 

Least Tern (Sternula antillarum) - r o u 

Black Tern (Chlidonias niger) o u - -

Black Skimmer (Rhynchops niger) - x - -

PIGEONS, DOVES Sp S F W 

Rock Dove* (Columba livia) c c c c 

Mourning Dove* (Zenaida macroura) c a a a 

Common Ground-Dove* (Columbina passerina) u c u u 

CUCKOOS Sp S F W 

Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus) - - - o 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus) c c o -

Groove-billed Ani (Crotophaga sulcirostris) - - x -

OWLS Sp S F W 

Barn Owl* (Tyto alba) u u u u 

Eastern Screech-Owl* (Megascops asio) c c c c 

Great Horned Owl* (Bubo virginianus) u u u u 

Barred Owl* (Strix varia) u u u u 

Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) - - - x 

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) o - - o 

Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) - - - x 

GOATSUCKERS Sp S F W 

Common Nighthawk* (Chordeiles minor) u o o -

Chuck-will's-widow* (Caprimulgus carolinensis) u u - -

Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus) r - - -

SWIFTS, HUMMINGBIRDS Sp S F W 

Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica) c c c -

Ruby-throated Hummingbird* (Archilochus colubris) u u r -

236 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KINGFISHERS Sp S F W 

Belted Kingfisher* (Megaceryle alcyon) c c c c 

WOODPECKERS Sp S F W 

Red-headed Woodpecker* (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) o o o o 

Red-bellied Woodpecker* (Melanerpes carolinus) c c c c 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) u - u c 

Downy Woodpecker* (Picoides pubescens) c c c c 

Hairy Woodpecker* (Picoides villosus) u o u u 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - - - x 

Northern Flicker* (Colaptes auratus) u u c c 

Pileated Woodpecker* (Dryocopus pileatus) u u u u 

FLYCATCHERS Sp S F W 

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus borealis) - - x -

Eastern Wood-Pewee* (Contopus virens) o r r -

Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) u c u -

Alder Flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum) x - - -

Least Flycatcher (Empidonax minimus) o x - -

Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) u - c c 

Great Crested Flycatcher* (Myiarchus crinitus) c c r -

Eastern Kingbird* (Tyrannus tyrannus) c c - -

Gray Kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis) - - x ­

LARKS Sp S F W 

Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris) - - - x 

MARTINS AND SWALLOWS Sp S F W 

Purple Martin* (Progne subis) c c o u 

Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) c u a o 

Northern Rough-winged 

Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) c a a x 

Bank Swallow (Hirundo rustica) u a u -

Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) r - o -

Barn Swallow* (Hirundo rustica) c c a -

JAYS AND CROWS Sp S F W 

Blue Jay* (Cyanocitta cristata) c c c c 

American Crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) c c c a 

Fish Crow*( Corvus ossifragus) c c c c 

CHICKADEES AND TITMICE Sp S F W 

Carolina Chickadee* (Parus carolinensis) c c c c 

Tufted Titmouse* (Parus bicolor) c c c c 

Appendices 237 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUTHATCHES Sp S F W 

Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) r - - o 

White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis) - - - r 

Brown-headed Nuthatch* (Sitta pusilla) c c c c 

CREEPERS Sp S F W 

Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) o - o u 

WRENS Sp S F W 

Carolina Wren* (Thryothorus ludovicianus) c c c c 

Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) - - - r 

House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) o x o u 

Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) r - o o 

Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis) u - u c 

Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris) u - u c 

KINGLETS AND GNATCATCHERS Sp S F W 

Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) - - u u 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) u - u c 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher* (Polioptila caerulea) c c u o 

BLUEBIRDS, THRUSHES AND ROBIN Sp S F W 

Eastern Bluebird* (Sialia sialis) c u c c 

Veery (Catharus fuscescens) o - - -

Gray-cheecked Thrush (Catharus minimus) o - r -

Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) o - r -

Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) - u c -

Wood Thrush* (Hylocichla mustelina) u c o -

American Robin* (Turdus migratorius) c u c a 

THRASHERS Sp S F W 

Gray Catbird* (Dumetella carolinensis) u u u o 

Northern Mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos) c c c c 

Brown Thrasher* (Toxostoma rufum) c c c c 

PIPITS Sp S F W 

American Pipit (Anthus rubescens) c - u c 

WAXWINGS Sp S F W 

Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum) u - o c 

238 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STARLINGS Sp S F W 

European Starling* (Sturnus vulgaris) c c c a 

SHRIKES Sp S F W 

Loggerhead Shrike* (Lanius ludovicianus) c c c c 

VIREOS Sp S F W 

White-eyed Vireo* (Vireo griseus) u c u o 

Solitary Vireo (Vireo solitarius) o - o o 

Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) o r r x 

Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) o - x -

Philadelphia Vireo (Vireo philadelphicus) - r r -

Red-eyed Vireo* (Vireo olivaceus) u c u -

WARBLERS Sp S F W 

Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) x - x -

Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) - x - -

Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrina) r - o -

Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) o - o u 

Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla) - - r -

Northern Parula* (Parula americana) c c o -

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) o o x -

Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) x - - -

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) r - - -

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) r - u -

Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) u - u -

Yellow-rumped Warbler (Dendroica coronata) c - c a 

Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) o - r -

Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) o - o -

Yellow-throated Warbler* (Dendroica dominica) u u o -

Pine Warbler* (Dendroica pinus) c c c c 

Prairie Warbler* (Dendroica discolor) u u o -

Bay-breasted Warbler (Dendroica castanea) - - u -

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) c - c c 

Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) o - - -

Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) x - x -

Black-and-white Warbler (Mniotilta varia) u x u o 

American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) u - o -

Prothonotary Warbler* (Protonotaria citrea) u c - -

Worm-eating Warbler (Helmitheros vermivorus) o r - -

Swainson's Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) r - - -

Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) o - u -

Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) u - u r 

Louisiana Waterthrush* (Seiurus motacilla) u u - -

Kentucky Warbler* (Oporornis formosus) c c c c 

Common Yellowthroat* (Geothlypos trichas) c c c c 

Hooded Warbler* (Wilsonia citrine) u c u -

Appendices 239 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) x - x -

Yellow-breasted Chat* (Icteria virens) u u u -

TANAGERS Sp S F W 

Summer Tanager* (Piranga rubra) u u x -

Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) o - - -

NEW WORLD FINCHES Sp S F W 

Northern Cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis) c c c c 

Rose-breasted Grosbeak (Pheucticus ludovicianus) o - - -

Blue Grosbeak* (Passerina caerulea) u c u -

Indigo Bunting* (Passerina cyanea) u c u -

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) r - x -

SPARROWS Sp S F W 

Rufous-sided Towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) c c c c 

Bachman's Sparrow* (Aimophila aestivalis) - o r -

Chipping Sparrow* (Spizella passerine) c u c a 

Clay-colored Sparrow (Spizella pallida) x - - -

Field Sparrow* (Spizella pusilla) c c c c 

Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) u - u c 

Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) - x - -

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) c - c a 

Grasshopper Sparrow* (Ammodramus savannarum) o o o u 

Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) - - - x 

Le Conte's Sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) o - r o 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammodramus caudacutus) - - - x 

Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) o - o u 

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) c - c a 

Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) - - x x 

Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) c - u a 

White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) c - u a 

White-crowned Sparrow (Zonatrichia leucophrys) o - o o 

Dark-eyed Junco (Junco hyemalis) o - u c 

BLACKBIRDS, GRACKLES, COWBIRDS 

AND ORIOLES Sp S F W 

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) - c - -

Red-winged Blackbird* (Agelais phoeniceus) a a a a 

Eastern Meadowlark* (Sturnella magna) c c c c 

Yellow-headed Blackbird 

(Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) - - x -

Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) u - o u 

Brewer's Blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) - - - o 

Common Grackle* (Quiscalus quiscula) c c a a 

240 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Brown-headed Cowbird* (Molothrus ater) c c a a 

Orchard Oriole* (Icterus spurious) u c - -

Northern Oriole (lcterus galbula) r - - r 

OLD WORLD FINCHES Sp S F W 

Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) - - o u 

Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) - - - u 

American Goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis) u o u c 

Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) - - - r 

WEAVER FINCHES Sp S F W 

House Sparrow* (Passer domesticus) c c c c 

Seasonal appearance 

Sp - Spring - March to May 

S - Summer - June to August 

F - Fall - September to November 

W - Winter - December to February 

Seasonal abundance 

a - abundant: a common species which is very numerous 

c - common: certain to be seen in suitable habitat 

u - uncommon: present but not certain to be seen 

o - occasional: seen only a few times during a season 

r - rare: seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years 

x - accidental: out of normal species range 

* - known or suspected to have nested on refuge 

Appendices 241 
 

 

MAMMALS 

The following list of mammals includes those known to occur and also mammals whose natural 

distribution overlaps the Refuge according to recognized mammalogy texts and historic refuge data. 

This includes rare mammals and those whose exact distribution status is unknown but may occur on 

the refuge. 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus 

Virginia opossum Didelphis virginianus 

Least shrew Cryptotis parva 

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda 

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Southeastern pocket gopher Geomys pinetis 

Silverhaired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Eastern pipistrel Pipistrellus subflavus 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

Red bat Lasiurus borealis 

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius 

Northern Long-eared myotis Myotis septentrionalis 

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus 

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata 

Mink Mustela vison 

River otter Lutra canadensis 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

Red fox Vulpes fulva 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 

Eastern gray squirrel Scuirus carolinensis 

242 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Common Name Scientific Name 

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans 

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus 

Beaver Castor canadensis 

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis 

Oldfield mouse Peromyscus polionotus 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus 

Golden mouse Ochrotomys nuttalli 

Rice rat Oryzomys palustris 

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana 

Pine vole Microtus pinetorum 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus 

House mouse Mus musculus 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Swamp rabbit Sylvilagus aquaticus 

Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris 

White-tailed deer Odocoileus viginianus 

Nutria Myocastor coypus 

Feral hog Sus scrofa 

Appendices 243 
244 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix X. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Project # 00001, $128,000 

Provide a biological technician to conduct important wildlife surveys and habitat management activities 

(such as invasive exotic plant control measures), and manage growing public hunting programs. This 

position will help improve habitats to benefit a host of wildlife species and the many visitors who enjoy 

them. The position would also assist with conducting conservation easement compliance checks and 

wildlife management practices. Eufaula NWR is responsible for overseeing 21 easements and 3 fee title 

tracts in SE Alabama and SW Georgia ranging in distance from the Eufaula NWR office 120 miles west, 

150 east, 60 miles north and 70 miles south. Annual compliance checks by ground are difficult to 

complete. Aerial flights will be scheduled semiannually. Potential violations will then be ground-truthed. 

Boundary lines will be inspected annually and corrected. Other potential biological activities such as 

reforestation, prescribed burning, and needed surveys cannot be pursued due to inadequate funding. 

Some of these activities would be contracted and supervised by station biologist. Project would benefit 

pitcher plant bogs, endangered gopher tortoises and longleaf pine habitat. Reforestation efforts would 

consist of longleaf pine habitat restoration. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Project # 99003, $50,000 

Reforest 100 acres of agricultural fields to a diverse native forest of hardwood species on Eufaula 

Refuge, and reforest 2,000 acres of off-refuge agricultural fields on willing private landowner’s 

property through an established partnership with the Georgia Natural Resource Conservation 

Service. Hardwood habitats are one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's priority habitats for this area of 

the country. This project would be accomplished with a contract planter preparing sites, securing 

quality seedlings, and planting specified species. 

Project # 99001, Station Rank # 1 – $200,000 

Proposal is to restore managed wetlands to native species by reducing dense stands of invasive and 

undesirable plant species. Invasion of pest plants is the greatest threat to wetland habitat on Eufaula 

NWR. The invasive plants out-compete native species unless controlled; these include Hydrilla, American 

lotus, alligator-weed, cattail, primrose, black willow, sesbania, maiden cane, giant cut grass, water 

hyacinth and potentially Salvinia. Failure to control these species will result in the refuge's inability to 

provide the natural foods for waterfowl species, which is the main purpose for refuge establishment. The 

refuge will work in cooperation with Corps of Engineer personnel to establish a maintenance program 

including spraying, burning, disking, flooding and mowing that would allow the wetland plant communities 

to function as natural communities and not as monoculture stands of invasive plants. We plan to develop 

a model program that other resource managers would benefit from. 

Appendices 245 
Project # 97003, Station Rank # 5 – $30,000 

Project would provide the operational expenses to conduct annual water management program. This 

station depends on the ability to flood impoundments in the fall and then dewater them in spring to 

manage 1,100 acres (14 subunits) of wetland habitat. Pumping is essential to support refuge 

waterfowl hunts, which provides opportunity for over 500 hunters annually to enjoy a quality outdoor 

experience. Pumping during the growing season provides for an alternate means of controlling 

invasive plants by drowning plants, but declining operating margins have prevented this management 

activity in recent years. Without this management tool, the refuge would be unable to meet critical 

program obligations for waterfowl, shorebirds, other migratory birds and the endangered wood stork 

and would have to reduce or eliminate public hunting. This $25,000 project is an annual need for 

Eufaula NWR to effectively manage moist soil habitat. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Project # 00003, Station Rank #4 – $154,000 

Initiate and maintain an aggressive outreach program at Eufaula Refuge by providing a supervisor 

outreach specialist (Supervisory Park Ranger) to lead education and recreational programs for tens of 

thousands of visitors and school children. As part of that mission, this position will manage the 

10,000-square foot visitor and education center in the preliminary design phase at Eufaula Refuge. 

The Eufaula Visitor Learning Center is currently one of 20 centers nationwide planned under the 

Centennial Legacy Plan. Eufaula Refuge is uniquely located in an area of the southeastern U.S. 

where wildlife related recreation is the major source of income in the local economy. Lake Eufaula 

and the vicinity attracts more than three million visitors annually, including hunters, fishers, and 

wildlife viewers, and it has been designated three years running by Sports Afield magazine as the 

number one destination in Alabama for families to enjoy outdoor recreation. 

Project # 00004, Station Rank #4 – $118,000 

This project would establish a Park Ranger position to staff the visitor center and provide support for 

the recreation fee program by collecting funds, processing hunt applications, conducting quota hunt 

drawings, and staffing hunter check stations. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Project # 00005, Station Rank #5 – $129,000 

Provide a maintenance worker to properly care for newly developed grounds and facilities as part of a 

10,000-square foot visitor and education center in the preliminary design phase at Eufaula Refuge. 

This position would also assist with maintenance of facilities, grounds, trails, signs, and other visitor 

related facilities throughout the refuge. The position will also assist with the Refuge force account 

farming operations. 

246 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

 

Project # 99002, Station Rank # 1 – $140,000 

Add a full-time refuge Law Enforcement Officer to provide resource protection and public safety for refuge 

visitors. Eufaula NWR is located on Lake Eufaula; where station visitation exceeds 300,000 annually. 

Law enforcement is needed to support visitor activities such as hunting, fishing, boating, and skiing, 

provide archaeological protection, search and rescue, and prevent controlled substances use and 

marijuana cultivation on the refuge. Cooperation is required with multiple law enforcement offices 

including state agencies from Georgia and Alabama, two counties in both states, two municipal police 

forces and the Corps of Engineers. The refuge conducts extensive hunting and fishing programs and 

attracts visitors to two wildlife observation points and a wildlife drive. Twenty-four conservation 

easements in southeast Alabama and southwest Georgia will also receive added protection. 

MMS 00001, 0200001A, and 020001B - Visitor/Office Construction 

This project is not included among the other existing RONS list of projects (although it was on the MMS – 

now SAMMS – list) but is a high priority of the refuge and Region 4. By 2022, or within 15 years of CCP 

approval, Eufaula Refuge aims to construct and begin to operate a visitor center. This would include 

adequate staff to operate and maintain the facility. A visitor center for Eufaula NWR is on the top 20 

national list of planned refuge visitor centers. However, it is unknown when funding will become available 

for construction. One potential location for the proposed visitor center is at the Kennedy Impoundment, 

although this location is several miles from the new refuge headquarters. (MMS 00001, 0200001A, and 

020001B - Visitor Center/Office - Centennial Legacy Project - Phases I, II, and III). 

Project # 00006, Station Rank # 3 – $100,000 

This project would provide the annual costs of operating this new visitor center facility. Costs would 

include janitorial services, building and grounds upkeep, pest control, utility costs, educational 

materials, computers, and other supplies for the visitors. This would be an annual need to operate 

the public use facility. 

Project # 98012, Station Rank # 9 – $30,000 

Project would fund an archaeological survey of Eufaula NWR which would facilitate the clearance 

process for future construction projects identified by CCP process and help joint law enforcement 

efforts with the Corps of Engineers and State agencies in Alabama and Georgia to protect identified 

sites. Eufaula NWR is rich with archaeological history. The refuge and the adjacent Corps properties 

have two areas that are currently identified and protected, with many more inadequately documented 

or suspected. A refuge-wide reconnaissance would provide compliance with the several laws/Acts as 

we conduct management, construction and law enforcement activities. The reconnaissance would be 

completed by a contractor in coordination with the Region 4 archaeologist. 

Appendices 247 
MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 

Deferred Maintenance Projects for Eufaula NWR 

Station Rank Project Title Asset Number 

1 Houston ditches 10017867 

2 Houston Levee (road) 10017863 

3 Chemical Storage building 10017850 

4 Vehicle storage building 10017852 

5 Shop security fence 10017898 

6 Boundary posting 10017876 

7 Bradley ditches 10017936 

8 Bradley cross levee (road) 10040754 

9 Entrance Kiosk 10017891 

10 Gammage boat ramp 10017929 

Project Descriptions 

1. Rehabilitate silted and overgrown ditches in the Houston Unit. This network of ditches enables the refuge to 

gravity feed water into several mission critical waterfowl sanctuary cells. These inundated cells provide 

optimum wintering habitat for approximately 20,000 ducks and geese and other wildlife. Ditches are full of silt 

and trapped water cannot be seasonally drained; therefore, rapid plant growth has occurred along ditch banks 

which further exacerbates stream flow impediment. Silt will be mechanically removed with an excavator 

equipped with a bucket. Once the area dries, trees and other vegetation will be mechanically removed with an 

excavator equipped with either a mulching head or a rigid thumb which removes trees by the root. Reclaiming 

ditches is beneficial on many fronts. Economically, operating cost is reduced significantly when ditches are 

maintained and free of obstruction. From a wildlife standpoint, a wider range of habitat management strategies 

is afforded with improved ditches. Better habitat equals more waterfowl which increases public visitation for 

those wanting to view or photograph wildlife. 

2. Repair leak(s) under the road designated Federal Highway Route Identifier (FWHI) # 012. This elevated 

road provides public access to the lower portion of the Houston Bottoms Unit and it also serves as a perimeter 

levee/dike for an interior waterfowl sanctuary. In addition, hunters, fishermen, and wildlife observers utilize this 

road to access other popular refuge locations. The adjacent sanctuary provides critical wintering habitat for 

waterfowl and other wildlife. This elevated road provides public access to the lower portion of the Houston 

Bottoms Unit and it also serves as a perimeter levee/dike for an interior waterfowl sanctuary. In addition, 

hunters, fishermen, and wildlife observers utilize this road to access other popular refuge locations. The 

adjacent sanctuary provides critical wintering habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife. Existing road material will 

be removed, down to the toe of slope, and clay will be packed in these locations to sever leaks. Key-ways will 

be installed to ensure clay material adheres properly to existing substrate. The road surface will be weatherproofed with 300-400 tons of gravel. Repairing this road will provide a safe and reliable means of travel for the 

55,000 annual visitors whom utilize this road while engaged in various refuge supported activities. 

248 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
 

3. Replace unapproved chemical storage building. This building is used to store herbicides applied on refuge 

agricultural crops and noxious and invasive aquatic plants growing in waterfowl impoundments and in the 

Chattahoochee River within refuge boundaries. Per a Refuge Environmental Audit on 11/16/06, the refuge 

chemical storage building was reported out-of-compliance. The existing storage building is a metal grain bin 

which failed all criteria for a chemical storage facility. The existing building lacks secondary containment, 

adequate ventilation, and sub-standard flooring. The building will be replaced with a 12' x 18' concrete 

hazardous storage building with the necessary options such as lighting and ventilation fans designed for a 

hazardous (flammable) location. Replacing the building will provide a safe and environmental friendly facility for 

storing various herbicides. Also, it will bring the station into compliance with Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) environmental policies and regulations. 

4. Replace warn vehicle storage building. The building is utilized to securely store passenger vehicles, Law 

Enforcement boats, three all-terrain vehicles, and various wildland firefighting equipment. This structure 

alleviates outdoor storage of equipment and compromised security. The 2,100 sq. ft. block structure was built 

in 1968 and is plagued with problems. An asbestos survey was conducted on the facility in 2006 and asbestos 

containing materials were found in the building. Additional maintenance concerns include inadequate heating 

and air conditioning, faulty plumbing, insufficient lighting, single-pane windows, a brittle and leaking asphalt 

shingle roof, no insulation, and five poorly operating roll-up doors are the most significant problems. Demolish 

existing building and replace with a metal building of comparable size. The building site will remain the same. 

Replacing this building will result in the cessation of recurring problems. It will allow equipment to be stored in a 

secure, climate controlled non hazardous facility. 

5. Replace warn shop fence. This chain-link fence system (2,482 linear feet) completely surrounds the entire 

maintenance compound. It provides security for several million dollars worth of buildings, heavy equipment, 

agricultural tractors and associated implements, and wildland firefighting equipment. Also, it provides security 

for resident volunteers and researchers living on the Refuge. The fence, which was constructed in 1977, is 

beyond its useful life and shows signs of deterioration. Vertical and horizontal support poles are rusting as is 

the mesh wire. Fence is sagging due to lack of rigidity in support poles. The entire fence system will be 

replaced. The replacement fence will be chain-link type and 6' in height. Horizontal and vertical support posts 

will be spaced according to manufacturer standards. Replacing this fence will provide increased security for the 

equipment responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing 11,184 Refuge acres. 

6. Replace various warn refuge boundary signs and associated U-channel sign post. Proper signage is 

paramount and ensures Refuge visitors do not inadvertently encroach on adjacent private landowners and vice 

versa. Also, it ensures compliance is maintained in areas with special conditions (i.e. areas seasonally closed 

and areas open to foot travel only). Many signs have exceeded their useful life and faded to the point text is 

hardly visible. Also, many of the metal sign posts are old and structurally unsatisfactory. Replace all warn 

signs and/or posts along 52 miles of boundary line and effected interior lines. Replace all warn signs and/or 

posts along 52 miles of boundary line and effected interior lines. 

7. Rehabilitate silted and overgrown ditches in the Bradley Unit. This network of ditches enables the refuge to 

gravity feed water into several mission critical waterfowl sanctuary cells. These inundated cells provide optimum 

wintering habitat for approximately 20,000 ducks and geese and other wildlife. Ditches are full of silt and trapped 

water cannot be seasonally drained; therefore, rapid plant growth has occurred along ditch banks which further 

exacerbate stream flow impairment. Silt will be mechanically removed with an excavator equipped with a bucket. 

Once the area dries, trees and other vegetation will be mechanically removed with an excavator equipped with 

either a mulching head or a rigid thumb which removes trees by the roots. Reclaiming ditches is beneficial on 

many fronts. Economically, operating cost is reduced significantly when ditches are maintained and free of 

obstruction. From a wildlife standpoint, a wider range of habitat management strategies is afforded with improved 

ditches. Better habitat equals more waterfowl which enhances the publics visiting experience. 

8. Rehabilitate narrow Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Route #111. This elevated road provides 

access to the middle section of the Bradley Unit and serves as a levee/dike for waterfowl sanctuary cells 

located on both sides of the road. This road is utilized by refuge staff, researchers, duck hunters participating in 

Appendices 249 
 

 

 

 

 

 

refuge sponsored quota duck hunts, deer hunters, and a large contingency of birdwatchers from Georgia and 

Alabama. The road is very narrow and has steep sloped sides, which creates unsafe situations for visitors 

accessing the Refuge in personal automobiles. Also, four worn water control structures (gated culverts) running 

under this road need to be replaced. The road width will be increased with the aid of a self-loading dirt pan; 

shoulders will be sloped 3:1, and four each 36" aluminum water control structures (flashboard risers) with 

associated pipes will replace existing water control structures. Site elevations will be shot to ensure pipes are 

placed at correct depth. Increasing the width of the road will allow vehicles to safely pass side by side without 

dangerously hanging off the side of the road. The existing water control structures are constructed of 

corrugated metal and very susceptible to rusting; therefore, aluminum material will be used due to its resistance 

to rust. This will be a major cost savings long term due to the durability of aluminum water control structures. 

9. Repair and rehabilitate warn and outdated entrance kiosk. This kiosk provides information and orientation to 

the visiting public through a variety of refuge brochures, a site map, and four large information panels. This 

kiosk is the first line of contact the public encounters when entering the Refuge via the Wildlife Drive. The kiosk 

has four adjoining rock walls that exhibit structural problems in the way of hairline cracks. The information 

panels were developed in 1983 and are so outdated; most information is grossly inaccurate and misleading. 

Also, the information panels have faded through attrition. Rehabilitate kiosk with an open wood frame structure 

and update all panels with the latest graphics, maps, and literature. Raise the height of the kiosk to facilitate 

raising the panels farther from the ground. The Refuge lacks a Visitors Center; therefore, weekend or late 

afternoon visitors must rely on information obtained at the kiosk for orientation and general information. 

Updated materials will provide the public with useful and meaningful information. 

10. Rehabilitate warn Gammage boat ramp. This concrete boat ramp is located on the western periphery of the 

Refuge and is a popular access for visitors utilizing the Cowikee Creek area. This is the only public ramp, within 10 

miles, along Cowikee Creek. The ramp is narrow and portions of the ramp appear to be cracked. Adjacent parking 

area needs to be better defined which will include removing a few trees and bush hogging entire area. The boat 

ramp is also in need of the appropriate Refuge signs such as entrance, informational, and boundary signs. The ramp 

will be extended to a width of 16' along the entire 50' length. Adjacent parking area will be rehabilitated and all 

pertinent Refuge signage will be erected. Rehabilitating this ramp will allow hunters, fishermen, birdwatchers, and 

others to launch boats from a wider, safer, and more accommodating Refuge access. 

250 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendix XI. List of Preparers 

Don Burdette, State Parks Forester, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources – 

participant, goals-alternatives-objectives workshop 

Roger Clay, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries – participant, goals-alternativesobjectives workshop 

Mike Dawson, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS, Jackson, Mississippi – planning team leader 

and CCP editor 

Bill Gray, Supervising Wildlife Biologist, District 6, Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater 

Fisheries – participant, goals-alternatives-objectives workshop 

Gary Hepp, Professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife Science, Auburn University – participant, 

goals-alternatives-objectives workshop 

Milton Hubbard, Biologist, Eufaula NWR, USFWS – participant, goals-alternatives 

objectives workshop 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Wildlife Biologist/Environmental Planner/Consultant, Mangi Environmental 

Group – planning team facilitator and CCP writer/editor 

Troy Littrell, Refuge Manager, Eufaula NWR, USFWS – CCP editor, overall guidance and oversight 

Eveline Martin, Botanist/Environmental Planner/Consultant, Mangi Environmental 

Group – CCP writer 

Danny Moss, Assistant Refuge Manager, Eufaula NWR, USFWS – participant, goals-alternativesobjectives workshop 

Adam Pritchett, Wildlife Biologist, Barbour Wildlife Management Area, Alabama Division of Wildlife 

and Freshwater Fisheries – participant, goals-alternatives-objectives workshop 

Julie Robbins, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources – participant, goals-alternatives-objectives workshop 

Jim Royal, Superintendent, Lakepoint State Park – participant, goals-alternatives 

objectives workshop 

Jody Timmons, Park Ranger, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – participant, goals-alternativesobjectives workshop 

Appendices 251