Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

October 2008
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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 

October 2008 
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

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 ...............................................................................................................................32

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 35

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

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 38

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 40

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
ii Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 103

APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 113

APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 117

APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 131

Public Involvement Process ..................................................................................................... 131

Draft CCP/EA Comments and Service’s Responses ............................................................... 132

APPENDIX V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 137

APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 149

APPENDIX VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................. 175

APPENDIX VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ......................................................................................... 179

APPENDIX IX. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 181

APPENDIX X. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 193

APPENDIX XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 199
Table of Contents iii

APPENDIX XII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................. 201

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 201

Alternative B: Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Management ............................................ 202

Alternative C: Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ................................................ 204

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

Alternative) ...................................................................................................................... 205

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. .................................................................................................................... 37

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

Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 39

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

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

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

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

goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan. .......................................... 101
iv Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (Eufaula NWR) 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 CCP has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

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

and Wildlife Service Manual. The CCP also meets the requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (EA), which was 

Section B of the Draft CCP/EA. The EA described the alternatives that were being considered and 

their potential effects on the environment. 

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

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

team incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, local 

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

described in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

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

three other alternatives. It has been made available to federal and state agencies, conservation 

partners, and the general public for review and comment. All public comments have been considered 

in the development of this CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to develop a management 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 CCP 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. 
2 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The 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 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.” 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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 CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, 

help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and 

recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve 

as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that 

each refuge shall be managed to: 

y fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y fulfill the individual 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 Great 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, 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) – 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. 
4 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs 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 their preparation and revision (every 15 years). 

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

management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCPs 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 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 NWR 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 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 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

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

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

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

uses in planning and management. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY 

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

environmental health of the 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 Refuge 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 CCP. 

This CCP 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, 

non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working toward the 
6 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 non-regulatory, 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 Improvement Act, 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 ADCNR’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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

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. 

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. 
8 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Eufaula 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 threatened and endangered 

species. 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 NWR. 

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

habitat for numerous neotropical migratory 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. Eufaula NWR habitat types and their estimated acreages 

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 
10 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Eufaula NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

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 migratory 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 NWR. 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 NWR. 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 available 

game. 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. 
12 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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 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 threatened and 

endangered 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Eufaula NWR 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 Service 

has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily 

along watershed boundaries (Figure 2). Eufaula NWR 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. 
14 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 the Chattahoochee River valley. Wintering waterfowl populations of ducks peaked at 

over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent years, wintering counts have averaged around 15,000 

(USFWS 2003a). Few migratory 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 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 Service in August 2005 (GADNR n.d.). 

The states’ participation and contribution throughout this planning process has provided for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue, improving the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in both 

states. 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

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 the 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 rapidly disappearing. 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. 
16 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

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. 
18 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2007 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

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 Cowikee, 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 deposits on 

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

Annemaine-Wahee complex. 

HYDROLOGY 

Almost 36 percent (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 Cowikee, 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). 
20 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR 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 NWR: 

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 NWR 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Table 2. Natural community occurrences for Eufaula NWR 

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 
22 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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.] 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Figure 4. Plant communities of Eufaula NWR 
24 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR, 

anthropogenic disturbance has complemented natural disturbance regimes, thus further modifying 

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

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

conditions, four associations are presently recognized from Eufaula NWR: 

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

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 NWR, 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 NWR 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 NWR, 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 percent. 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. The 
26 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 conservation. 

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 NWR, 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

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 NWR. 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. 
28 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

vegetational succession from which the cessation of active land use gradually transforms into climax 

forest. On Eufaula NWR, this vegetation type is represented by the earliest levels of succession: 

herb-dominated 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 NWR 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 are 

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

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

This community, while rare on Eufaula NWR, 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 percent 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. 

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 NWR 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 
30 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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

floodplain marshes on Eufaula NWR 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 

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 NWR 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 pickerel-weed (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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

fasciculatum) generally dominates the outer portion and a prominence of herbs, particularly grasses 

and sedges, characterize the innermost sections. Eufaula NWR 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 NWR, 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 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 NWR is dominated by a combination of smallfruit 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 co-dominance, 

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 
32 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

(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. 

Also recorded are 36 mammal, 25 reptile, 18 amphibian, and 37 fish species. 

Waterfowl 

Eufaula NWR is located on the extreme eastern edge of the Mississippi Flyway. Few Atlantic 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 migratory 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 migratory 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 population averages about 15,000 birds. The refuge serves as 

a survey area for the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count. The refuge staff participates on the 

river portion of the survey. This count also provides an estimate of wintering waterfowl numbers. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

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. 

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 NWR 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. 
34 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

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. 

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 and reclassified it to 

“threatened” due to similarity of appearance. 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 NWR. 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 
36 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 on Eufaula NWR during a recent plant 

communities survey (Schotz 2002). Other exotic species that occur on 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). 

Management of invasive and exotic plants at Eufaula NWR 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-Damine (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 NWR. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 5. Major infestations of exotic and native weedy species on Eufaula NWR 
38 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Archaeological 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. 

Eufaula NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the cultural legacy 

that may potentially occur on the refuge. There are no historic structures located 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 archaeological reconnaissance of Eufaula NWR (Schnell and Knight 1978). 

The study’s literature and background survey demonstrated that there were 57 archaeological 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 archaeological 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 

archaeological 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). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula NWR 

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) 
40 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Eufaula NWR 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 percent of Alabama’s 

population of 4,530,182 (USCB 2006). The county’s population declined by 1 percent from 2000 to 

2004 compared to Alabama’s 1.9 percent growth in the same four years. Barbour County’s estimated 

population in 2004 was 28,557. The county’s population declined 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2004. 

Stewart County’s estimated 2004 population was 4,981, about 0.0006 percent of Georgia’s 

population of 8,829,383. The county population declined by 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004, 

compared to Georgia’s 7.8 percent growth in the same four years. Quitman County’s estimated 

population in 2004 was 2,467. The county’s population declined 5 percent 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% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Industry Russell County, 

Alabama 

Barbour County, 

Alabama 

Stewart County, 

Georgia 

Quitman County, 

Georgia 

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 

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. 
42 Eufaula Na

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

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 of Eufaula NWR 

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 management 

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. 
44 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Eufaula NWR management units and main features 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

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 
46 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Croplands at Eufaula NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Table 7. Acreages of farm fields on Eufaula NWR 

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 
48 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR 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 result in healthier forests, with productive and diverse wildlife habitats. 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

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 NWR 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 
50 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

not regulate 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 Farm Service Agency easements in 

Alabama and Georgia, and one conservation easement 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 

Executive Order 12996 and the Improvement Act 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 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. For example, at 

Eufaula NWR other public uses include 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 non-consumptive 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

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 

inches 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 non-quota 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. 
52 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 plan. Every effort is made to accommodate 

any request for education programs on or off the refuge. The refuge staff provides numerous 

environmental education 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 environmental 

education program. Some volunteers have been identified in the community to work with refuge staff 

to develop the environmental education 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 Barbour County Chamber of Commerce office in Eufaula. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

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 NWR has six permanent full-time employees: refuge manager (GS–13), assistant refuge 

manager (GS-11), wildlife biologist (GS-11), office assistant (GS–7), engineering equipment operator 

(WG-10), and 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) 

was 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.

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 new visitor 

center is on the Service’s top 20 national list for 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 NWR 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, non-governmental conservation organization, 

cooperates with the refuge on resource management issues. Other non-governmental 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 

International Migratory Bird Day activities. Youth Conservation Corps volunteers have assisted in the 
54 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

The refuge also has a Friends group. The Friends of Eufaula Refuge was formed in 2007 and has 

been actively involved in promoting the refuge in the local community. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of this CCP for Eufaula NWR. 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 NWR, the planning team conducted both internal and 

external scoping. 

The first step in developing this 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 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 CCP. 

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 NWR; and a representative of the Piedmont 

and Bond Swamp NWRs. 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). 
56 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 CCP for the refuge was published in the Federal Register

on January 26, 2006 (71 FR 4373). 

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 email. The issues, concerns, and suggestions received at 

the scoping meeting were considered and evaluated in the preparation of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental assessment. 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 (Corps) 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

y An updated Forest Inventory/Management Plan should be prepared soon. This will probably 

require the help of a nearby forester (perhaps Noxubee NWR). 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 Corps 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 NWR 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 migratory birds, 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. 
58 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

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 non-consumptive 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. 
60 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

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. 
62 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

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 Improvement Act 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. 

These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation and are emphasized in this CCP. 

Described below is the CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This 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 Wildlifedependent Public Use; and Alternative D, Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management and Public Use 

Activities. Each of these alternatives was described in Chapter III of the Environmental Assessment 

(Section B) in the Draft CCP/EA. The Service chose Alternative D, Balanced Wildlife/Habitat 

Management and Public Use Activities, as the preferred management direction. 

Implementing the preferred 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 will 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 NWR 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. 
64 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Eufaula 

NWR. 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 NWR furnish shelter and food for migratory waterfowl 

and neotropical migratory birds. Other non-migratory 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 NWR’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 NWR. 

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 migratory geese use Eufaula NWR, 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. 

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

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 ring-necked 

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). 
66 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 migratory geese visit or winter at Eufaula 

NWR, 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 

NWR’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. Sixty-five 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 regional 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

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 NWR, 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 NWR, 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. 
68 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Scrub-shrub 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 NWR and would be expected to increase as the forest management practices outlined above 

are implemented, along with any other scrub-shrub 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. 

y 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 scrub-shrub species at Eufaula NWR 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 scrub-shrub species by 2010. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

y Establish roadside point counts along forest and field edges across the refuge to track 

habitat use by all priority scrub-shrub species. 

y Implement Service 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 NWR 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 are now available at Eufaula NWR. 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 2009, consider research on how to provide the range of habitat conditions for 

grassland species wintering at Eufaula NWR, 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 2009, 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 2009, establish roadside point counts that would include grassy areas as well and 

concurrently conduct quail call-counts. 

y By 2009, consult with Georgia Department of Natural Resources personnel to establish 

nest boxes that should support nesting barn owls on each unit near open land. 
70 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 requires 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 NWR, the king rail is of highest concern, followed by the least bittern and purple gallinule. 

Since 2006, surveys for king rails and least bitterns have been conducted under the Research 

Partnership Program with Auburn University. Auburn researchers 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 NWR, but is also a species that may be in decline locally, if not regionally. All these 

factors considered together suggest that Eufaula NWR 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 rails 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 NWR 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

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 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 NWR, 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. 

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 
72 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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. 

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 federal- 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 federal-listed species other than the American alligator, which is only listed for “similarity of 

appearance” 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

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 NWR’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 are 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 NWR 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 
74 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR 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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

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 NWR, Alabama; transplanting continued 

periodically until 1971, with 257 geese from Brigantine NWR, 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. 
76 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 an acre-foracre crop share ratio percentage 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 NWR’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 NWR’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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

y Continue to manage and expand when possible buffer strips and field borders around all 

agricultural fields. 

y Plan to end cooperative farm agreements 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 NWR 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. The practices of 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. 

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 
78 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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. 

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 Service 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. 

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. 

 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

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. 

 

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. 
80 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

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 NWR 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. It 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 ATV-mounted 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. 

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. 
82 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

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 law enforcement 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. 

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. 
84 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Army Corps of Engineers). 

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). 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography – Maintain all existing facilities and within 

10 years of CCP implementation (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. 

Eufaula NWR 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 NWR 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 Re-gravel 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. 

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). 
86 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 plan. Refuge staff provides 

numerous environmental education 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 environmental 

ecucation 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 

environmental education program (RONS 00003, Initiate Aggressive Outreach Program). Certain 

volunteers have been identified in the community to work with the staff to develop the 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 

environmental education and interpretive programs at Eufaula NWR. 

Strategies: 

y Hire an outreach and interpretive specialist (RONS 0003, Initiate Aggressive Outreach 

Program). 

y Currently focus environmental education on in-class visits. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

y Staff conducting environmental education 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 NWR. 

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 its goals and objectives as outlined in this CCP. 

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 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 

rangers (non-law enforcement), and law enforcement officer; 5 FTE’s added. Total staff = 11. 
88 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

NWR’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 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Strategies: 

y Within 10 years of plan implementation, conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the 

non-flooded 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 implementation, 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 archaeological 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 archaeological 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, non-governmental 

conservation organization with chapters in both states, cooperates with the refuge on resource 

management issues. 

Eufaula NWR also has an active and growing volunteer program. Volunteers contributed 1,477 hours 

in 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. 
90 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR 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. 

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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

y Develop a series of volunteer-led interpretation/environmental education programs (i.e., 

nature walks and bird walks) that do not require specialized expertise. 

Objective: Visitor Center – By 2022, or within 15 years of CCP implementation, 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. 
92 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined in the Improvement Act. 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 CCP for Eufaula NWR, this 

chapter identifies the projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnerships opportunities, 

step-down management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and CCP 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 goals and objectives. 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 biological activities, such as reforestation, prescribed burning, and needed surveys, 

would be completed based on availability of resources. 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. 
94 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

NWR, 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 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 to 

include 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 could benefit from. 

Project # 97003, Station Rank # 5 – $30,000 

Project would provide the operational expenses to conduct the annual water management program. 

Eufaula NWR depends on the ability to flood impoundments in the fall and then drawdown 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 NWR 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 wildlifedependent 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

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 the 

refuge’s 300,000 visitors each year. 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. Twenty-four 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 implementation, Eufaula NWR 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. 
96 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NWR 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 CCP 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 CCP 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. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

To apply adaptive management, specific surveying, inventorying, 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 non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to 

the management projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific 

monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP 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 CCP 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 CCP 

and step-down management plans will be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
98 Eufaula Na

Figure 8. Current organization and staffing chart for Eufaula NWR 

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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 9. Proposed organization and staffing chart for Eufaula NWR 

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
100 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 8. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

NEW STAFF 

(FTEs) 

# 00001 

Provide biological technician 

position to conduct wildlife surveys 

and habitat management activities 

$128,000 $128,000 1.0 

#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 NWR 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 --- --- 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Table 9. Eufaula NWR 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 
102 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 103

Appendix I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The System’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 
104 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service 

Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

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). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by the United States Congress to be managed as 

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition. May be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 105

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 

CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a Federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act.: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “to along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 
106 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative 

Management Concern: See Issue 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, and use 

public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. 

Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, 

and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to facilitate better 

environmental decision making (40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the 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). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission is to administer a national network of lands and waters for 

the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of 

the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the 

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 
Appendices 107

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by Federal or State law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: 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. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural ignition 

or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Service believes 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. 
108 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: 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. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

Congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director 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). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the Federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 
Appendices 109

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EIS the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved Refuge boundary and potential Refuge 

expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: 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). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others 

to conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System Mission and 

specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 
110 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. A study area must meet the 

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 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 
Appendices 111

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 
112 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 113

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 . 
114 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 115

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. 
116 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 117

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 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to 

important sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the 

freedom to worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American Society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the 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 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 
118 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, preservation of natural resources and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on Federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on Federal lands. 

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 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

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. 
Appendices 119

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

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 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the States to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal 

to import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at National Wildlife Refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by Federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of 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. 
120 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this law is to minimize the extent to which Federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of Federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the 

use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other Federal, 

State and local agencies, farmers associations, and private 

individuals in measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the 

spread of such weeds. The Act requires each Federal 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. 
Appendices 121

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 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor nongame bird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under Federal permit or license. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve the administration of fish and 

wildlife programs and amends several earlier laws, including the 

Refuge Recreation Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration 

Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the 

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

property on behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use 

of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

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. 
122 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a Federal 

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 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the Duck Stamp Act”, requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

Federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 
Appendices 123

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 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-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 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, 

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of Federal actions. It stipulates the factors 

to be considered in environmental impact statements, and requires 

that Federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that 

unqualified environmental values are given appropriate 

consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved State(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
124 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, 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 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when 

such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It 

authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational facilities and 

the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife oriented 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging fees for public uses. 
Appendices 125

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 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of Federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers prior 

to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the United 

States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides authority for 

the Service to review and comment on the effects on fish and wildlife 

activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by the Corps of 

Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated sediments 

associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

Defense with State agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the 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 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a Federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a State agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21

st 

Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 
126 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

of 1968, as amended 

This act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or 

other similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; 

and protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every 

roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and to recommend suitability of each such area. 

The Act permits certain activities within designated Wilderness 

Areas that do not alter natural processes. Wilderness values are 

preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which 

requires refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, 

equipment and facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Appendices 127

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with Federal and State 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

Federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, Federal agencies “shall take 

action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the 

impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring Federal agencies to use the State process to 

determine and address concerns of State and local 

elected officials with proposed Federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
128 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with State, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is 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 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The 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 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Federal agencies are directed to prevent the 

introduction of invasive species, detect and respond 

rapidly to and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
Appendices 129

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. 
130 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 131

Appendix IV. Public Involvement 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS 

Public involvement in the development of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge (Eufaula NWR) in Barbour and Russell Counties, Alabama, and Stewart and 

Quitman Counties, Georgia, was sought throughout the planning process. A planning team 

composed of a contractor and representatives from various Service divisions and State agencies was 

formed to prepare the Draft Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). Intially, the team 

focused on identifying the issues and concerns pertinent to refuge management. The team met on 

several occasions from November 2007 to March 2008. 

In preparation for developing the CCP, a Wildlife and Habitat (Biological) Review was conducted 

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 landscapelevel 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 CCP. 

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 NWR; and a representative of the 

Piedmont and Bond Swamp NWRs. 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). 

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 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 

CCP 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 
132 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 CCP. A total of 23 

comment forms and letters were received. 

Over a 2-year period, a Draft CCP/EA was developed for the refuge, which outlined a management 

direction for the refuge for a 15-year period. Approximately 100 copies of the Draft CCP/EA were 

made available for public review, beginning on May 29, 2008, and ended on July 21, 2008. Eighteen 

respondents consisting of local citizens, Alabama Historical Commission, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources Division, Defenders of Wildlife, and Falconers and 

Austringers of Alabama submitted written comments by mail or email. The Draft CCP/EA comments 

and the Services responses to those comments are summarized below. 

DRAFT CCP/EA COMMENTS AND SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

Wildlife Population Management 

Comment - The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division, concurs with 

additional surveys for state- and federal-listed species as proposed in the Draft CCP/EA.

Service response – Comment noted. 

Comment - One respondent suggested that permanent nesting platforms should be constructed for 

egrets and herons. 

Service response - Adequate nesting is available and utilized by herons and egrets in natural 

conditions on the refuge; wading birds will continue to be protected by restricting airboats, jetskis, and 

water skiing within the refuge boundary. 

Comment - The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) thinks the Draft CCP/EA and the 

hunting compatibility determination are significantly lacking data on the biological impact of the 

proposed “black” turkey hunt. 

Service response - Concur that we have no data on black turkeys, however, we will gather sufficient data 

on the eastern wild turkey population on the refuge before permitting a limited youth hunt for this species. 
Appendices 133

Habitat Management 

Comment - Georgia Wildlife Resources Division urges the refuge staff to continue efforts to restore and 

maintain significant natural communities and to consult with Georgia and Alabama wildlife agencies 

regarding species of conservation concern documented in their respective State Wildlife Action Plan. 

Service response - Concur, the refuge staff will continue to work closely with both agencies. 

Visitor Services 

Comment - The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources recommended that 

alligator hunting be included in the preferred alternative. 

Service response - Concur, this change has been made. 

Comment – Georgia Wildlife Resources Division recommended the following: 1) the public and state 

agencies be provided the opportunity for input and comments prior to the implementation of “no 

wake” zones on the refuge; 2) educational signage be developed at boat ramps to inform the public 

about the impacts of hydrilla and other aquatic nuisance species; and 3) all feasible techniques for 

feral hog control should be explored. 

 

Service response - We concur with all three recommendations. 

Comment - The Falconers and Austringers of Alabama want falconry allowed on the refuge. 

Service response - Falconry has been added to the preferred alternative as a future hunt along with a 

youth turkey hunt and an alligator hunt. When the Hunt Plan is prepared, we plan to offer falconry 

opportunities on the refuge. 

Comment - The Humane Society of the United States is opposed to additional hunting on the refuge 

and believes that the proposed hunting is not compatible with the purposes of the refuge. 

Service response - Hunting is one of the six priority public uses identified in the 1997 Refuge 

Improvement Act, and has been found to be compatible with the purposes for which Eufaula NWR 

was established. Hunting of white-tailed deer is necessary to keep deer from becoming 

overpopulated, which leads to disease, starvation, an increase in Lyme disease infections in humans, 

and an increase in vehicle/deer collisions. Studies have shown that hunting of small game, such as 

rabbits and squirrels, does not affect populations of these animals due to their high reproductive rate. 

Waterfowl hunting is highly regulated by the Service and Flyway Councils. Every year, the Service 

surveys breeding habitat conditions and assesses if habitat and populations of key waterfowl species 

are sufficient to justify hunting opportunities. 

Comment - The Humane Society of the United States states that there is no evidence that the Draft 

CCP/EA has identified all relevant environmental concerns and undertaken a “hard look” at the 

impacts of expanding hunting in the refuge. 

Service response - Comment noted. 

Comment - The Humane Society of the United States thinks expanding hunting at Eufaula NWR will 

negatively impact the refuge experience for non-consumptive users and the Draft CCP/EA does not 

adequately address this perceived impact. 
134 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Service response - Comment noted. 

Comment -The Humane Society of the United States states that the Draft CCP/EA has not taken into 

account the effects of hunting on other wildlife species on the refuge or the cumulative impacts of hunting. 

Service response - Comment noted. 

 

Comment - The Humane Society of the United States also believes that the Service is in violation of 

federal law because an environmental impact statement was not prepared on the national wildlife 

refuge sport-hunting program. 

Service response - This comment is outside the scope of this document. 

 

Comment - A television producer that supports the addition of a youth turkey hunt on the refuge 

would like to film such a hunt and produce a show that would promote the refuge’s management 

program and youth being involved in hunting. 

Service response - The refuge staff would be available to discuss this idea and to offer assistance. 

Comment - One respondent asked if frogging was legal on the refuge. 

Service response - Frogging is legal within the open waters of Lake Eufaula in accordance with state 

regulations. It is not legal within the refuge impoundments. 

Comment - One respondent anticipates problems with the use of private airboats on or near the 

refuge and feels they should be restricted. 

Service response - Signs are currently in place to prohibit the entry of airboats into the refuge. 

Comment - One respondent thinks the quota hunt selection process should give priority to those 

individuals that have been rejected in previous years. He also encourages the planting of corn, milo, 

etc., in impoundment areas to be flooded and hunted once a week. 

Service response - The Service is working to develop a standardized application process that would 

be accessed via the internet. Such a system would allow refuges much more flexibility in managing 

quota hunts. Corn was planted in the hunting units this year and will be planted annually if soil and 

weather conditions permit. 

 

Comment - Four individual respondents were opposed to any hunting on the refuge. 

Service response - See the response to Humane Society of the United States’ comment above. 

Comment - Four individual respondents expressed support for the expansion of hunting opportunities 

on the refuge. 

Service response - Comment noted. 
Appendices 135

Refuge Administration 

Comment - The Alabama Historical Commission wanted clarification that there were currently no 

historical structures on the refuge. 

Service response - The CCP has been revised to clarify that there are no such structures on the 

refuge. 

Comment – Georgia Wildlife Resources Division recommended that any references to Lake Eufaula 

should be changed to Walter F. George Reservoir. 

Service response - The CCP states that Walter F. George Reservoir is also referred to as Lake 

Eufaula. 
136 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 137

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, wildlife 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 “in administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . issue 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. 
138 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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, wildlife 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. 
Appendices 139

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use - As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
140 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 141
142 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 143
144 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 145
146 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 147
148 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 149

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 Refuge: (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 management; (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) 
150 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Under Eufaula NWR’s current approved hunt, hunting for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, gray and fox 

squirrels, mourning dove, and waterfowl (ducks and geese) is permitted. Hunting for these species 

occurs 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. 
Appendices 151

Big Game: White-tailed deer and feral hog hunting will 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 archaeological sites will be closed to entry. Some refuge 

impoundments in the Houston Unit will 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 will 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 archaeological sites will be closed to entry. Some refuge 

impoundments will be off-limits to all public entry from November 15 through March 1 to provide 

waterfowl sanctuary. 

Mourning Dove: Hunting for mourning doves will only be permitted in the Houston Unit on designated 

upland fields. 

Waterfowl: Waterfowl hunting will be permitted in the Kennedy Unit in Alabama and the Bradley Unit 

in Georgia. 

Big Game: White-tailed deer and feral hog hunting will occur from September through January in 

Georgia and October through January in Alabama. The area between Rood Creek and 

Bustahatchee Creek in Georgia will 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 will not be allowed in the Kennedy and Bradley units on the days 

when waterfowl hunting occurs. On these days archery hunters will not be allowed to enter the 

Kennedy and Bradley units until after 12 noon. 

 

Upland Game: Rabbit and squirrel hunting will be allowed on the Alabama portion of the refuge 

during the month of February. The refuge will be closed to this activity prior to February due to the 

archery deer season. 

Mourning Dove: Dove hunting will occur during the south zone season in Alabama. A limited number 

of hunts will be allowed prior to the start of the archery deer season in October. Hunting will occur 

from 12 noon until sunset each day. 

Waterfowl: Waterfowl hunting will occur no more than one day a week during the Alabama and 

Georgia seasons, respectively. Hunts will be held on Wednesdays and Saturdays throughout the 

season. The hunt days will alternate each year. Hunting will occur in Alabama on Saturday and 

Georgia on Wednesday one year, and the days will swap the following year. Hunting hours will be 

from legal shooting time until 12 noon each day. 

Big Game: White-tailed deer hunting and feral hog hunting will be done with archery equipment. State 

regulations for the state the hunter is in will apply. Deer stands will be removed from the refuge daily. 

Gun hunting for white-tailed deer will 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 will be 

held each year. A staffed check station will 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 will 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 will 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 will be 

in accordance with state regulations. Taking of feral hogs will be allowed incidentally to deer hunting. 
152 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

There will 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 will 

be held prior to the start of the archery deer season. Hunters will 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 will 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 will 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. 
Appendices 153

Offsetting Revenues: The fees outlined in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Eufaula 

National Wildlife Refuge include: 

y Youth Gun Deer Hunt -- $20 per hunter 

y Youth Waterfowl Hunt -- $20 per hunter 

y Youth/Adult Waterfowl Hunt -- $20 per hunter 

y Adult Waterfowl Hunt -- $60 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 strictly 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 will 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) 

Hunting (Migratory Birds Mourning Dove) 

Hunting (Upland Game) 

Hunting (Waterfowl)

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

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 will ensure compliance with 

refuge regulations as well as state laws related to hunting. Hunting is allowed in designated 

areas only. Areas closed to hunting will be marked with "No Hunting" or "Seasonally Closed" 

signs to ensure compliance. Alcoholic beverages are not permitted. Vehicles and bicycles will 

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 to accommodate hunting. Nontoxic shot 

is required for upland hunting, dove hunting, and waterfowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting will be 

limited to morning hunting. All waterfowl hunts will end at 12 noon. 
154 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

The number of hunts, hunters, and units open to hunting at any one time will 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 in 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

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 will 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 will also be open to public fishing in 

accordance with state laws. Refuge impoundments and ponds will be closed seasonally to fishing 

from November 15 through March 1 to provide sanctuary for wintering waterfowl. The areas will be 

marked by the appropriate signs and included in the annual Refuge Hunting and Fishing Regulations. 

Sneads Pond will 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 will be open to the public from sunrise to sunset. No overnight 

use will be permitted on the Wildlife Drive boat launch or the Gammage Road boat launch. 
Appendices 155

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 fishing occurs. State regulations on 

species, methods of take, and creel limits will 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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) property. The 1964 permit granted to the Service 

from the Corps states that the water areas of the refuge will be open to the public for recreational 

purposes. Recreational fishing is one of the priority puiblic uses of national wildlife refuges as stated in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to ensure compatibility and to administer the 

use at its current level. Additional resources will be needed to conduct the use as outlined in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Eufaula NWR. 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 should not negatively impact wetland values. 

Long-term Impacts: Disturbance to known bird rookery sites could be a concern. This has been 

identified in the CCP as an area for potential research in the future. The refuge will work closely with 

the Corps 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 will 

likely experience an increase in use, but the increase is not expected to be detrimental to wildlife. 
156 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 anglers must 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 will 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 

the fishing occurs. 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 percent of refuge visitation. Fishing is a quality, wildlife-dependent 

recreational use that allows the public the opportunity to utilize a renewable resource. 

Mandatory 15-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

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 will 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 will be restricted to gravel roads. 

The refuge is open year-round from sunrise to sunset. 

Wildlife observation and photography will be permitted throughout the year during daylight hours only. 

Certain refuge impoundments will 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 will be monitored to minimize disturbance. Photographers using temporary or 

floating binds will be required to remove the blinds from the refuge daily. 
Appendices 157

Wildlife observation and photography are priority puiblic uses of national wildlife refuges as stated in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 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 at present levels of use. Additional fiscal resources will be needed to carry out these 

uses as proposed in the CCP for Eufaula NWR. These funds will 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 these uses will be minor damage to vegetation, 

littering, increased maintenance activity, potential conflicts with other visitors, and disturbance to 

wildlife. Some wildlife will 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. 

Determination: 

Photography (Wildlife) 

Wildlife Observation

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations.
158 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Some refuge impoundments will be 

seasonally closed to all public entry from November 15 through March 1. This will prevent 

unnecessary disturbance during this critical time. These activities will 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 percent of refuge visitors bring their camera or video camera to 

capture the special moment that is part of their refuge visit. These uses are compatible and are not 

expected to cause significant conflicts with other refuge activities. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

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 will 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 will primarily be allowed during normal business hours, from 

8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. However, these activities may occur outside this timeframe in order meet specific 

educational requirements, such as when the staff or volunteers lead “creatures of the night” programs that 

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 will be approved in advance. 

Environmental education and interpretation will 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. 

Environmental education and interpretation are priority puiblic uses of national wildlife refuges as stated in 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Availability of Resources: There is adequate funding to administer the uses and ensure their 

compatibility at present levels of use. Additional fiscal resources will be needed to carry out these uses as 

proposed in the CCP for Eufaula NWR. 

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 
Appendices 159

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 are anticipated. 

Cumulative Impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Determination: 

Environmental education (teaching 

students) 

Environmental education (teaching 

teachers) 

Interpretation

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations. 

Use is compatible with the following 

stipulations.

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Special events held onsite will be conducted 

where minimal disturbance to wildlife will occur. Outdoor classroom areas will be the same areas that 

are open to the general public (away from resting waterfowl, and not in closed areas). 

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 will 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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-Evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

Description of Use: Bicycling 

Bicycling is not a priority public use of the refuge, 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 activities. 

Bicycling is restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (trails, firebreaks, woods 

roads, etc.) will 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 will 

be reduced or terminated. 
160 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Bicycling will occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the temperatures 

are mild or when families are on vacation. It will occur to a lesser extent as a means for 

transportation by deer hunters seeking to access remote portions of the refuge. 

All equipment will be provided by the general public. Except on rare occasions, uses will be less than 

five on any one day. No additional facilities will 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. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. It is not a priority public use of 

national wildlife refuges, 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, including 

the priority public uses. 

Cumulative Impacts: Bicycling provides 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 will be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

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 wildlifedependent priority public uses. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018
Appendices 161

Description of Use: Canoeing 

Canoeing usage is not a priority public use of national wildlife refuges and is primarily regulated by 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 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. 

Canoeing will 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 will be used by canoers. There could be minor wildlife disturbance due to 

visual contact, but no more than other compatible uses. Canoeing will offer quality wildlife 

observation and photography because of the low impact and noise created by this venture. 

Canoeing will most likely occur during an 8-month period from March to October during daylight hours. 

This use period will avoid disturbance to wintering waterfowl, which reach their highest numbers from late 

November to mid-February. Naturally, the heaviest use will be on Saturdays and Sundays. 

No special equipment or facilities will be provided by the refuge. Peak one-time use will be in the low 

single digits on a given day, unless there should be a special event. Canoers will 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 priority public 

use of national wildlife refuges, 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 will be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Canoeing provides 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 will be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 
162 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

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 priority public use of national wildlife refuges, users of this 

category experience a quality wildlife observation experience and cause no measurable disturbance 

to wildlife species or habitat. It does not interfere with refuge goals. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

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 percent 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. No additional facilities, equipment, or personnel are needed to continue this activity. 

Farming will be continued in traditional agricultural fields (less than 10 percent 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 will 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 priority public uses of national 

wildlife refuges as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Any 

chemical use associated with the practice will be carefully selected and contained within the fields by 

use of grassed field borders and other vegetation. Planting and harvesting equipment will 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 will 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 163

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. 

Availability of Resources: Resources are available to administer this use (currently 5 percent 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 percent of the current employee’s 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, and environmental education and interpretation. This activity does 

not significantly impact any other refuge activity. 

Long-term Impacts: The proposal bennefits numerous wildlife species and supports hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Cumulative Impacts: The proposal bennefits numerous wildlife species and supports hunting, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Policies and guidance are followed; practice is 

conducted according to the refuge’s Cropland Management Plan and any subsequent decisions 

developed through the comprehensive conservation planning 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. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018
164 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Feral Hog Management 

Refuge-wide feral hog control is being instituted on Eufaula NWR 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. 

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 will 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 will occur from mid-February 

through early October to avoid any conflict with public hunts and disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

These activities will 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 will 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. 

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. 
Appendices 165

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 will be a vital management tool in order to meet the objectives for which the Eufaula 

NWR was established. 

Availability of Resources: This use will be administered by the refuge manager. The refuge 

biologist will monitor this use and its impacts to wildlife. Random compliance checks will 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 staff who will 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 will 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. No additional fees will 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. 

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 will be a positive improvement over the current habitat conditions. 

Cumulative Impacts: This use will 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. 
166 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunters harvesting feral hogs during refuge deer hunts will possess a signed refuge hunting permit. 

Individuals using live traps and hunting with the aid of hounds will 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 NWR), 

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 who 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 will 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. 

To be considered for a permit to remove feral hogs with the aid of dogs on federal lands (Eufaula 

NWR), 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 who 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 on an individual interview, letters of reference, and 

possibly a field demonstration. 
Appendices 167

Justification: The policy of the 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. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

Description of Use: Forest Management

Forest management on Eufaula NWR is not a priority public use. Prior to 2001, Eufaula NWR 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 forest 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 will 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. 
168 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Eufaula NWR, 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 the city 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 will 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. 

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 be 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 used for 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. 
Appendices 169

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 

 X 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 NWR Forest Management Plan. Forest management activities will follow the Alabama 

and Georgia Forest Best Management Practices. 

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 NWR, 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 CCP 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. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018
170 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Horseback Riding 

Horseback riding is not a priority wildlife-dependent public use as identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 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 activities. 

Horseback riders will be restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (open fields, 

trails, firebreaks, woods roads, etc.) will 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 and school or tour buses. 

Horseback riding will occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the 

temperatures are mild. Horses and equipment will be owned and trailered to the refuge by the 

general public. Except on rare occasions, uses will be 2–3 on any one day. No additional facilities 

will 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 recreational vehicles 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 wildlifedependent public 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. 

Long-term Impacts: There will be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Horseback riding provides additional wildlife viewing opportunities in a manner 

that is not any more disturbing to wildlife than vehicles using refuge roads. There will be no diversion 

of refuge resources away from other programs. Road maintenance is currently a high priority 

because it supports other refuge operations and the priority wildlife-dependent public uses as 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 
Appendices 171

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X 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 recreational 

vehicles. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

Description of Use: Walking and Jogging

Walking and jogging priority wildlife-dependent public uses of the Refuge System, but are regulated 

by the refuge. It is not a commercial activity and is infrequently conducted on the refuge. Walkers 

and joggers are required to remain on refuge roads or the immediate shoulder. Less than 25 walkers 

and joggers utilize the refuge annually. The refuge requires no special facilities in support of these 

activities other than the normal road maintenance that supports all other refuge activities. 

Walkers and joggers will be restricted to refuge-maintained gravel roads. No off-road use (open 

fields, trails, firebreaks, woods roads, etc.) will be allowed. Restricted use includes all roads and 

areas closed to the general public, whether it is a scheduled seasonal or emergency closure. 

Walking and jogging will occur year-round, but most likely from March through October when the 

temperatures are mild. 

No special equipment or facilities will be provided by the refuge. Users will be limited to one or two 

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. Walking and jogging 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. 
172 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Offsetting Revenues: None. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term Impacts: This activity does not impact refuge objectives. Walking and jogging are not 

primary wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 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. 

Long-term Impacts: There will be no diversion of refuge resources away from other programs. 

Cumulative Impacts: Walking and jogging are not priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 

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 will 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 recreational uses. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Walking and jogging are compatible as long as 

access is limited to graveled roads, and as long as the uses do not increase considerably or 

unacceptable wildlife disturbance is documented. 

Justification: Walking and jogging 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. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

Description of Use: Scientific 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, better manage fish and wildlife populations, 

and how to control certain diseases. It is not a priority wildlife-dependent public use 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 are anticipated. 
Appendices 173

Research could be conducted year-round and by night or day. The duration could be short-term or 

multi-year. 

Research or special studies will 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 will 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 will 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. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018
174 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Appendices 175

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 (NWR) 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: 

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan will provide overall direction for management of 

wildlife populations, habitat, and public use at Eufaula NWR over the next 15 years. The 

preferred alternative will provide for balanced wildlife/habitat management and public use 

activities. It will support the purposes for which the refuge was established, including 

conservation of threatened and endangered species. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: Please see Figure 4 in the CCP. 
176 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Appendices 177

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Wood stork 

 Actions proposed under CCP will continue to provide for 

 seasonal and temporary use (foraging and resting). Refuge will 

 continue to monitor abundance and distribution of wood storks. 

 The Molnar Unit in particular will continue to be managed for 

wood storks

 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Wood stork 

 Impacts of management actions will be largely beneficial; 

 unnecessary or excessive disturbance of wood storks will be 

 discouraged. 

 
178 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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”. 

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):
Appendices 179

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. 
180 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 181

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 - 
182 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 183

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 - 
184 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 - 
Appendices 185

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 
186 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 187

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 - 
188 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 189

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 

House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) c c c c 

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 
190 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Spotted skunk Spilogale putorius 

Red fox Vulpes fulva 

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus 

Coyote Canis latrans 

Bobcat Lynx rufus 
Appendices 191

Common Name Scientific Name 

Eastern gray squirrel Scuirus carolinensis 

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 
192 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 193

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 will 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 miles 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 lack 

of resources. Some of these activities will be contracted and supervised by station biologists. Projects 

will benefit pitcher plant bogs, endangered gopher tortoises, and longleaf pine habitat. Reforestation 

efforts will 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 

NWR, and reforest 2,000 acres of off-refuge agricultural fields on willing private landowner’s property 

through an established partnership with the Georgia Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

Hardwood habitats are one of the Fish and Wildlife Service's priority habitats for this area of the 

country. This project will 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 Engineers’ personnel to establish a maintenance program 

including spraying, burning, disking, flooding and mowing that will 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 will benefit from. 
194 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Project # 97003, Station Rank # 5 – $70,000 

Project will provide the operational expenses to conduct an annual water management program. This 

refuge depends on the ability to flood impoundments in the fall and then draw down in spring to 

manage 1,100 acres (14 subunits) of wetland habitat. Pumping is essential to support refuge 

waterfowl hunts, which provide 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 will be unable to meet critical 

program obligations for waterfowl, shorebirds, other migratory birds and the endangered wood stork 

and will 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 NWR by providing an 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 NWR. 

The Eufaula NWR 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 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 will 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 will also assist with maintenance of facilities, grounds, trails, signs, and other visitorrelated facilities throughout the refuge. The position will also assist with the refuge force account 

farming operations. 
Appendices 195

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 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 

implementation, Eufaula NWR aims to construct and begin to operate a visitor center. This will 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 will provide the annual costs of operating this new visitor center facility. Costs will 

include janitorial services, building and grounds upkeep, pest control, utility costs, educational 

materials, computers, and other supplies for the visitors. This will be an annual need to operate 

the public use facility. 

Project # 98012, Station Rank # 9 – $30,000 

Project will fund an archaeological survey of Eufaula NWR. This survey will 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 will provide compliance with the several 

laws/Acts as we conduct management, construction and law enforcement activities. The 

reconnaissance will be completed by a contractor in coordination with the Region 4 archaeologist. 
196 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 197

installed to ensure that clay material adheres properly to existing substrate. The road surface will be 

weather-proofed with 300-400 tons of gravel. Repairing this road will provide a safe and reliable 

means of travel for the 55,000 annual visitors who utilize this road while engaged in various refuge 

supported activities. 

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-ofcompliance. 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 substandard 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 environmental policies and regulations. 

4. Replace worn vehicle storage building. The building is utilized to securely store passenger 

vehicles, law enforcement boats, all-terrain vehicles (3), and various wildland firefighting equipment. 

This structure alleviates outdoor storage of equipment and compromised security. The 2,100-squarefoot 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 significant 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. 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. The 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 that 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 affected interior lines. Replace all warn signs and/or posts along 52 miles of 

boundary line and affected interior lines. 
198 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

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 public’s visiting experience. 

8. Rehabilitate narrow Federal Highway 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 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 create 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 selfloading 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 worn 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 visitor 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 worn 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 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. 
Appendices 199

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 
200 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 201

Appendix XII. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) to provide a foundation for the management and use of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) over the next 15 years. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to inform the 

public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing the CCP for Eufaula NWR. A 

description of the alternatives, the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, the environmental 

effects of the preferred alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and a declaration 

concerning the factors determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be found in the 

EA, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

 

Alternatives

In developing the CCP, the Service evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives A, B, C, and D. 

The Service adopted Alternative D as the “Preferred Alternative” for guiding the direction of the refuge 

for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in the CCP is that wildlife conservation 

assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational uses are allowed if they 

are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation) will be 

emphasized and encouraged. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

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. 

Eufaula NWR 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. 

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 NWR would provide protective conservation 

measures for federal- 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. 
202 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Eufaula NWR 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). 

The refuge’s hunting program would continue to be carried out in accordance with National Wildlife 

Refuge System 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 NWR 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.

Eufaula NWR would provide for sufficient staffing, facilities, and infrastructure to fulfill the refuge’s 

purpose and the goals and objectives of its CCP. 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. 

There would continue to be limited management of cultural resources based on known locations of 

identified cultural, historical, and archaeological 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 of Engineers and Alabama/Georgia authorities on overall refuge management. 

Under Alternative A, Eufaula NWR 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 Eufaula NWR, 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. 

Eufaula NWR 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. 
Appendices 203

Under Alternative B, Eufaula NWR 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. 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 NWR 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 federal- 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. 

Eufaula NWR 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. 

The refuge’s hunting program would continue to be carried out in accordance with National Wildlife 

Refuge System 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 Corps of Engineers and Alabama and Georgia authorities on the possibility of establishing nowake zones in sensitive areas. Eufaula NWR 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. 

Under Alternative B, the refuge would enlarge its current staff of six by adding three full-time 

equivalent (FTE) positions: biological science technician, maintenance, and 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. In the meantime, there would continue to be limited management of 

cultural resources based on known locations of identified cultural, historical, and archaeological 

resources. The refuge would follow standard procedures to protect cultural resources whenever 

projects involving excavation are undertaken. 
204 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge staff would increase cooperation with the Corps of Engineers and both states on invasives’ 

management, and with Alabama and Georgia authorities on overall refuge management, including 

restoration of longleaf pine forest. Eufaula NWR would work to establish a refuge friends group 

(support group) by 2022. 

Under Alternative B, Eufaula NWR would continue to plan but not build a new visitor center. Visitor 

contact would take place at the new refuge office/headquarters. 

ALTERNATIVE C: ENHANCED WILDLIFE-DEPENDENT PUBLIC USE 

Alternative C would emphasize enhanced wildlife-dependent public use at Eufaula NWR. 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 priority public uses identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. Alternative C would pursue the same four broad refuge 

goals as each of the other alternatives. 

Eufaula NWR 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 (i.e., 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 NWR 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. 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 NWR 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 federal- 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. 

Eufaula NWR 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 moistsoil wetlands (approximately 1,200 acres) would be intensified, with emphasis on waterfowl and other 

aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 
Appendices 205

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. 

In addition to maintaining all existing hunts and seasons, Eufaula NWR would consider adding a 

youth wild turkey quota hunt, falconry, 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 NWR 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. 

Under Alternative C, the refuge would enlarge its current staff of six by adding four full-time positions: 

biological science technician, maintenance, 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 NWR’s cultural resources based on 

known locations of identified cultural, historical, and archaeological 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 of Engineers and Alabama and Georgia 

authorities on overall refuge management. 

Under Alternative C, by 2022 or within 15 years of CCP implementation, Eufaula NWR 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 

(PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under Alternative D, the preferred action, Eufaula NWR will expand both wildlife and habitat 

management efforts as well as public use opportunities in a balanced fashion. In so doing, 

Alternative D will seek to fulfill the same four broad refuge goals as each of the other alternatives. 

Eufaula NWR will provide a complex of habitats, both moist-soil and grain crops, to meet the foraging 

needs of 25,000 wintering ducks. This will assist the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

The refuge will 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 will maintain 200 wood 

duck boxes on the refuge. 

Under Alternative D, Eufaula NWR will provide forest habitat conditions conducive to supporting both 

priority pine and hardwood associated bird species by 2010. The refuge will provide high-quality 

grassland habitat to support grassland bird species on 220 to 300 acres, while achieving priority 

waterfowl objectives. This will include planting native warm season grass species on old farm fields. 

In addition, by 2010, it will promote tall emergent vegetation sufficient to support a population of 10-

20 king rails and to benefit other species of marsh birds. 
206 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

For the benefit of wading birds, by 2010, the refuge will provide for both secure nesting sites and 

ample foraging habitat. Also by 2010, Eufaula NWR will furnish at least two areas of up to 20 acres 

each for shorebirds, during both northbound and southbound movements. In addition, the refuge will 

provide protective conservation measures for federal- or state-listed species and habitats for future 

ecological existence. 

Refuge staff will expand their capability and effort to implement sound scientific principles to better 

manage healthy populations of resident wildlife species. Staff will also control domestic, feral, or pest 

animals, especially feral hogs, removing an average of 100-plus hogs annually, or as needed. 

Eufaula NWR will 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 will cultivate crops on 

100 to 300 acres 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. 

The refuge will employ silvicultural treatments to improve 2,800 acres of refuge forestland to provide 

benefits to forest-dependent wildlife. It will 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) will be intensified, with emphasis on waterfowl and 

other aquatic birds foraging and life-history requirements. 

Under Alternative D, Eufaula NWR will aggressively control aquatic invasive plant species on 

approximately 25 shoreline miles (or as needed) and 1,250 acres annually. It will also conduct 

preventive and maintenance control of upland invasive plant species. 

In addition to maintaining all existing hunts and seasons, Eufaula NWR will consider adding a youth 

wild turkey quota hunt, an alligator hunt, and falconry by 2015. Boat launch facilities and bank fishing 

opportunities on the refuge will be expanded by 2015. Also by 2015, Eufaula NWR will 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 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 will be maintained, and within 10 years of 

CCP implementation, Eufaula NWR will: (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, Eufaula NWR will maintain its existing 

opportunities and facilities, and by 2022, will establish a new visitor center. 

Under Alternative D, the refuge will enlarge its current staff of six by adding full-time positions: biological 

science technician, maintenance, two non-law enforcement park rangers, and law enforcement officer. 

The total staffing level will then be eleven. 

Within 15 years of CCP implementation, Eufaula NWR will develop and begin to implement a Cultural 

Resources Management Plan. In the meantime, there will continue to be limited management of 

cultural resources based on known locations of identified cultural, historical, and archaeological 
Appendices 207

resources. The refuge will follow standard procedures to protect cultural resources whenever 

projects involving excavation are undertaken. 

Refuge staff will increase cooperation with the Corps of Engineers and both states on invasives’ 

management, and with Alabama and Georgia authorities on overall refuge management, including 

restoration of longleaf pine forest. Eufaula NWR will work to establish a refuge friends group (support 

group) by 2022. 

Under Alternative D, by 2022 or within 15 years of CCP implementation, Eufaula NWR will construct 

and begin to operate a visitor center east of U.S. 431 adjacent to the Kennedy Unit. This center will 

serve as a focal point of public use opportunities on the refuge. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative D is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes the management of diverse habitats, both moistsoil and grain crops, to meet the foraging needs for wintering ducks; collects habitat and wildlife data; 

and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service objectives. At the same time, these 

management actions provide balanced levels of compatible public use opportunities consistent with 

existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological principles. It provides the best mix of program 

elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the comprehensive conservation plan. Habitat management, 

population management, land conservation, and visitor service management activities on Eufaula 

NWR will result in increased protection for threatened and endangered species; enhanced wildlife 

populations; habitat restoration; and enhanced opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. These effects are detailed as follows: 

1. Additional staff and resources will create and properly manage the diversity of habitats found on 

the refuge, including pine, hardwood, scrub/shrub, moist-soil areas, cropland, and open water. Active 

management of these communities will likely result in greater species diversity and an abundance of 

migratory birds. Baseline data will be collected on populations and habitats and monitoring protocols 

established. Invasive species will be controlled, which will have a positive effect on the biotic 

community. 

2. Quality wildlife-dependent recreational activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and 

interpretation) will continue and environmental education programs will be developed. Improved 

interpretive and informational programs will increase awareness of the refuge and wildlife and of the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

 

3. Cultural resources will be surveyed, documented, and protected on the refuge. 

 

4. Habitat restoration and management, along with a focus on accessibility and facility 

developments, will result in improved wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. While public use 

will result in some minimal, short-term adverse effects on wildlife and user conflicts may occur at 
208 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

certain times of the year, these effects are minimized by site design, time zoning, and implementing 

refuge regulations. Anticipated long-term impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitats of implementing the 

management action are positive. In the long run, wildlife habitat and increased opportunities for 

wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities could result in an increase in economic benefits to the 

local community. 

5. Implementing the CCP is not expected to have any significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, as actions will not result in development 

of buildings and/or structures within floodplain areas, nor will they result in irrevocable, long-term 

adverse impacts. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program will take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat, etc. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) will 

be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific regulations 

established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through wildlife 

inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities will be utilized, and public use 

programs will be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

will be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action will not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property will be allowed through issuance of special use permits. Future 

land acquisition will occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the approved 

acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases and/or 

donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative agreements) 

from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition boundary will 

likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The 

management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue off-refuge stream bank 

riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service will result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 
Appendices 209

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel resources 

will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources unavailable for 

other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governors of Georgia and Alabama 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Resources Division 

Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries 

Georgia and Alabama State Historic Preservation Officers 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 

Findings

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for the Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 138) 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 150) 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 150) 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 138) 
210 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 151) 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, page 

151) 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, page 145) 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, page 125) 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 139) 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, page 150) 

 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge, Barbour and Russell Counties, AL and Stewart and 

Quitman Counties, GA. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in June 2008. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Eufaula NWR, 367 Highway 165, Eufaula, AL 39027-8187.