O

kefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

ded by

hy’s Scuba Adventures

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Okefenokee

National Wildlife Refuge

Okefenokee

National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Comprehensive Conservation Plan

USFWS Photo
dance for

ategies

sh and

ns detail

bove

ervice

e plans

ational

uisition.
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

October, 2006

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

October 2006 

Table of Contents i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service......................................................................................................2

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

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge...........................................................................................3

Location, Establishment, and Importance ...........................................................................3

Refuge Purpose ..................................................................................................................6

Facilities ..............................................................................................................................7

Facilities ..............................................................................................................................8

Staffing and Funding...........................................................................................................8

Ecosystems.........................................................................................................................9

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

Legal And Policy Guidance...............................................................................................16

II. REFUGE ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................ 17

Physical Environment .................................................................................................................17

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

Historical/Ecological Role of Natural Events .....................................................................19

Physiography and Geology...............................................................................................22

Soils ..................................................................................................................................23

Hydrology..........................................................................................................................23

Water Quality ....................................................................................................................33

Air Quality..........................................................................................................................34

Biological Environment ...............................................................................................................36

Flora..................................................................................................................................36

Fauna................................................................................................................................44

Socioeconomic Environment ......................................................................................................59

Early Settlement................................................................................................................59

Land Use...........................................................................................................................60

Adjacent Landowners........................................................................................................61

Demographics...................................................................................................................63

Financial Benefits..............................................................................................................65

Public Services..................................................................................................................66

Visitor Characteristics .......................................................................................................66

Cultural Environment..................................................................................................................68

Prehistoric Influences........................................................................................................68

Historical Influences..........................................................................................................69

Modern Influences.............................................................................................................72

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................................. 81

Planning Process........................................................................................................................81

Planning Issues ..........................................................................................................................82

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION........................................................................................................ 83

Introduction.................................................................................................................................83
ii Table of Contents

Refuge Vision.............................................................................................................................83

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Summary ...........................................................................83

Goals, Objectives, And Strategies..............................................................................................84

Goal 1 – Wildlife Management..........................................................................................85

Goal 2 – Resource Protection...........................................................................................91

Goal 3 – Wilderness Values..............................................................................................97

Goal 4 – Public Services...................................................................................................99

Goal 5 – Partnerships .....................................................................................................106

Goal 6 – Administration...................................................................................................109

Step-Down Plans .....................................................................................................................113

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..........................................................................................................115

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................115

Project Summaries...................................................................................................................115

Wildlife Management ......................................................................................................115

Resource Protection .......................................................................................................117

Public Services ...............................................................................................................118

Administration .................................................................................................................119

Staffing .....................................................................................................................................119

Funding ....................................................................................................................................122

Monitoring And Evaluation .......................................................................................................122

Plan Review And Revision .......................................................................................................124

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

APPENDIX I. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES...............................................................................125

APPENDIX II. FACILITIES ...............................................................................................................139

APPENDIX III. COMPARISON OF VEGETATION CLASSIFICATIONS USED AT OKEFENOKEE 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. .............................................................................143

APPENDIX IV. OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE PLANT LIST...............................145

APPENDIX V. OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE WILDLIFE LIST...........................163

APPENDIX VI. WILDLIFE AND LAND COVER ASSOCIATIONS....................................................191

APPENDIX VII. CULTURAL HISTORY OF THE OKEFENOKEE SWAMP AREA...........................195

APPENDIX VIII. CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES ...........................................................................199

APPENDIX IX. PUBLIC SCOPING...................................................................................................205

APPENDIX X. PUBLIC COMMENTS ...............................................................................................247

APPENDIX XI. WILDERNESS REVIEW ..........................................................................................257
Table of Contents iii 

APPENDIX XII. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ............................................................................ 265

Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form..................................................................266

APPENDIX XIII. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION............................................................. 311

Forestry/Fire Program Review Team .......................................................................................312

Biological Program Review Team ............................................................................................312

Public Services Program Review Team ...................................................................................312

APPENDIX XIV. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................ 313

APPENDIX XV. LITERATURE CITED............................................................................................. 325

APPENDIX XVI. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT............................................................. 335
iv Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in relation to other wildlife refuges .........4

Figure 2. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area................................................5

Figure 3. Approved acquisition boundary for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge...........................7

Figure 4. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge within the South Atlantic Coastal 

 Plain physiographic area....................................................................................................10

Figure 5. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge within the North Florida Ecosystem .....11

Figure 6. Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem And Its Landowners .......................................................13

State Wildlife Agencies ......................................................................................................14

Figure 7. West to east profile of the sediments under the Okefenokee Swamp and surrounding it 

(Hyatt 1984) .......................................................................................................................24

Figure 8. Typical soils series within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge with the associated 

vegetation types.................................................................................................................24

Figure 9. Hydrological basins within the Okefenokee Swamp (Loftin 1998) .....................................26

Figure 10. Vegetation cover types of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (Loftin 1998)............37

Figure 11. Six-class vegetation cover type for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge.........................38

Figure 12. Fuel model map for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge ..........................................39

Figure 13. Distribution of RCW clusters on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (2003)..................52

Figure 14. Distribution of mature pine forest (>60 years) in vicinity of Okefenokee National 

 Wildlife Refuge...................................................................................................................53

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Climatological averages at Camp Cornelia weather station (east entrance).......................18

Table 2. Soil series descriptions at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge........................................27

Table 3. Semi-monthly average water levels (msl) at Suwannee Canal Recreation Area 

 (SCRA) and Stephen C. Foster State Park (SCFSP) between 1990 and 2003 ..................32

Table 4. Air monitoring history at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge...........................................35

Table 5. RCW clusters on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in 2003.........................................50

Table 6. Household income of the four counties the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge lies 

 within. Numbers are based on the 2000 Census................................................................64

Table 7. Educational attainment of the population 25 years and over within the four counties 

 the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge lies within. Numbers are based on 

 the 2000 Census .................................................................................................................64

Table 8. Revenue sharing amounts paid to each county in lieu of taxes ..........................................65

Table 9. Visitor characteristics as described by Center for Economic Development 

 Services (2001) ...................................................................................................................67

Table 10. Estimated funding needs to address the issues presented in this plan.............................123
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1 

SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge in Charlton, Ware, and Clinch Counties, Georgia, and Baker County, Florida, 

to provide a foundation for the management and use of the refuge over the next 15 years. The plan 

is intended to serve as a working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions. 

The plan was developed in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

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

Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Compliance with this Act was achieved through the involvement of 

the public and the preparation of an Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. When fully 

implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Okefenokee Refuge. 

The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and public use (wildlife-dependent 

recreation) is allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, or does not detract from, the 

refuge’s mission and purposes. 

The plan was prepared by a planning team composed of the management staff team at Okefenokee 

Refuge, representatives from the Service’s Office of Ecological Services, Georgia Wildlife Federation, 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites, Osceola National 

Forest, and a private natural resource consultant. In developing this plan, the planning team 

incorporated the input of local citizens and the general public received through a public comment 

period and a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings (Appendix IX). 

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

three other alternatives, as described in the Environmental Assessment. After reviewing public 

comments and management needs, the planning team developed the preferred alternative in an 

attempt to determine how best to manage the refuge. The preferred alternative is the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s course of action for the management of the refuge. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Okefenokee Refuge 

will play in support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term 

guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities. The plan is needed to: 

• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge; 

• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the 

Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 
2 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

• Ensure that the management actions, including land protection and recreational and educational 

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

Act of 1997; 

• Ensure that the management of the refuge is coordinated with federal, state, and county plans; 

and 

• Provide a basis for developing budget requests for the refuge’s operational, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Although 

the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local, and 

private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service administers a 

national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these resources. 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering a total of 

more than 95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s 

largest collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The Refuge System 

supports over 800 bird species, 220 mammal species, 250 reptile and amphibian species, 1,000 fish 

species, and countless species of invertebrates and plants. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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. 

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

mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. The Act states that each refuge shall be 

managed to: 

• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; 

• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first; 

• 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; 

• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3 

• 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 

$ Retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses. 

Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the direction 

of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. 

The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, all refuge 

comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared in conjunction with public involvement, and 

each refuge is required to complete its own plan within a 15-year schedule. 

Approximately 37.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 1998, mostly to 

observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, significant economic 

benefits are being generated to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have 

reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local 

economies. In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation 

reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related recreational 

pursuits in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). 

Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998, 

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

than $20.6 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for the national wildlife refuges stresses the following principles: 

• The original purpose of the refuge will be implemented. 

• Wildlife comes first. 

• Ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management. 

• Refuges must be healthy. 

• Growth of refuges must be strategic. 

• The National Wildlife Refuge System serves as a model for habitat management with broad 

participation from others. 

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

LOCATION, ESTABLISHMENT, AND IMPORTANCE 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the southeastern Georgia counties of Ware, 

Charlton, and Clinch and northeastern Florida's Baker County, roughly between latitudes 30o

33’ and 

31o

05’ North and longitudes 82o07’ and 82o33’ West (Figure 1). The refuge was established in 1936 

with the purchase of land and consists presently of 401,880 acres (Figure 2). This plan addresses 

management on 395,080 acres. The Conservation Fund donated 6,800 acres to the refuge in 

November 2005. Although the refuge owns this donated land, International Paper will manage the 

timber and recreation on the land until 2081. The refuge’s approved acquisition boundary includes 
4 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 1. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in relation to other wildlife refuges 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5 

Figure 2. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Area
6 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

519,480 acres (Figure 3), 117,600 acres beyond the current refuge acres. The primary purpose of the 

refuge is to protect the ecological system of the 438,000-acre Okefenokee Swamp. Approximately 

371,000 acres of the Okefenokee Swamp wetlands are incorporated into the refuge; and 353,981 acres 

within the swamp were designated as wilderness by the Okefenokee Wilderness Act of 1974, making it 

the third largest National Wilderness Area east of the Mississippi River. In 1986, the Okefenokee 

Refuge was designated by the Wetlands Convention as a Wetland of International Importance. 

Okefenokee's natural beauty was first threatened in the 1890s, when attempts were made to drain 

the swamp to facilitate logging operations. The Suwannee Canal was dug 11.5 miles into the swamp 

from Camp Cornelia. After the failure of this project, known as "Jackson's Folly," other interests 

acquired the swamp and began removing timber in 1909, using a network of tram roads extending 

deep into the major timbered areas. When logging operations were halted in 1927, more than 423 

million board feet of timber, mostly cypress, had been removed from the swamp. 

The establishment of Okefenokee Refuge in 1936 marked the culmination of a movement that had 

been initiated at least 25 years earlier by a group of scientists from Cornell University that recognized 

the education, scientific, and recreational values of this unique area. The Okefenokee Society 

formed in 1918 promoted nationwide interest in the swamp. With the support of state and local 

interests and numerous conservation and scientific organizations, the Federal Government acquired 

most of the swamp for refuge purposes in 1936. 

Okefenokee Refuge conserves the unique qualities of the Okefenokee Swamp for future generations 

to enjoy. The swamp is considered the headwaters of the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers. Habitats 

provide for threatened and endangered species, such as red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides 

borealis), wood storks (Mycteria americana), indigo snakes (Drymarchon corais couperi), and a wide 

variety of other wildlife species. It is world renowned for its amphibian populations that are bioindicators of global health. More than 600 plant species have been identified on refuge lands. 

Combining Okefenokee Refuge with Osceola National Forest, private timberlands, and state-owned 

forests, more than 1 million contiguous acres provide wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. 

Researchers and students study the resources. 

The Georgia communities of Waycross (12 miles north), Folkston (7 miles east), St George (8 miles 

southeast), Fargo (5 miles west), and Homerville (20 miles northwest) surround the refuge with 

Jacksonville, Florida, 40 miles to the southeast. Nearly 400,000 people visit the refuge each year 

making it the 16th most visited refuge in the National Wildlife Refuge System. In 1999, the economic 

impact of tourists in Charlton, Ware, and Clinch Counties in Georgia was more than $67 million. 

The Okefenokee Swamp has shaped the culture of southeast Georgia. Most residents of Charlton, 

Clinch, and Ware Counties have ancestors who once lived or worked in the swamp and view the 

swamp as a part of their heritage. 

REFUGE PURPOSE 

The executive order establishing Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in 1937 stated the purpose of 

the refuge as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife” (Appendix I). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7 

Figure 3. Approved acquisition boundary for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
8 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

FACILITIES 

Three primary entrances and two secondary entrances exist on the refuge. The east entrance, located 

11 miles southwest of Folkston, Georgia, is the location of the refuge headquarters and is managed 

solely by the Fish and Wildlfie Service. Spur 121 is the entrance road to Camp Cornelia and Suwannee 

Canal Recreation Area, both part of the east entrance. An administration building just outside the 

refuge boundary houses approximately 16 employees while the shop area at Camp Cornelia serves as 

a base for 10 additional employees. Two additional employees are located in the visitor center at 

Suwannee Canal Recreation Area. A Volunteer Village, located adjacent to the shop area, provides 

housing and trailer hookups for volunteers from outside the immediate area. A helibase is also located 

nearby to facilitate management flights over the refuge. In association with this helibase, there are 18 

helispots that are maintained for safe landing and take off. The Suwannee Canal Recreation Area is 

open to the public and offers a newly renovated visitor center and a concession offering swamp tours, 

boat rentals, food, and souvenirs. Access is also provided to hiking trails, a wildlife drive, a 3⁄4-mile-long 

boardwalk with a 40-foot observation tower, and a restored homestead. 

The west entrance to the refuge is via Spur 177 that leads to “The Pocket”, where two employees are 

stationed. Just after entering the refuge, two residences serve as office space and housing for 

employees, researchers, or volunteers. A shop area is also located at this site. At the end of Spur 

177 is Jones Island, the site of Stephen C. Foster State Park, which was established in 1954. This 

state park is operated on 82 acres of refuge lands under the provisions of a long-term agreement 

(until 2016) with the Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites. The park offers boat tours, boat and 

cabin rentals, souvenirs, camping facilities and supplies, a museum, and a picnic area. The refuge 

maintains a boathouse on Jones Island. 

The refuge's north entrance is via the Okefenokee Swamp Park, which is located about 12 miles 

south of Waycross, Georgia. This park is administered by a nonprofit organization on refuge and 

state forestlands. The organization offers boat tours, a boardwalk and tower, wildlife and cultural 

displays and presentations, and souvenirs. 

Kingfisher Landing located between Folkston and Waycross, and the Suwannee River Sill area on 

the west side, are considered the secondary entrances into the swamp. Both have a boat ramp. The 

Suwannee River Sill area provides bank fishing opportunities. 

The refuge has 16 upland management compartments encompassing approximately 15,000 acres 

around the perimeter of the swamp. Roads providing access and fire lines are maintained. The 

Swamp Perimeter Road was established after the fires of 1954-1955 to provide access around the 

swamp. In 1993, the Swamps Edge Break was created to provide a fuels management zone to allow 

indirect suppression actions during wildfires. The refuge has responsibility for the maintenance of the 

Swamps Edge Break and Swamp Perimeter Road that falls on refuge lands and all bridges on the 

Swamp Perimeter Road. The refuge is also responsible for maintaining five man-made dipsites for 

fire suppression operations. 

Appendix II lists the facilities on and adjacent to the refuge. 

STAFFING AND FUNDING 

The refuge is currently managed by 31 employees. The permanent personnel include a project 

leader, deputy project leader, 3 administration staff, 1 law enforcement staff, 2 biological staff, 6 

public use staff, 10 forestry staff, 4 heavy equipment operators, 1 mechanic, and 2 laborers. The 

refuge currently has one temporary park ranger. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9 

In Fiscal Year 2003, the refuge operated with a budget of $2,026,600 for payroll and operation needs 

from refuge operations and fire funds. In addition, $182,800 in special funding were allocated to 

address the maintenance backlog and support for the Youth Conservation Corps (YCC), $1,200 were 

allocated for safety signs, and $20,000 were allocated for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) projects. 

In Fiscal Year 2002, the refuge was allocated $1,927,500 for payroll and operation needs from refuge 

operations and fire funds. In addition, $238,700 in maintenance funding and YCC support, $67,100 

for visitor center renovation, and $21,000 for WUI projects were allocated. 

ECOSYSTEMS 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area 

The Okefenokee Refuge lies within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area as 

designated by the Partners-in-Flight initiative (Figure 4). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain covers 

northeastern Florida, the southern half of Georgia, and the eastern halves of South Carolina and 

North Carolina. Its western boundary is the fall line that marks the beginning of the hilly Piedmont 

and its eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. As part of a continuous Coastal Plain that extends 

from New York to Texas, it has arbitrary boundaries at the Alabama-Georgia border and at the North 

Carolina-Virginia border, extending into the southeast corner of Virginia only to capture the Great 

Dismal Swamp. Pocosins and Carolina bays are non-alluvial forested wetlands unique to this 

physiographic area. Uplands were historically dominated by fire-maintained pine forests, with 

longleaf nearer the coast and on sandy soils inland and a mixture of shortleaf, loblolly, and 

hardwoods elsewhere (Hunter 2001). 

The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has been altered through fire suppression, conversion to other land 

uses, and short-rotation pine plantations. Large tracts of fire-maintained pine savannahs are needed 

for the health of the high-priority pine and pine-grassland bird species, such as the red-cockaded 

woodpecker. 

The bottomland hardwood bird community requires large tracts of forest in river systems. The blackthroated green warbler (Dendroica virens) and breeding swallow-tailed kites (Elanoides forficatus) 

use these sites. In addition, coastal maritime forest and scrub/shrub habitats not only support most of 

the eastern population of painted bunting (Passerina ciris) but also are extremely important for intransit migratory birds. Much of this forest has been developed for intensive human use, and what 

remains should be maintained (Hunter 2001). 

North Florida Ecosystem 

The North Florida Ecosystem as designated by the Service based on watersheds includes portions of 

south Georgia and most of north and central Florida (Figure 5). The area includes southern 

temperate and subtropical climates, numerous physiographic districts, and many unique and widely 

varied habitat types. The northern boundary of this ecosystem includes the watersheds of the St. 

Marys River and the Suwannee River, including the Okefenokee Swamp. The northeast boundary 

begins at Camden County, Georgia, and proceeds down the east coast of Florida to the 

Brevard/Indian River county line. The ecosystem then turns west and includes the following counties 

as its southern border: Orange, Lake, and Sumter. The western boundary includes all Florida 

counties from Sarasota north through Taylor and Jefferson. In Georgia, the ecosystem is inclusive of 

all counties east and south of the following: Thomas, Colquitt, Worth, Turner, Ben Hill, Coffee, Ware, 

Charlton, and Camden (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). 
10 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 4. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge within the South Atlantic Coastal 

Plain physiographic area 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11 

Figure 5. Location of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge within the North Florida 

Ecosystem 
12 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Besides the wetlands of the Okefenokee Swamp, this ecosystem includes barrier islands, xeric scrub, 

pine flatwoods, freshwater marshes, lakes, streams and springs, mixed hardwood/pine forests, 

cypress swamps and domes, dry prairies, maritime forests, hardwood hammocks, estuarine marshes, 

pine rocklands, sandhill woodlands, coastal strands, sawgrass prairies, sloughs, and tree islands. 

Okefenokee and Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuges, Ocala and Osceola National Forests, 

Canaveral National Seashore, and Timucuan Ecological and Historical Preserve protect a variety of 

the habitat types. Other areas are subject to habitat loss from direct destruction, fragmentation, or 

the impacts of human activities. The ecosystem team identified the following tools to manage the 

North Florida Ecosystem: 

• Reliance on and use of the best science and technology; 

• Education of peers, associates, clients, and public; 

• Active and effective law enforcement; 

• Aggressive land protection efforts; 

• Strong adherence to regulatory responsibilities; 

• Sound public and private land management; 

• Strong inter-governmental coordination; and 

• Increased private landowner partnerships. 

Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem 

The Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem includes the Okefenokee Refuge, Osceola National Forest, stateowned forests, and private timberlands (Figure 6). It encompasses over a million contiguous acres of 

suitable habitat for a diversity of wildlife. The Okefenokee Swamp and Pinhook Swamp are two large 

wetlands included in this area. Upland pine forests, oak hammocks, and small isolated wetlands cover 

the remaining area. Rainfall and fire are the two primary factors governing the landscape. 

As part of this ecosystem, the Okefenokee Refuge provides a valuable reservoir of biological 

resources that supply the surrounding lands. It is a stronghold for the Florida black bear (Ursus 

americanus floridianus). Wading birds abound. Old-growth cypress still exists and longleaf pine 

(Pinus palustris) communities are successfully being restored with visions focused on 200-300 years 

into the future. Management for the associated wildlife species, such as the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, follows this long-term vision.

Understanding the wildlife populations, the quality of the system, and man’s potential impacts on the 

system contributes to the well-being of neighboring communities and protects their heritage. 

Ecotourism is building in the area. 

A unified effort to manage, protect, and promote forest resources in and around the Okefenokee 

Swamp has been made through the Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners, which 

recognizes the following: 

• Forest resources are the major industries in the area; 

• The Okefenokee Swamp is a national treasure and economically and biologically beneficial to the 

local communities and the States of Georgia and Florida; 

• It is essential to have a coordinating committee for fire protection of public and private resources; 

and 

• A formal organization of landowners provides an avenue for communications and develops 

strength in dealing with area issues. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13 

Figure 6. Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem And Its Landowners 
14 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

State Wildlife Agencies 

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

policy, is that the Fish and Wildlife Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and 

collaboration with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of 

acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the 

protection and sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout the Untied States. 

Georgia Wildlife Resources Division 

The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division is charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory 

birds and endangered species, as well as managing the State’s natural resources. It manages Dixon 

Memorial Wildlife Management Area adjacent to the refuge, provides expertise in fisheries 

management, and assists in management of hunting on the refuge. The division has also been a 

partner in a comprehensive black bear study. The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division was 

represented on the core planning team for the draft plan and environmental assessment, the 

biological review team, and also served as a presenter at public meetings. 

Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites 

The Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites is charged with managing state park lands and historic 

sites. It manages Stephen C. Foster State Park, located on 82 acres of the refuge. The park 

provides visitor services and protection to about 120,000 people each year. It also manages Laura S. 

Walker State Park in close proximity to the refuge and the new Suwannee River Visitor Center 

downstream from the refuge. Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites was represented on the core 

planning team foar the draft plan and environmental assessment, the public use review team, and 

also served as a presenter at public meetings. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is charged with enforcement responsibilities 

for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the State’s natural resources. It 

manages the Osceola Wildlife Manage Area in close proximity to the refuge and the John Bethea 

State Forest Wildlife Management Area adjacent to the refuge. The Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission was requested to provide a core team member but declined; however the 

Commission played an important role in reviewing the draft plan and environmental assessment. 

THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

Mining/Oil/Gas 

Strip mining for titanium has been proposed on 22,000 acres directly adjacent to the southeastern 

boundary of the swamp. The Service has many concerns regarding strip mining and its proximity to 

this globally unique resource - The Okefenokee Swamp. Potential impacts include: 

• Alternations to water table elevation in the swamp as a result of changes to surface and ground 

water quantities and flows of the Trail Ridge; 

• Destruction of endangered and rare species and their habitats; 

• Destruction of wetlands; 

• Reduction of air and water quality through the release of contaminants; and 

• Degradation of the wilderness experience for refuge visitors. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15 

This same threat was recently eliminated from 16,000 acres adjacent to the northeastern boundary of 

the refuge when E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, Inc., donated it to The Conservation Fund. 

Wetland Management 

Numerous threats to the quantity and quality of the water resources of the area may affect wetland 

management and its health. 

• Water quality is being degraded as a result of increased use of fertilizers and herbicides on 

surrounding timberland, contaminant deposition from the atmosphere, and increased water 

withdrawals from the aquifer along the coast. This degradation influences the survival of certain 

species by limiting food sources, restricting reproduction, and decreasing the health of the entire 

ecosystem. 

• Although the Suwannee River Sill was constructed to retain water during drought, its greatest 

effects appear to be during high water. Due to a series of natural terraces in the swamp, the zone 

of influence during low water levels decreases to only about 1 percent of the swamp. An 

environmental assessment identified the preferred alternative for managing the sill as a “Phased 

removal of concrete water control structures and breaching of the sill in selected locations” that 

would restore the natural connection between the swamp and the Suwannee River, and restore 

the river flood plain and the natural fire cycle of the swamp. The U.S. Geological Survey has 

completed the 4-year study of water level impacts downstream. 

• Surface hydrology has been altered through silvacultural practices. Ditching shortens the 

hydroperiod by increasing drainage rates. It also connects isolated wetlands and exposes 

amphibians to threats from fish invasions. 

Floods/Droughts/Natural Disasters/Climate Change 

Wildland fire is a natural, frequent, and desirable occurrence in the Okefenokee habitat. However, 

adjacent private industrial forestland, refuge facilities, and the growing urban interface areas create 

challenges to managing natural fire. Prescribed burning is a resource and fire prevention tool used to 

restore habitats and reduce the intensity of wildland fire. The landowner organization was formed to 

address the management of wildfires in a more effective manner. The organization’s combined 

efforts are helping to protect both refuge and private resources. The refuge must maintain the ability 

to work with adjoining landowners and support the state forestry organizations through grants, 

agreements, and fuels reduction burning. 

Timber Management 

Short rotation silviculture with heavy mechanical site preparation, including the application of 

herbicides, is eliminating the habitat suitable for at-risk animals on adjoining industrial forestlands. 

The refuge has begun to enter into memorandums of understanding with agreeable landowners to 

grow forest products on a longer rotation. Approximately 16 percent of adjoining lands are covered 

by memorandums of understanding at the present time. Land purchase and/or timber management 

by the Service of critical uplands are the long-term solutions. 

Industrial and Commercial Development 

Demands for ground water are increasing in the coastal plain. With paper mills and other industrial 

interests along the coast, the area from which they draw ground water (i.e., cone of depression) 

increases and may actually be affecting the Okefenokee Swamp. Where once the ground water was 

replenishing the swamp, the swamp may now be replenishing the aquifer. This would be detrimental 

to the health of the swamp by creating drier conditions and the loss of wetlands, concentrating 

contaminants and degrading the system. 
16 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Air Pollution 

The amount of substances dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited by precipitation, aerosols, and 

gasses is of great concern and is expected to continue to increase throughout North America. 

Okefenokee Refuge serves as a regional base for air quality by participating in two air quality 

programs - The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (measuring substances introduced into 

precipitation falling on the refuge) and the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments 

(measuring the substances filtered from the air). The primary purpose is to protect the visibility in this 

Class 1 air shed and to characterize the regional haze. Trends related to hydrogen, major and trace 

elements from sodium to lead, nitrates, chloride, organic and elemental carbon, and PM 10 size 

particles are examined. Continued monitoring and implementation of industrial limits are required to 

protect this air shed. 

Authorized Public Use Activities 

The Okefenokee Education and Research Center, in Folkston, Georgia, is now partially funded and 

beginning operations that will increase environmental education use and scientific research on the 

refuge. Special refuge accommodations related to facilities, staffing, budgeting, and carrying 

capacities will have to be planned in advance in order to accommodate these significant increases in 

activities. 

In addition, public use activities will be evaluated as to their impacts on the wilderness and other 

resources and modified when necessary. 

Urbanization 

Charlton, Ware, and Clinch Counties in Georgia, and Baker County in Florida, all touch portions of 

the refuge. Homes and subdivision developments have shown a marked increase in numbers over 

the past 10 years. These homes are encroaching on and further fragment the habitats around the 

refuge. In addition, this development requires the withdrawal of ground water for water systems and 

increases pollution of air, water, light, and noise. These developments also create significant 

problems in protecting structures and fighting wildfires in the area. 

LEGAL AND POLICY GUIDANCE 

The administration of Okefenokee Refuge is guided not only by the refuge’s authorizing legislation 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, but by a variety of federal laws, 

Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. For the establishing executive order and a 

description of the key legislation and policies, see Appendix I. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 

II. Refuge Environment 

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 

CLIMATE 

The climate of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is warm and humid for most of the year 

(Table 1). This is due in part to its southern latitude and also to its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean 

and the Gulf of Mexico. 

All four seasons are apparent, though spring and fall are usually short. Winters are usually mild and 

summers are long, hot, and humid. The average yearly rainfall for the swamp is 52.29 inches 

(1945-2003). The maximum yearly rainfall was 78.11 inches in 1947 and the lowest rainfall total 

measured was 26.07 recorded in 1954. Climatological averages show that November is normally the 

driest month with 2.18 inches, and July is normally the wettest month with 7.43 inches. The average 

annual maximum temperature is 93 degrees and the average annual minimum temperature 

is 42 degrees. 

During the summer, the weather pattern is dominated by the Bermuda High. This feature usually 

extends along 35 degrees north latitude across the Atlantic Ocean and into the Gulf of Mexico. This 

pattern blocks fronts from progressing into south Georgia and Florida and ushers in warm moist air 

from the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. This flow of moist air over the warm land surfaces 

creates frequent afternoon thunderstorms. Under weak atmospheric flow or stagnant conditions, 

these thunderstorms are often initiated by the sea breeze front from either coast. Intense 

thunderstorms producing heavy downpours of rain and frequent cloud to ground lightning strikes are 

common during summer afternoons and evenings. Coincidently, most of the wildfires occur during 

this period. The summer weather pattern can also be affected by tropical systems moving across the 

area. Hurricanes, tropical storms, and tropical depressions moving ashore from the Atlantic Ocean or 

the Gulf of Mexico can produce very heavy rain across the region. Summer high temperatures will 

normally exceed 100 degrees on two or three occasions. Nighttime temperatures normally range in 

the upper 60s to lower 70s. 

In winter, without the blocking effect of the Bermuda High and with shorter days and less heating, cold 

fronts will move through the area. Winter conditions are often controlled by large mid-latitude weather 

systems in which most storm development occurs over the middle of the country or the Gulf of Mexico 

and move east and southeast into the Atlantic Ocean and into Florida. As cold fronts pass through the 

area, the wind shifts from the southwest to the northwest and north. After a cold frontal passage, high 

pressure will dominate the area with weather conditions becoming drier and stable for a period, with 

steady northerly winds, cold temperatures, and low relative humidity values. Temperatures can vary 

greatly from day-to-day, with readings ranging from the seventies to the teens within a period of a few 

days. During the winter, the refuge has an average high temperature of 67 degrees and an average 

low of 42 degrees. A normal winter will have about 21 days below 32 degrees. 

During the spring and fall, the weather can be quite variable across the region. In the fall, cold fronts 

return to the south Georgia/north Florida area. In the early fall and late spring, many cold fronts will 

stall and become stationary in north Florida before becoming warm fronts and moving back toward 

the north. These warm fronts will bring warm moist air northward overriding the colder air and 

creating cloudy, drizzly, rainy conditions. In the spring, mid-latitude weather systems intensify in the 

Great Plains and sweep eastward. Cold Canadian air masses colliding with warm moist air from the 
18 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Gulf of Mexico will bring thunderstorm squall lines through the area. The highest frequency of severe 

weather, such as tornadoes, occurs in the spring, in large part, due to the collision of the colder, drier 

air mass with the warm, moist Gulf air (McAllister 1998). 

Table 1. Climatological averages at Camp Cornelia weather station (east entrance) 

Average 

Minimum oF

Average 

Maximum oF

Absolute 

Minimum oF

Absolute 

Maximum oF 

Rainfall 

(Average) 

Year 1990-2003 1990-2003 1990-2003 1990-2003 1945-2003 

January 42 67 16 84 3.50 

February 46 71 13 88 3.39 

March 50 76 21 90 4.30 

April 55 82 34 95 3.25 

May 62 89 38 103 3.67 

June 68 92 54 104 5.83 

July 71 95 63 106 7.43 

August 70 93 61 104 7.27 

September 68 89 50 98 5.37 

October 58 82 36 95 3.22 

November 49 75 24 89 2.18 

December 44 67 19 83 2.87 

Relative humidity averages are fairly high due to the refuge's location between the Gulf of Mexico and 

the Atlantic Ocean. Year-round averages at 7:00 a.m. are about 85 percent. Minimum relative 

humidity (about 2:30 p.m.) averages about 52 percent. Maximum relative humidity reaches 100 

percent every night except during the very driest of seasons. 

Most dormant season prescribed burning takes place during several days of stable weather 

conditions following each weather system. Although very little lightning occurs during this period, a 

secondary fire season exists during the winter months. An abundance of cured understory 

vegetation, occasional heavy winds, and the presence of a great deal of prescribed burning 

contributes to this wildfire danger. If arson were more prevalent, the winter season might be the 

major wildfire season. 

During the short spring and fall seasons, normal lightning activity is only moderate; thus, wildfires 

caused by lightning are not common. 

From mid-May through mid-September, most storm systems are convective in nature. Warm, moist 

air masses begin to rise, causing the convective thunderstorms common to this area during this 

period. Spectacular lightning storms with hundreds of strikes often occur. Most wildfires occur 

during this period. These late spring and summer wildfires are the major factor that shaped the 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19 

historical longleaf pine communities once common to this area and maintained the swamp’s 

diversified landscape. Growing season prescribed fire is being introduced to restore these 

environmental conditions. The unstable winds caused by afternoon thunderstorms may make 

burning conditions very difficult. Careful planning, timing, and execution are very important. 

HISTORICAL/ECOLOGICAL ROLE OF NATURAL EVENTS 

Although fire is the most obvious natural event shaping the Okefenokee Ecosystem, several other 

recurring events have played an important part. These events include drought, lightning strikes, 

insect infestations, diseases, tornados, windstorms (microbursts), hurricanes, and water level 

fluctuations. 

Role of Fire in Uplands 

Fire determines the overstory and ground cover species dominating the uplands within the refuge, 

and indirectly, its wildlife species. The Okefenokee Ecosystem is part of the vast southeastern 

coastal plain where the uplands were once dominated by a major fire-dependent plant association, 

the longleaf pine community. The southeast once supported 60- to 92-million acres of this 

association. 

Ecologists have identified more than 30 longleaf pine associations supporting a wide array of native 

wildlife species. The most traditional community association is longleaf pine/wiregrass. Longleaf 

pine and wiregrass, along with many of its associated wildlife species, including the red-cockaded 

woodpecker, gopher tortoise, and indigo snake are all long-lived but reproductively unprolific species. 

As long as the area remained undisturbed, the community prospered. The fine, resinous, wiregrass 

understory promoted the spread of frequent, low-intensity wildfires over vast areas, killing seedlings 

of competing pine species as they attempted to invade the uplands from the edges of swamps, 

ponds, and river bottoms. The fire resistant longleaf pine seedlings and mature pines survived, thus 

perpetuating the open park-like longleaf pine community. Growing season fires, during the normal 

lightning season, stimulated the seeding of new clones of wire grass and other community plants, 

while setting back growth of tall shrub species, such as gallberry (Ilex coriacea), palmetto (Serenoe 

repens) and hurrah bush (Lyonia lucida). The understory components and structure of longleaf pine 

communities provided a diverse habitat suitable for all other native species of wildlife common to the 

southeastern coastal plain. 

Upland fire, in addition to perpetuating longleaf community species, created additional habitat 

diversity by acting with other natural disturbances to create openings in the mature forest overstory. 

Over many hundreds of years, the regular occurrence of new openings resulted in the traditional, 

multi-aged longleaf pine forest. As the new openings seeded in to create new age classes, fire, in 

turn, destroyed less fire resistant seedlings, maintaining the pure longleaf stand. 

During pre-settlement times, fire in the longleaf pine association was quite common. Lightning 

season fires were frequent and widespread. Analysis of the flammability of longleaf community 

understory species, the frequency of lightning strikes, and the presence and location of natural 

barriers have shown the average fire frequency on the uplands surrounding the Okefenokee Swamp 

to have been one to three years (Frost 1998). 

Fire ignited during all seasons by natives and early settlers for cultural reasons added to the effects of 

lightning caused fire. Fire was used by native Americans to stimulate berry growth, to improve 

hunting, and to clear land. Later settlers continued to set fires for similar reasons, as well as to 

improve cattle grazing (Wahlenberg 1946). 
20 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Role of Fire in Wetlands 

Fire has played an important part in the formation of the Okefenokee Swamp. The entire floor of the 

swamp is covered by a bed of peat varying from a few inches thick at the swamp’s edge to 3 to 15 

feet thick in the swamp’s interior (Cohen 1984). During construction of logging trams in the swamp, 

some holes over 20 feet deep were discovered (Hopkins 1947). In scrub/shrub and forested areas, 

the root mat covering the surface of the peat is usually at about the average water level. Most of the 

peat surface is covered with bog forest or dense scrub/shrub. Approximately 31,246 acres of the 

swamp (8 percent) are open marshes or "prairies" varying in size up to several thousand acres. 

Depending on water levels, the peat surface in the prairies is covered with a few inches to two or 

three feet of water. Most of these prairies are believed to be the result of very severe fires, which 

killed the woody plants and burned away part of the upper peat bed. Most of the prairie lakes and 

ponds are the result of pockets being burned in the peat (Cypert 1972). Alligators may create small 

open water areas or help to maintain existing “holes” (Pirkle 1984). 

According to Cypert, a fire in 1844 was the last fire to be severe enough to have caused prairies. 

Since then, there have been fires severe enough to kill timber but not severe enough to permanently 

kill the woody vegetation and remove significant layers of peat. Repeated fires such as those in 1932 

and 1954-55 could create prairie conditions, however. One area examined by Cypert in 1956 and 

1970 was burned quite severely by both fires. Prior to 1932, another area north of the Suwannee 

Canal, between Camp Cornelia and Mizell Prairie, was covered with pond cypress (Taxodium 

ascendens nutans) and slash pine (Pinus elliottii). The 1932 fire killed most of the timber. By 1954, a 

dense thicket of pond cypress, white bay (Magnolia virginiana), sweet bay (Persea borbonia), black 

gum (Nyssa sylvatica), hurrah, titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and bamboo vine (Smilax laurifolia) sprouted 

up in its place. The 1954-55 fire burned away the remaining trees, the thicket, and about one foot of 

peat. When inspected in 1956 and again in 1970, the woody growth had been reduced severely. 

One more severe fire over this area would probably result in a prairie (Cypert 1973). 

 

The swamp ponds and prairies seem to be slowly reverting to swamp forest. Cypert classified 60,000 

acres as prairie during his studies following the 1954-55 fires (Cypert 1973). Cyndy Loftin’s studies 

during the 1990s showed about 31,246 acres as prairie (Loftin 1998). The future occurrence of 

drought periods and fires will play an extremely important role in the appearance and character of the 

Okefenokee as a wildlife refuge. In a report on a 13-year study of “Plant Succession on Burned 

Areas in the Okefenokee Swamp following the fires of 1954 and 1955,” Eugene Cypert (1972) 

concludes the following: 

"It is difficult to appraise the importance of extreme droughts and the accompanying fires to 

Okefenokee Swamp. The aesthetic damage is incalculable. Doubtless the droughts and fires are 

damaging to most forms of swamp wildlife at the time of their occurrence. However, the prairies and 

the prairie lakes and ponds are a unique part of the swamp. It is obvious that they are now slowly but 

steadily reverting to swamp forest. If this trend should continue until the whole swamp is forested, 

most of the more important and interesting species of wildlife would be adversely affected. The 

sandhill crane, bitterns, rails, gallinules and the roundtail muskrat would disappear entirely from the 

swamp. There would be little use of the swamp by waterfowl. Alligators would probably survive but 

their required habitat would be drastically reduced. Herons, ibises, ospreys and probably other 

important kinds of wildlife would become rare or disappear from the swamp. Serious consideration 

must be given as to what control measures should and should not be taken to prevent or to permit 

fires in Okefenokee Swamp during periods of extreme drought." 

Fire also plays an important role in maintaining the numerous isolated wetlands that are interspersed 

throughout the uplands. Keeping fire out of these areas has promoted the growth of the woody 

understory and diminished their function. Restoring these wetlands by allowing fire to pass through 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 

them contributes to the overall health of the ecosystem by re-establishing the natural hydrology. As a 

result, conditions for the reproduction of amphibians are enhanced. 

Role of Other Natural Events 

Lightning - Most of the fires that served to maintain upland and wetland ecosystems were started by 

lightning; however, the vast majority of lightning strikes do not start fires. Lightning has the additional 

important effect of maintaining age, diameter, and density diversity by killing small clumps of trees, 

creating natural patch regeneration areas. Fire, in turn, destroys seedlings of any other less fire 

resistant species, maintaining the pure longleaf stand. Within the swamp, lightning’s only effect, 

other than igniting fires, is to kill single trees or groups of trees. 

Wind Storms - The occurrence of tornados, wind storms, and microbursts is less common than 

lightning but these natural events also create openings and new stands in uplands and wetlands. 

The effects of hurricane force winds are more difficult to assess. The effects of past hurricanes are 

very anecdotal. In addition, twentieth century hurricane seasons are believed to be very anomalous, 

departing from the 18th and 19th century frequency of a particularly destructive hurricane season 

every 20 years (Sandrik and Landsea 2003). Sandrik’s research has identified two hurricanes during 

the 19th century that should have been very destructive to Okefenokee’s timber stands, one in 

1896 (category 3) and one in 1813. 

Historians indicate that longleaf pine reached ages of up to 400 years on the southeastern coastal plain. 

Plantations managed for quail hunting in west Georgia contain groves of longleaf pine approaching this 

age. A section cut from a stump on Blackjack Island in Okefenokee Swamp in 1920 and burned many 

times since, still shows 300 growth rings (Phernetton personal communication). It is not known how 

resistant longleaf pine is to category 3 hurricanes, but if each hurricane of this nature was totally 

destructive to longleaf pine stands, very few trees would reach the age of 

400 years. It is postulated that longleaf pine stands are at least partially resistant to hurricane winds of 

up to 120 mph, although hurricanes and accompanying tornados probably played a large part in the 

patchwork multi-aged stand makeup of old-growth longleaf pine stands. A study at the Medway 

Plantation near Charleston, South Carolina, following Hurricane Hugo, a category 4 hurricane, supports 

the resistance of longleaf pine to hurricanes. The eye of Hurricane Hugo passed within a few miles of 

the plantation. A survey of damages showed 70 percent of the longleaf pine to be standing while less 

than 20 percent of the loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) remained (Hortman personal communication). 

There is no documented evidence of the effects of hurricanes within the wetlands, although some of 

the hurricanes of the 1800s must have passed through the swamp. 

Hurricanes and tropical storms indirectly affect the ecosystem by controlling fire. The summer fire 

season is often terminated by a series of tropical storms that extinguish surface fires and recharge 

water levels, drowning fires smoldering in the organic layers of the swamp. 

Water Levels - Fluctuating water levels affect the Okefenokee wetlands in several ways. Periods of 

drying and flooding affect the species composition in the wetlands. Rates of decomposition of 

organic material are determined by exposure times during dry periods (Yin and Brook 1992). 
22 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Water levels also play a very important factor in determining fire effects. Water levels determine: 

• Whether a fire will burn at all, even on the uplands. 

• Whether the fire will burn into the swamp or remain confined to uplands.The effectiveness of 

natural barriers within the swamp. Natural barriers may isolate fires within sections of the swamp. 

• Whether it will burn only the aerial portion of the swamp vegetation resulting in a temporary 

opening until scrub/shrub or other vegetation grows from root sprouts. 

• Whether it will burn into the root mat, creating permanent openings. 

• Whether it will burn deep into decomposed peat, creating new lakes and prairies. 

PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY 

Okefenokee Refuge lies within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that covers northeastern Florida, the 

southern half of Georgia, and the eastern halves of South Carolina and North Carolina. This 

physiographic region’s western boundary is the fall line that marks the beginning of the hilly Piedmont 

and its eastern boundary is the Atlantic Ocean. As part of a continuous Coastal Plain that extends 

from New York to Texas, it has arbitrary boundaries at the Alabama-Georgia border and at the North 

Carolina-Virginia border, extending into the southeast corner of Virginia only to capture the very 

Southeastern Great Dismal Swamp. The southeastern boundary marks a broad transitional zone into 

Peninsular Florida (http://blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm). 

The Okefenokee Swamp is a vast peat bog filling a huge saucer-shaped sandy depression. The 

upper margin of the swamp, or the "swamp line," ranges in elevation from 125 feet above sea level on 

the northeast side to 105 feet on the southwest side. The shallow, dark-stained waters of the refuge 

flow slowly but continuously across the swamp toward the two outlets--the famed Suwannee River on 

the west side and the historic St. Marys River on the southeast. Scattered throughout the swamp are 

narrow arcuate sandy ridges forming islands and peninsulas. 

The origin of the Okefenokee Swamp has been a subject of continuous debate among geologists and 

historians. Two theories have developed to describe the origin of the swamp (Parrish and Rykiel, Jr. 

1979). The traditional and more popular (although probably incorrect) theory developed by R. M. 

Harper in 1909 places the origin of the swamp prior to the Illinois glaciation period, several hundred 

thousand years ago. Ocean currents are thought to have caused a series of spits (sand bars) to form 

along the eastern edge of the swamp. When water levels dropped during the ensuing glaciation 

period, a large body of water was trapped behind the sand bar (Trail Ridge) creating a marine lagoon. 

Over a period of time, salt water was replaced by fresh water and the lake began to fill with organic 

vegetation. As peat accumulated, the lake gradually turned into a swamp (Pirkle and Pirkle 1984; 

Trowell 1994). 

The Holocene freshwater theory postulated by O. Veatch in 1911 was expanded in recent times by 

others (Parish and Rykiel 1979; Brooks 1966; Rich 1979; Davis 1987; Huddleston 1988) and 

summarized by C. T. Trowell (1994). This freshwater theory indicates that origins of the Okefenokee 

Swamp were much more complex than previously believed. Basically the swamp formed in two 

stages. A series of events beginning during the Miocene Period through the Pleistocene Period 

resulted in the formation of the Okefenokee Basin. These events include: a 200-foot thick layer of 

clay deposited on the coastal plain; delta bars formed by ancient rivers; formation of a series of step 

like terraces and barrier islands by fluctuating ocean levels; diversion of drainages and capturing of 

rivers by geologic uplifts. These delta bars and barrier islands are present today and form the upland 

habitats of the refuge. The second stage, formation of the swamp, began during very recent times 

(Holocene Period) as a freshwater event (Pirkle 1984; Trowell 1994). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23 

The Okefenokee Swamp is located on the Wicomico Terrace (Okefenokee Terrace, Sunderland 

Terrace, Northern Highlands) left at an elevation of 100 to 120 feet above sea level by an earlier 

receding sea level. The swamp’s eastern margin, Trail Ridge, is an ancient beach ridge created by 

wave/wind action at the cresting edge of an eroding, encroaching sea during the Pliocene or 

Pleistocene ages. The 200-foot thick impermeable calcareous clay layer called the Hawthorn 

Formation underlies the Wicomico Terrace. The Hawthorn Formation overlays the carbonate 

formation forming the Floridan Aquifer. The Hawthorn Formation bordered by Trail Ridge is a key 

element in the formation of the Okefenokee Swamp (Pirkle 1984 and Pirkle and Pirkle 1984, Rich 

1979, Trowell 1994) (Figure 7). 

During the Wisconsin glaciation period, the swamp was high and dry with no evidence of organic 

material formed by marine organisms. Oak forests and prairie probably dominated the landscape. 

Fire was common. As the climate became warmer, the glaciers began to recede, the environment 

became more humid, rainfall increased, and ocean levels and the groundwater table began to rise. 

From about 5,000 years ago to the present, vegetation gradually changed from upland herb/oak 

communities to longleaf pine forests. The thick clay bottom held water in the basin. Low areas 

remained wet year-round. The Okefenokee Swamp began to form. Mesic broadleaved communities 

began to form in depressions and along drainages. Cypress began to invade the swamp. The 

swamp forest spread laterally away from stream courses and small lakes as peat accumulated. As 

peat accumulated, raising the water table, the swamp grew vertically and laterally until it eventually 

covered higher areas between streams and ponds, eventually forming the swamp as we know it 

today (Parish and Rykiel 1979; Trowell 1994). 

SOILS

A soil survey concentrating on the uplands of the Okefenokee Swamp was completed by the National 

Resources Conservation Service in 1996. A soil profile showing the relative position of each series is 

illustrated in Figure 8 and a brief description of each soil series is presented in Table 2. The soil 

types are generally arranged from the lowest wetland to the highest upland. 

HYDROLOGY

The Okefenokee Swamp is considered a deepwater swamp containing peat soils. It is an elevated 

wetland ranging from an elevation of 125 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) on the northeast side of 

the refuge to 105 feet AMSL at the outflow to the Suwannee River. Although most of the area has no 

perceptible surface flow, the water is not stagnant and flows across the swamp through a series of 

depressions stair-stepping towards the outlets of the swamp. 

The Okefenokee Swamp receives water via precipitation (70 percent) and surface runoff (30 percent) 

(Rykiel 1977). Measurement of the watershed draining directly into the swamp (30 X 60 minute 

Geological Survey Map; scale-100,000, 1980) shows a drainage of 600 square miles. Over 400 

square miles of the watershed are located northwest of the swamp. The remaining 200 square miles 

drain a narrow strip between the swamp’s edge and Trail Ridge to the east, Waycross Ridge to the 

north, and a series of islands and ridges south of the swamp through many small parallel creeks. 

Major creeks draining into the swamp on the northwest side are: Black River, Alligator Creek (north), 

Greasy Branch, Suwannee Creek, Cane Creek, Bear Branch, Surveyors Creek, Barnum Branch, 

Turkey Branch, and Big Branch. 

Groundwater contributions to the swamp’s water budget are not well known. However, some prairies 

may be influenced locally by groundwater contributions (Loftin 1998). Holes in the bed of the swamp 
24 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 7. West to east profile of the sediments under the Okefenokee Swamp and 

surrounding it (Hyatt 1984) 

Figure 8. Typical soils series within the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge with the 

associated vegetation types 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25 

were located during construction of logging railroads (Hopkins 1947). There is a possibility of 

sinkholes in the bed of the swamp, which may allow seepage through the Hawthorn formation to or 

from the aquifers below. Most available studies, however, indicate that the Hawthorn formation 

effectively separates the water table aquifer from the principal artesian aquifer (Rykiel 1977). The 

swamp may receive some input from surficial aquifers. Researchers have detected cold water 

currents in some locations (Loftin 1998).Rykiel determined that in general 80 percent of the water 

output from the swamp left through evapotranspiration and only 20 percent left via river and stream 

flow. The principal drainages are the Suwannee River (85 percent of the surface water outflow), the 

St. Marys River (11 percent), and Cypress Creek (4 percent). The northern four-fifths of the swamp 

drain into the Suwannee River. The St. Marys River drains only the area east and south of Blackjack 

Island, south of Mitchell and Broomstraw Islands, and areas surrounding Soldier Camp Island. 

Loftin (1998) defined five major hydrologic “basins” within the swamp (Figure 9). Although they are 

partially connected and demonstrate similar seasonal trends, the amplitudes of these trends vary 

regionally. The northwestern region, including the Suwannee River, experiences the greatest seasonal 

and annual fluctuations in water elevations. Over a 3- to 4-week period, water elevations may fluctuate 

+0.75 m. This corresponds to seasonal rainfall, not only that which falls over the swamp, but also that 

falling on the area northwest of the swamp and carried into the region by numerous streams. The least 

water level fluctuations occur in the northeast region of the swamp where during the same interval, 

elevations might fluctuate <+0.06 m. This may be because less runoff is received from neighboring 

uplands or there is a contribution of ground water in the area. Vegetation composition differs between 

these areas, which may also affect regional evaporative demands. Surface outflow is also more limited 

from the northeast basin than from the northwest basin. 

The water level varies from 117.6 feet in dry years to 123 feet in wet years on the east side and from 

110.4 feet to 118.6 feet on the west side. Average water level at Camp Cornelia is 121.4 feet and at 

Jones Island is 115.2 feet. Table 3 shows semi-monthly average water levels at Suwannee Canal 

and Stephen C. Foster State Park. 

The swamp has experienced extreme highs and lows throughout history. Droughts have been 

reported in the literature and summarized by Rykiel (1977) during the following years: 1844, 1856-57 

(winter), 1860, 1902, 1909-10, 1932, 1943, 1954-55. During some of these droughts, the Suwannee 

River and Billys Lake were dry (1860 and 1943). Precipitation during 1954 was 26.07 inches. Since 

this time, annual rainfall has not been below 33 inches. The eastern side of the refuge received less 

than 40 inches of rain in 1968, 1978, 1981, and 1990. Annual precipitation was over 70 inches during 

1948, 1964, 1973, and 1991. 

A 5-mile earthen dike and two water control structures were completed in 1960 to reduce the flow of 

water out of the swamp during drought periods. This structure was examined through an 

environmental assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The assessment recommends that 

the sill should be breached and the water control structures removed to re-connect the swamp with 

the Suwannee River. 

Isolated Wetlands 

Seasonally ponded isolated wetlands are scattered over the uplands of the Okefenokee Ecosystem in 

association with sandy soils. Dependent on rainfall and adjacent run-off, water levels fluctuate in these 

shallow basins causing cycles of drying and wetting. Unless altered, they are not connected to other 

wetlands, are not spring-fed, and lack a permanent fish population. Within the refuge, these ponds 

begin filling as the fall rains come. By June, most small ponds are again dry. This cycle along the 

edges of the ponds is critical for the successful reproduction of amphibian and invertebrate species. 
26 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Figure 9. Hydrological basins within the Okefenokee Swamp (Loftin 1998) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Table 2. Soil series descriptions at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

2 COMPOSITION 

NAME 

1 MAP 

SYMBOL 

S C OM

3 SITE INDEX 

4 WATER 

TABLE 

DEPTH (ft)

FLOODED PERMEABILITY 

DASHER MUCK 

728A1 R% 0% 40-99% PP: Varies 

CYP: Varies 

+? to -0.5 Usually Moderately rapid Identifying charac

inches. Assoc. Veg.: Scru

cypress; water tupbay magnolia. Ground Cover: Saarrowhead; green

CROATAN 28A1 R% 0% 25-60% Scrb Pines:Varies 

Cypress: Varies 

+? to -1.0 Seasonally Rapid Identifying charac

inches. Location: Depress

upland. Ground Cover: Saarrowhead; green

KINSTON/ JOHNSTON 

767A1 R% 5-18% 2-8% BHwds: 90-100 

Loblolly P: 100 

0 to -1.0 Common Moderate to 

Rapid 

Location : Flood P

NWR except on S

ALLANTON MUCK SAND (ponded) 

855A1 R% 3-12% 10-20% Cypress: 75 

Wet Hwds: NA 

 Seasonally Moderate to 

Moderately 

Rapid 

Location: Depress

Identifying Charac

layers to 80 in. Assoc. Veg.:Red 

tupelo; swamp choak; cypress; sweUnderstory: Gre

other shrubs. 

SURRENCY MUCKY SAND (ponded) 

55A1 R% 2-8% 10-20% Sweetgum: 90 

Slash P: 90 Loblolly P: 95 Misc Hwds: varies Cypress: varies 

0 to -0.5 Common Moderate Location: Drainag

Assoc. Veg.: Hardpine; slash pine; LUnderstory: Gree

wetland shrubs. 
28 Okenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

2 COMPOSITION 

NAME 

1 MAP 

SYMBOL 

S

C OM

3 SITE INDEX 

4 WATER 

TABLE 

DEPTH (ft)

FLOODED PERMEABILITY 

MASCOTTE MUCKY FINE SAND 

840A1 R% 0-5% 2-7% Longleaf P.: 

Slash P.: NA Loblolly P.: NA 

+1.0 to -

1.0 

 Moderately Slow Characteristics: V

drained. Marine dLocation: Level, fland low stream teAssoc Veg: LonglUnderstory: Palm

myrtle, grasses. 

LEON SAND (ponded) 

39A1 R% 1-6% 10-20% Slash pine: 75 

Loblolly pine: 70 

+2 to -3.5 Common Moderate to 

Rapid 

Location: Outside 

Swamp. Assoc. Veg.: ProbUnderstory: Heav

bush; poor mans 

RUTLEGE SAND (ponded) 

755A1 R% 2-10% 3-9% Cypress: 75 

Other Hwds: NA 

0 to -1.0 Common Rapid Location: Shallow 

drainageways. In areas between islupland areas. Assoc Veg.: Hardloblolly pines. Understory: Gallb

grasses; sedges. 

MASCOTTE FINE SAND 

740A1 R% 0-5% 2-7% Longleaf P: 70 

Slash P: 85 Loblolly P: 80 

0 to -1.0 Moderately Slow Location: Broad lo

east end of Seldoof Comp 9-3. Characteristics: Linches. Assoc. Veg.on Hi

pine. Understory: Gallb

bush; grasses. Assoc. Veg. on D

Cypress; Wetland Understory: Grass

plants, greenbriar
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2 COMPOSITION 

NAME 

1 MAP 

SYMBOL 

S C OM

3 SITE INDEX 

4 WATER 

TABLE 

DEPTH (ft)

FLOODED PERMEABILITY 

PELHAM LOAMY SAND (ponded) 

52A1 R% 1-8% 1-2% Wet Hwds: 86 

Slash P.: 86 Loblolly P: 86 

-0.5 to -1.5 Subject to 

Flooding 

Seasonally 

Ponded 

Moderate Characteristic: De

Location: Low flat

Drainageways, poAssoc. Veg.: Slassweetgum; blackgoak, cypress. Understory: Gallb

tollerant veg. 

SAPELO FINE SAND (moderately wet) 

65A1 R% 2-5% 1-3% Longleaf P.: 65 

Slash P.: 85 Loblolly P.: 85 

-0.5 to -1.5 Moderate Characteristic: De

throughout. Location: Low pin

depress-ions and Assoc. Veg.: LongUnderstory:

PELHAM LOAMY SAND 

752A1 R% 5-10% 1-2% Sweetgum: 80 

Blackgum: 80 Water oak: 80 Longleaf P.: 80 Slash P.: 90 Loblolly P.: 90 

-0.5 to -1.5 Subject to 

Flooding. 

Moderate Characteristics: D

is loamy, extends Well suited to foreLocation: Low flatdrainageways. ExSuwannee River dAssoc. Veg.: Longsweetgum; blackgUnderstory: Gallb

swamp holly, wire tollerant grasses. 

SAPELO FINE SAND 

765A1 R% 2-5% 1-3% Longleaf p.: 65 

Slash P.: 77 Loblolly P.: 77 

-0.5 to -1.5 Moderate Characteristics: D

throughout. Location: Flatwoodepressions and dflatwood parts of swamp (C 11-4, C Island). Assoc. Veg.: Longblackgum; water oUnderstory: Gallb

huckleberry. 
30 Okenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

2 COMPOSITION 

NAME 

1 MAP 

SYMBOL 

S

C OM

3 SITE INDEX 

4 WATER 

TABLE 

DEPTH (ft)

FLOODED PERMEABILITY 

LEON SAND 739A1 R% 1-5% O.5-4% Longleaf P.: 70 

Slash P.: 80 Loblolly P.: 75 

0 to -1 ft. Moderate 

to 

Moderately rapid

Characteristics: D

Sandy with organinches. Location: Smooth most islands in swAssoc. Veg.: Longoak. Understory: Myrtle

PLUMMER 751A1 R% 1-10% 1-3% Longleaf P.: 70 

Slash P.: 88 Loblolly P.: 91 

0 to -1.0 Subject 

to 

Flooding 

Moderately 

Rapid 

Characteristics: DSubloil loamy dowLocation: Low flatdrainageways. Assoc. Veg.: Longswamp tupelo; cyUnderstory: Gallb

wiregrass; pitcher 

LYNN HAVEN SAND 

808A1 R% 1-6% 1-4% Longleaf P.: 70 

Pond P.: 70 Slash P.: 85 Loblolly P. 80 

0.0 tp 0.5 

wet 

periods 

>-3.5 

dry periods

None Moderate 

to 

Moderately 

Rapid 

Characteristics: Vdrained sandy so

flatwoods and depnear homestead. Assoc. Veg.: Long

Underatory: Palm

huckberry, grasse

MANDARAN SAND 

19A1 R% 0-3% 0.5-3% Longleaf P.: 60 

Slash P.: 70 Live Oak: NA 

 Moderate Characteristics: S

thick sandy deposLocation: Found many islands. Tohighest islands. Assoc. Veg. Longoak. Understory: Gallb

grasses. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

2 COMPOSITION 

NAME 

1 MAP 

SYMBOL 

S C OM

3 SITE INDEX 

4 WATER 

TABLE 

DEPTH (ft)

FLOODED PERMEABILITY 

RIDGELAND SAND 

48A1 R% 0-10% 1-4% Longleaf P.: 70 

Slash P.: 80 Loblolly P.: 80 

1.5 to 2.5 Moderate 

to 

Moderately Rapid

Characteristics: Svery deep and saLocation: RidgelinAssoc. Veg.:Understory:

CENTENNARY SAND 

81A1 R% 1-8% 0.5-1% Longleaf P.: 70 

Slash P.: 85 Loblolly P.: 85 

3.5 to 5.0 None Moderately Rapid Characteristics: W

and flats. Location: HomestAssoc. Veg: SlasUnderstory: 

1The soil series designation (855A1) is printed on each map where the type exists. These series are also color coded. 2Composition: S= Sand 

 C= Clay  OM= Organic Material  R= Percent of clay and organic material is given. R designates the remainder is sand. 3Site Index: The site index is the height in feet a particular species will grow on a soil type in 50 years. 4Water Table Depth: Seasonal high water table. 

+ Indicates above the surface. - Indicates below the surface. 
32 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 3. Semi-monthly average water levels (msl) at Suwannee Canal Recreation Area (SCRA) 

and Stephen C. Foster State Park (SCFSP) between 1990 and 2003 

Date SCRA SCFSP 

Jan 1 

 15 

119.89

120.02

114.54 

114.72 

Feb 1 

 15 

120.25

120.25

115.06 

115.20 

Mar 1 

 15 

120.26

120.37

115.33 

115.38 

Apr 1 

 15 

120.36

120.24

115.18 

114.81 

May 1 

 15 

120.08

119.81

114.44 

114.03 

Jun 1 

 15 

119.57

119.62

113.86 

114.02 

Jul 1 

 15 

119.57

119.62

114.10 

114.16 

Aug 1 

 15 

119.82

119.94

114.31 

114.42 

Sep 1 

 15 

119.91

119.85

114.34 

114.42 

Oct 1 

 15 

119.94

120.11

114.28 

114.56 

Nov 1 

 15 

120.11

119.96

114.45 

114.39 

Dec 1 

 15 

119.86

119.86

114.33 

114.39 

The Suwannee River 

The Suwannee River is the primary surface water outflow from the Okefenokee Swamp. Eighty-five 

percent of the surface water outflow exits the swamp via this river (Rykiel 1977). From the swamp, it 

travels approximately 235 miles to the Gulf of Mexico (Save Our Suwannee, Inc., brochure). Twentynine miles are located in Georgia, while the remaining two-hundred and six miles are in Florida. The 

Alapaha, Withlacoochee, and Santa Fe Rivers are the principal tributaries. Contributions to the river 

below the sill before reaching Fargo, 12 miles downstream, include Bay Creek, Alligator Creek, 

Sweetwater Creek and Jones Creek. Except for Jones Creek, the remaining creeks draw water from 

the Okefenokee Swamp. Cypress Creek also draws water from the southwest corner of the swamp 

and joins the river below Fargo. Loftin (1998) estimates that 10-30 percent of the water that passes 

the Fargo water gauge is comprised of water passing through and around the sill. Bay, Alligator, 

Sweetwater, and Jones Creeks contribute the remainder. 

The Upper Suwannee River, from the swamp to White Springs, is characterized by steep banks, swift 

flow, shoals, and tannic acid stained waters (Save Our Suwannee, Inc., brochure). There is evidence 

along the banks that the flow in this region has cut through the Hawthorn clay and runs along the 

limestone aquifer. The river channel at the Suwannee River Sill structures is at 105 feet AMSL. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Twelve miles downstream, at the Fargo gaging station, the elevation is at 91.9 feet AMSL (a 13.1-foot 

drop in elevation or 1.09 feet/mile). Benton gaging station is 27 miles below Fargo at an approximate 

elevation of 74.1 feet AMSL (a 17.8-foot drop in elevation or 0.66 feet/mile). Twenty-five miles further 

downstream at White Springs gaging station the elevation is 48.54 feet AMSL (a 25.56-foot drop in 

elevation or 1.02 feet/mile). The surrounding land use in the upper portion of the Suwannee River is 

primarily timber production and sparsely populated. 

Humans have influenced the Suwannee River drainage through the years, beginning with extensive 

logging and turpentining by the earliest settlers. Later, mining of phosphate along the Suwannee 

River banks, increasing development that eliminates flood-controlling wetlands, and discharging 

effluent from towns, individual residences, and businesses have affected the river and its watershed. 

WATER QUALITY 

The slow-moving waters of the Okefenokee Swamp are tea-colored due to the tannic acid released 

from decaying vegetation. Levels of pH have been recorded through various studies and most 

recently during visits to water recorders throughout the swamp. Between 1994-1996, pH levels have 

ranged between 3.36 and 4.63 within the swamp. Researchers have found pH values between 3.1 

and 4.86 (Bosserman 1984). Certain plants influence the acidic levels within the swamp and cause 

local variation in acidity. Winger (1997) found a mean pH level of 3.91 in the surface water within the 

Narrows. With such low pH levels, Rykiel (1977) expressed the importance of rainfall and 

atmospheric deposition over the Okefenokee Swamp in the mineral cycling and nutrient availability 

within the system. 

Examining pH levels recorded at the Fargo, Georgia, gaging station on the Suwannee River, Holder 

(personal communication) found a decreasing trend in pH from 4.32 (1968) to 3.93 (1994). Mills (1994) 

found the average pH of the Suwannee River just below the sill to be 3.94 with a range of 3.8 to 4.53. 

Dissolved oxygen is also a factor in slow-moving water and areas of high decomposition of plant 

material. Low oxygen levels are a problem to aquatic life in the Upper Suwannee River during low 

water periods (Soulak personal communication) as they are assumed to be within shallow marsh 

areas of the swamp. 

Mercury contamination has been a Suwannee River watershed problem for at least the last 20 years 

(Kasbohm 1996). A limited consumption advisory has been placed on the Suwannee River, as well 

as the Okefenokee Swamp. Past investigations within the Okefenokee Swamp found a mean 

mercury concentration of 0.359+0.21 mg/L (wet weight) in four species of fish. There were no 

significant differences within species, among species or between years, but sample size was small 

(Masson and Bowers 1995). Mercury is a natural occurring element of peat systems; however, 

Winger (1997) found elevated levels in the water, sediment, and biotic communities within the 

swamp. Mercury concentrations in rainfall were sufficiently high to account for these elevated levels. 

Like mercury, lead is more soluble and bioavailable to aquatic biota under low pH conditions. Lead 

has been studied within the fisheries and sediments of the Okefenokee Swamp. The mean wet 

weight lead concentrations in 35 fish fillets was 0.505+0.51 mg/L with no differences within species, 

among species, or between years (Masson and Bowers 1995). Mean lead level within the sediment 

of the Narrows was reported to be 180.25 ug/g (Winger 1997). 

Both mercury and lead are able to bioaccummulate through the Okefenokee system possibly 

affecting reproduction, hormone levels, and behavior of the fauna. 
34 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

AIR QUALITY 

The Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was established, in part, 

“to preserve, protect and enhance the air quality in national parks, national monuments, national 

seashores, and other areas of special national or regional natural, recreational, scenic or historic 

value,” including wilderness areas. Under this PSD program, certain areas of the country were set 

aside to receive the most stringent degree of air quality protection. These so-called “Class I” areas 

include: 

• International parks; 

• National wilderness areas and national memorial parks in excess of 5,000 acres; and 

• National parks in excess of 6,000 acres. 

The Okefenokee Wilderness is one of the 21 Class I areas administered by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. It is a member of the Southeast States Air Resource Managers regional planning 

partnership. The Service has the responsibility to protect the air quality and air quality related values 

(AQRVs) of the area from manmade air pollution. AQRVs include vegetation, wildlife, soils, water 

quality, visibility, odor, and cultural and archaeological resources. As industry and development 

move into the area, the airshed and wilderness are threatened. As in most of the eastern United 

States, visibility in the wilderness area is affected by pollution-caused regional haze. Rainfall, 

carrying pollutants and contaminants, is the primary source of water to the swamp. It is often acidic 

and may carry elevated levels of mercury that is then deposited on the refuge. As a result, some 

species of fish and wildlife have elevated concentrations of mercury in their tissues. Management of 

prescribed fires and wildfires in the area also affects the quality of the air. The Service monitors air 

quality in the refuge in partnership with three national programs. Atmospheric pollutants in rain are 

analyzed as part of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP - the “acid rain” program). 

Mercury in rain is analyzed as part of the nationwide Mercury Deposition Network (MDN). And, fine 

particles responsible for visibility impairment are measured as part of the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program. Table 4 lists the parameters monitored at the 

refuge over the past 12 years. 

National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

The amount of substances dispersed in the atmosphere and deposited by precipitation, aerosols, and 

gasses is of great concern and is expected to continue to increase throughout North America. In 

order to know the extent to which these substances are affecting agricultural, forest, and wetland 

ecosystems now and in the future, it is essential that careful and standardized sampling take place 

over the North American continent. It is also necessary to know how these substances are 

transported from sources throughout the continent. The NADP helps scientists to monitor how 

human activities and the forces of nature affect the health of the atmosphere. 

National Trends Network (NTN) 

The NTN was developed to gain a better understanding of the geographical distribution of acid 

precipitation over time. Okefenokee Refuge is one of more than 220 sites that measure national 

trends data. Weekly precipitation samples are analyzed for pH, conductivity, calcium, magnesium, 

potassium, sodium, ammonium, nitrate, chloride, sulfate, and orthophosphate. 

Mercury Deposition Network (MDN) 

The MDN collects data from 40 sites each week. These data enable researchers to determine 

seasonal and annual changes in mercury in precipitation falling on lakes, wetlands, streams, forested 

watersheds, and other sensitive ecosystems. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Table 4. Air monitoring history at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge - Site No. 01

Latitude: 30 44 25 N Longitude: 82 7 43 W 

Elevation: 47 m Operating Agency: USFWS 

Parameter Start End Years 

35MM Camera Slide 04/20/1992 11/13/1992 0.6 

Scattering coefficient 02/12/1993 06/01/1997 4.3 

Dry/Wet Bucket 06/03/1997 Present 6.6 

Dry/wet bucket plus mercury 07/29/1997 Present 6.5 

IMPROVE Sampler Module A 09/28/1991 05/01/2000 8.6 

IMPROVE Sampler Module A - ver 2 05/01/2000 Present 3.7 

IMPROVE Sampler Module B 09/28/1991 05/01/2000 8.6 

IMPROVE Sampler Module B - ver 2 05/01/2000 Present 3.7 

IMPROVE Sampler Module C 09/28/1991 05/01/2000 8.6 

IMPROVE Sampler Module C - ver 2 05/01/2000 Present 3.7 

IMPROVE Sampler Module D 09/28/1991 05/01/2000 8.6 

IMPROVE Sampler Module D - ver 2 05/01/2000 Present 3.7 

Relative Humidity 02/12/1993 06/01/1997 4.3 

Sulfur Dioxide 04/01/1993 02/15/1997 3.9 

Ambient Temperature (aspirated) 02/12/1993 06/01/1997 4.3 

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) 

One of 145 IMPROVE sites is located on Okefenokee Refuge. IMPROVE is a cooperative visibility 

monitoring effort between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, federal land management 

agencies, and state agencies. Its primary purpose is the protection of visibility in Class I areas and 

the characterization of regional haze. 

The IMPROVE sampler collects four simultaneous samples every three days. Trends related to 

hydrogen, major and trace elements from sodium to lead, nitrates, chloride, organic and elemental 

carbon, and PM10 size particles are examined. 
36 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT 

FLORA 

Extensive logging at the turn of the century altered the forested vegetation communities. It created 

large areas suitable for shrub growth. These areas burned frequently during the early 20th century, 

possibly due to the accumulation of logging debris (Loftin 1998). However, fires over the past 150 

years have not been severe enough to change large areas of forests or shrub to prairies or lakes. 

Wildfires between 1952 and 1977 resulted in shrub, shrub-prairie, scrub/shrub, and wet forests 

becoming established in the burned areas. General observations by those familiar with the swamp 

have described the encroachment of shrubs into the prairies, reducing the amount of open areas and 

giving the image of the swamp filling in. Loftin (1998) found that the landscape structure of the 

swamp has not changed today from what was present 150 years ago. However, there have been 

shorter intervals when changes in species and structure have occurred and influenced the system. 

Proportions of wet forest, shrub, and upland forest associations are approaching pre-logged 

conditions, although there have been changes in the species composition within these communities. 

Species composition may affect evapotranspiration and flow rates, wildlife use, and fire occurrence 

and behavior. Logging and fire have a role in shaping the vegetation composition, distribution, and 

structure within the swamp. Most fires have probably only reduced the litter component of the habitat, 

or caused short-term changes in system structure. However, fire suppression may have caused 

greater changes within the wetlands and uplands as more woody plant species became established. 

Wetland Vegetation Classification 

Several vegetation classifications have been used to describe Okefenokee’s swamp interior. 

Wetland forest types are described in the Society of American Foresters (SAF) publication, Forest 

Cover Types of North America (Eyre 1980). Hamilton (1982) described the entire range of wetland 

vegetative types from mature cypress to marsh and open water. Loftin (1998) developed a 21-class 

system. Loftin’s vegetation map created from 1990 satellite images is presented in Figure 10. This 

classification has been used to create a 6-class habitat map (Figure 11) for basic management 

purposes and a fuel model map (Figure 12) for managing fires. 

Appendix III presents Loftin’s 6- and 21-classification and compares it to Hamiliton’s classes and SAF 

types. 

Following are descriptions of Loftin’s wetland classifications shown on the six-class vegetation cover 

type map. Included are five wetland descriptions. Loftin’s sixth classification is upland forest. 

Broadleaved Hardwoods - These are mature, evergreen and deciduous, broadleaved forests. Crown 

density is usually great enough to limit understory vegetation, leaving the understory relatively open. 

This type covers a large portion of the northwest side of the swamp. Much of this area once was 

mature cypress before logging occurred in the early 20th century. Blackgum is found as sprout 

growth in areas where logging removed both cypress and blackgum, and as mature blackgum forests 

where only cypress was removed. Dominant species also include loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus),

red bay (Persea borbonia), sweet bay, largeleaf gallberry, and dahoon holly (Ilex cassine). Small 

patches of shrub are commonly mixed with the bay. Scattered cypress and pine may compose less 

than 20 percent of the canopy. Sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) is common as ground cover 

(Hamilton 1982). Because of the lack of understory vegetation, fire does not readily enter these 

stands except during extreme dry periods. Little is understood about the value of broadleaved forest 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 10. Vegetation cover types of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (Loftin 1998) 
38 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 11. Six-class vegetation cover type for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Figure 12. Fuel model map for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
40 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

in the Okefenokee Swamp. Current research indicates that this habitat, especially blackgum, is 

valuable habitat for bear. Use of this habitat by neotropical migratory birds has not been investigated. 

The stands may also harbor rare or endangered plants. 

Cypress/Hardwoods (Mature) - Pond cypress occurs in the swamp as scattered individuals, small 

patches interspersed with other vegetation, and as large stands. Small “virgin” stands of cypress still 

exist in the north central part of the swamp and southeast part where volumes did not make 

harvesting economical. The subcanopy is often dominated by broad-leaved evergreen species and 

the understory by scrub/shrub species. Sphagnum moss also commonly occurs in this habitat 

(Hamilton 1982). Schlesinger (1978) found this habitat to have low nutrient availability and large peat 

accumulations. Other swamp species were kept in check by recurrent understory fires. Fire 

frequency and intensity also determines stand densities. Most of the cypress biomass is in the tree 

boles rather than in the foliage. Where the canopy is closed, this vegetative type may exhibit some of 

the same habitat characteristics found in the broadleaved hardwoods type. 

Mixed wetland Pine - The mixed wetland pine complex contains a canopy of at least 30 percent pine 

mixed with two or more other vegetation types. Cypress, bay, scrub/shrub and prairie may be 

present in various proportions (Hamilton 1982). Although slash pine grows throughout the swamp, 

the most dense stands grow where the bog is shallow, such as along the swamp’s edge or above 

sand ridges on the swamp’s bottom. Fire often kills the pine component where the understory allows 

severe fire behavior. In other areas, where fire intensity is low, ferns develop below the pine stands 

and fire will maintain a wetland savanna. Associated species are blackgum, loblolly bay, sweet bay, 

pond cypress, and ferns. 

Scrub/Shrub - The scrub/shrub type includes many species of evergreen and deciduous shrubs as 

well as dense even-aged stands of small trees (scrub). In addition, several species of greenbriar 

(Smilax sp.) often cover everything. This evergreen vine is often so dense it masks the deciduous 

shrubs, making the mass appear to be evergreen. No differentiation is shown between most of the 

scrub/shrub types because they appear similar on infra-red photography. Evergreen shrubs include: 

hurrah bush, dahoon holly, largeleaf gallberry, and gallberry. Deciduous shrubs include: titi, common 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), poor man’s soap (Clethra alnifolia), Virginia sweetspire (Itea 

virginica), fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa), and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium fuscatum). Scrub 

species (small trees) include: young cypress, blackgum, and bay trees (Hamilton 1982). Small 

patches of scattered pine, cypress, or hardwood trees may be present in the scrub/shrub. It is 

interesting to speculate in the case of this scattered overstory, which way succession may be 

progressing. In the absence of fire, the scrub or young tree component of the understory may grow, 

joining the scattered overstory crown, shading out the remainder of the understory, eventually 

developing a bog forest; or the dense understory of shrubs may prevent regeneration of the overstory 

component. Fire may kill the scattered overstory, allowing the understory to dominate. It is important 

to note that the scrub component of the understory may be stunted, slowly growing trees that will 

permanently remain part of the understory or they may be vigorous young trees that will eventually 

become overstory. The scrub/shrub vegetative type also contains small patches of prairie. 

Prairie - Shallow marshes of the Okefenokee Swamp are locally called "prairies." Although this term 

is incorrect in a phytogeographical sense, this long-standing term is found in earlier literature on the 

swamp (Wright and Wright 1932; Hopkins 1947; Cypert 1961) and is used on U.S. Geological Survey 

topographical maps. Many of these prairies contain small islands of trees, shrubs, or herbaceous 

vegetation, commonly referred to as "tree houses" or "batteries." These islands cover less than 50 

percent of this mapping unit. Two types of prairie are recognized: aquatic macrophyte prairie and 

herbaceous prairie. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

The aquatic macrophyte prairie contains the following species: Water lily (Nymphaea odorata), 

spatterdock (Nuphar lutea), and floating heart (Nymphoides aquatica). Several herbaceous 

emergents, pickerel weed (Pontederia cordata), golden club (Orontium aquaticum), wampee 

(Peltandria virginica), pipewort (Eriocaulon compressum), and yellow-eyed grass (Xyris smalliana) 

are also common. Masses of bladderwort (Utricularia spp.) and green algae are abundant 

submergents. Sphagnum moss occurs in shallow areas.

 

The herbaceous prairie is dominated by emergents such as sedges. Other taxa often found in 

herbaceous prairies include: Chain fern (Woodwardia virginica); pitcher plants (Sarricenia spp.); 

swamp loosestrife (Decodon verticillatus); paint root (Lacnanthes tinctoria); wampee; golden club; 

water lily; pipewort; and yellow-eyed grass. Less than 10 percent of the area is open water. 

Open Water - Most or all of the lakes in the swamp occur where natural depressions in the 

topography exist or where the peat has been burned out by fires in the past. There is some 

speculation that some of the lakes may have been formed by subsidence of the bed of the swamp 

(e.g., sink holes) but this has not been substantiated. Prairie species and eventually scrub/shrub 

species gradually invade many of Okefenokee's lakes. Other open water areas are the watercourses 

through the swamp. These watercourses are kept open by the flowing action of the water and by 

mechanical means. 

Upland Classification 

Upland vegetation communities at Okefenokee Refuge have been described by Phernetton (2001) 

and relate to the Society of American Foresters (SAF) standard forest cover types. Understory 

species are mentioned but a more in depth discussion on understory/groundcover species follows the 

type descriptions. 

Upland Hardwoods - This forest cover type consists of a mixture of scrub oaks listed in the 

description of SAF Type 72. The type is common throughout the Southeastern Coastal Plain, 

especially in the sand hills, or dry, sandy ridges (Eyre 1980). On the refuge, this type is found on dry, 

infertile, well-drained soils on almost imperceptible rises known locally as oak hammocks 

(hummocks). Some of these stands were once longleaf pine stands with scrub oak in the understory. 

In other cases, the soil type supports very little combustible fine fuels, allowing only low intensity fires 

to pass. With the exclusion of high-intensity fire, these stands pass through successional stages to 

scrub oak. These species have adapted to drought conditions, are shade tolerant, and once 

established are self perpetuating if fire is excluded. Generally the oak leaf litter layer developed is 

relatively fire resistant and other ground vegetation species are patchy. Where large enough to 

constitute a stand, these areas are shown on refuge habitat maps as upland hardwoods. Smaller 

patches of oaks usually are included in longleaf pine stands.

Longleaf Pine - Upland forest stands identified as pure longleaf pine on habitat management maps 

have a basal area comprised of at least 70 percent longleaf pine Some stands on the northwest side 

of the refuge have been maintained in pure condition by periodic fire ignited by cattlemen as late as 

the 1940s. Some of the refuge’s pure longleaf stands are dry and infertile and will not support other 

pine species (i.e., Camp Cornelia area). In the Okefenokee area, slash pine, loblolly pine, and pond 

pine (Pinus serotina) are often located around the stands next to drains and ponds. Where frequent 

fire has occurred, longleaf pine stands may extend to the edge of the swamp with the other pines 

restricted to the very edge of the stand. Longleaf pine stands on the refuge most closely match SAF 

Type 70. Principal hardwoods associated include several scrub oak species, black gum, persimmon 

(Diospyros virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Several of the longleaf pine 

community understory types are located in these stands. Ground cover density and species vary 

considerably depending upon fire history and soil conditions (Eyre 1980). Understory species in this 
42 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

type have been drastically altered by changes in the fire regime. Some areas support dense 

southern rough communities; others, where fire has occurred frequently, support variations of low 

shrub/wire grass communities. 

Longleaf/Mixed Pine - Pine stands are identified as longleaf/mixed pine if the longleaf basal area is 

between 35 and 70 percent. This type is designated on refuge habitat management maps as 

longleaf/mixed pine (LP/MP). Slash, loblolly, or pond pine may comprise the mixed pine component. 

In LP/MP stands, longleaf restoration goals may be accomplished by favoring existing longleaf pine 

during selective thinning operations. Where associated with slash pine, the stand fits the description 

of SAF Type 83. This type occurs on a variety of sites since the range of all of the pine species is 

from dry sandy ridges to poorly drained flatwoods. Longleaf/mixed pine stands occur most often 

where fire is excluded and a slash pine seed source is present. With or without fire, this type is 

temporary. Burning destroys regeneration of other pine species, allowing longleaf pine to dominate 

the stand. Exclusion of fire will allow other pine species and eventually hardwoods to dominate the 

stand. Understory associates vary, depending on fire frequency, soil and topographic features. 

Mixed Pine/Longleaf Pine - Stands are designated as Mixed Pine/Longleaf Pine (MP/LP) where 

longleaf pine is less than 35 percent of the basal area but at least two stems per acre of any size exist. 

In MP/LP stands, some form of regeneration must be utilized to accomplish longleaf pine restoration 

goals. This type exists where the longleaf stand was clear-cut during the 1920s, leaving only a few 

small or unmerchantable stems. Slash, loblolly, or pond pines, formerly restricted to the swamps edge 

or drains by frequent fire, were able to invade the cut over longleaf pine stands. Typically, these stands 

will have a mixture of 50- to 80-year-old slash, loblolly, or pond pine with scattered longleaf pine 

averaging 130 years old. Understory species associated with this type are variations of southern rough, 

low shrub, and grass species, depending on past and current fire activity. 

Mixed Pine - Because the primary upland management goal for the refuge is to restore longleaf pine 

communities wherever possible, slash pine, loblolly pine, and pond pine, whether in pure or mixed 

stands are all classified collectively as “mixed pine” and identified on management maps as MP. 

Predominately slash pine stands are described in SAF Type 84. Loblolly stands are described in 

SAF Type 81. Pond pine stands are described in SAF Type 98. Where possible, longleaf pine will be 

restored on these sites. Associated species are sweetbay, swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), pond 

cypress, pond pine, loblolly bay, live oak (Quercus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak 

(Quercus nigra), and laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica). On higher (but still poorly drained) sites, it 

is associated with loblolly pine, longleaf pine, and several oaks. Ground cover on very wet sites may 

be limited to sphagnum moss. Pure slash pine plantations often exist on disturbed high sites, while 

others exist on poorly drained sites. Understory communities will vary depending on the site, the 

amount of disturbance, and condition (Eyre 1980). 

Wetland Hardwoods - These hardwoods grow on mineral soil wetland flats where fire seldom occurs. 

A great many species, which grow on moist to wet sites, are associated with this hardwood type. 

These include sweetbay, redbay, swamp tupelo, red maple, loblolly bay, sweetgum, water and laurel 

oak, Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), American holly (Ilex opaca), southern magnolia (Magnolia 

grandiflora), pond cypress, and several pine species. The sites are described in SAF Type 104 (Eyre 

1980). On Okefenokee Refuge, these are climax stands that succeed slash pine growing on wetter 

sites. Many understory species may be associated with this type. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Ground Cover Vegetation Types 

Upland understory vegetation responds to reintroduction of fire more rapidly than overstory species. 

While understory species present may be influenced by overstory species and density, they are more 

dependent upon elevation, soil conditions, fire frequency, intensity and season, and other 

catastrophic events. 

Ground cover types are classified in two ways: Classifications representing fuel types important for 

fire management; and understory communities important for habitat management. Understory fuels 

are described in the refuge’s Habitat and Wildlife Management Plan. 

Wiregrass Ridges - Some of the highest parts of the refuge around Camp Cornelia and some islands 

contain fairly well-drained sandy areas, which support wiregrass communities even without the 

occurrence of frequent fire. Soils in these areas are probably Ridgeland sand. Longleaf pine and 

scrub oaks are dominant on these areas because soils are too dry for competing species. Other 

species found in these areas are paw paw (Asimina angustifolia), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia 

humifusa), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and several species of dwarf blueberry.

Palmetto Terraces - These are somewhat poorly drained areas but slightly higher than the flatwoods. 

Soil types may be Mandarin or Leon sands. In the absence of fire, these areas will contain saw 

palmetto along with a mixture of gallberry, greenbriar, and grasses. Growing season fire in these 

areas will stimulate wiregrass, piney woods dropseed (Sporobulus sp.), other warm season grasses, 

shiny blueberry (Vaccinium myrsinites), and huckleberry species (Gaylussacia spp.), and other low 

shrub species. Continued occurrence of growing season fire will cause gallberry, palmetto, and other 

high shrub species to diminish and allow several longleaf pine associated understory communities to 

dominate these areas. 

Gallberry/Palmetto Flatwoods - These understory types are located on the traditional flatwoods areas 

that make up about half of the refuge uplands. Soil types on these flatwoods may be Sapelo fine 

sand or Pelham fine sand and higher Mascotte fine sand. In the absence of fire, gallberry will 

dominate with a heavy palmetto component. Wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), hurrah bush, greenbriar, 

dahoon holly, huckleberry, blueberry, wiregrass, piney wood dropseed, and other grasses are also 

present. Frequent growing season fire will decrease the vigor of hardwood shrubs, allowing warm 

season grasses, low shrubs, and other species to dominate. 

Lower Gallberry Flatwoods - These understory types are in areas of wet or ponded soil types located 

in depressions or adjacent to drainage ways. Gallberry and other hardwood shrubs dominate. 

Scattered clumps of palmetto exist. These areas will burn during dormant or growing seasons. 

Under a frequent growing season fire regime, wiregrass, piney woods dropseed, and other warm 

season grasses and low shrubs will exist in place of the hardwood shrub thicket. 

Upland/Wetland Transition Zones - These understory types are located in the mucky sand soil types 

and generally form a thick band around the edge of most uplands. This tangle of thick hardwood 

shrubs may blend into scrub/shrub areas at the edge of the swamp. Some of these areas may have 

been burned regularly before the natural fire regime was disturbed; others may have burned only 

during dry cycles. Where high-intensity fire has frequently occurred in the past, small open bands of 

grasses and ferns exist within these zones. It is unknown whether these are areas formerly kept 

open by fire that have not yet been invaded by hardwood shrubs, or if some other condition has kept 

them open. Some historical accounts indicate the presence of wetland longleaf pine savannas 

existing within these transition areas. An important unanswered question is whether a long series of 
44 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

growing season fires would create or restore open areas of longleaf pine with an understory of firedependent grasses and shrubs. Longleaf pine stumps are occasionally found in these hardwood 

shrub thickets. It would be impossible for longleaf pine to become established under present 

conditions. 

Endangered Plant Species 

In addition to diminishing plant communities in the Okefenokee area, several native plant species are 

of concern. Although there is only one known native plant species (hairy rattleweed) on the federal 

endangered plant list, several plants on the Georgia list of plants of concern are located in the 

Okefenokee area. These species include: 

Hairy Rattleweed Baptisia arachnifera Endangered 

Silver Buckthorn Sideroxylon alachuense Rare 

Greenfly Orchid Epidendrum conopseum Unusual 

Fly Catcher/Golden Trumpet Sarracenia flava Unusual 

Hooded Pitcher Plant Sarracenia minor Unusual 

Parrot Pitcher Plant Sarracenia psittacina Threatened 

The following plants are located in the Okefenokee area but have not been confirmed on the refuge: 

Purple Honeycomb Head Balduina atropurpurea Rare 

Velvet Sedge Carex dasycarpa Rare 

Dwarf Witch Alder Fothergilla gardenii Threatened 

Hartwrightia Hartwrightia floridana Threatened 

Pond Spice Litsea aestivalis Threatened 

A comprehensive list of plants common to the refuge is located in Appendix IV. 

FAUNA 

Okefenokee Refuge is home to 48 species of mammals, 200 birds, 33 fish, 101 species of reptiles 

and amphibians, and an undetermined number of invertebrates. The executive order establishing the 

refuge stated its purpose as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” 

Although large numbers of waterfowl were reported to use Okefenokee Swamp at that time, they 

were not specifically mentioned in the purpose of the refuge. It was recognized that this area was 

important for a large variety of wildlife. 

Even prior to the swamp becoming a refuge, it drew the attention of herpetologists. It quickly became 

world renown for its amphibian and reptile populations. Besides the expanse of wetland habitats 

inhabited by the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and many species of frogs and turtles, 

the refuge uplands contain many ephemeral ponds. Management of these ponds is important for the 

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum), the striped newt (Notophthalamus perstriatus), the 

gopher frog (Rana areolata aescpus), and other species. 

Okefenokee Refuge is important for large populations of wading birds that find food and shelter. 

Their movements from off-refuge sites and between the open prairies depend on food availability and 

the depth of water. In the past, three to four nesting colonies were found each year. These birds, 

along with the sandhill crane (Grus candensis), are considered to be indicators of the health of the 

wetland system. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Because of its size, the refuge is valuable for species such as the black bear that have large home 

ranges. A healthy population of the Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridianus) exists today, 

moving on and off the refuge depending on the resources available. The Florida panther (Felis 

concolor coryi) once roamed the area as well; however, there have been no recent confirmed 

sightings. 

As the base for the food chain, healthy populations of invertebrates and fish are critical in the support 

of the other fauna. Ensuring that the levels of environmental contaminants are monitored and 

evaluated for potential risks within this group of fauna is a key factor to avoid degradation of the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species that make their home in the refuge include the redcockaded woodpecker, indigo snake, the wood stork, and the flatwoods salamander. The bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) passes through the area and has nested nearby, but has not been known 

to nest on the refuge. The ivory-billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) was part of the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem in the past but has not been seen since 1948. 

The following are several other species that are of special concern on the refuge include: the gopher 

tortoise; Sherman’s fox squirrel (Sciurus niger niger); round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni exoristus); 

Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis); Florida sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis pratensis); 

neotropical migratory birds; black-banded sunfish (Enneacanthus chaetodon); mud sunfish 

(Acantharchus pomotis); and banded topminnow (Fundulus cingulatus). 

Appendix V contains a list of wildlife species native to the refuge. Appendix VI shows associations 

between native wildlife species and the vegetation types. 

Birds

The refuge was established for the conservation of migratory birds. There are many priority species, 

both migratory and resident, for which the refuge provides habitat. Wading birds are the most 

noticeable inhabitants of the wetland habitats and may actually serve as indicators of the health of the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem. This includes the resident population of Florida sandhill cranes, which are 

possibly unique because of their isolation. Wood ducks (Aix sponsa) also use the refuge throughout 

the year. Other waterfowl species migrate through the refuge. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), swallowtailed kites (Elanoides forficatus), and neotropical migratory birds also make use of the wetlands. In 

addition, upland management efforts have focused primarily on the red-cockaded woodpecker, which 

relies on mature longleaf pine uplands within the refuge. Many migratory and other resident bird 

species are associated with these open pine forests on the refuge. 

Wading Birds - Okefenokee Refuge supports large numbers of wading birds. Great egrets (Ardea 

alba); great blue herons (Ardea herodias); white ibis (Eudomicus albus); and little blue herons 

(Egretta caerulea) are common in the open prairies. In the early 1900s, hunting was a factor 

influencing wading bird populations in the swamp. Wright and Harper (1913) and Hebard (1941) 

noted that large colonies were present on Floyds Island, Chase, and Mixons Prairies. Today, Grand, 

Chase, and Chesser Prairies appear to be used the most by wading birds. Surveys of waterbirds 

have included monthly counts in selected prairies via an airboat. An annual aerial survey during the 

breeding season has been used to check historic colony sites for activity. 

Many of the wading birds currently utilizing the wetlands are foraging within the refuge and nesting 

elsewhere. From 1992 through 2001, surveys indicate there has been an increase in use by white 

ibis during the summer months. Drought conditions throughout the region during this time may have 
46 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

forced them to the large wetlands such as the Okefenokee Swamp that still had some water left. 

However, many of the historic nest sites have been abandoned. Reasons for the loss of breeding 

colonies remains unclear, but it may also be related to changing water levels and food resources. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and many state agencies have begun 

collaborating to create a system of periodic inventories of colonial waterbirds in the United States. 

Future refuge surveys may contribute to these efforts along with an understanding of regional 

movements of these birds. Spatial distribution of wading birds reflects the location of appropriate 

water levels for foraging. As water levels recede during prolonged periods of drought, ibis, egrets, 

and herons shift their distribution to suitable feeding sites. With consistent survey methods, the 

relative numbers of these common long-legged waders using the refuge, in association with their 

location, may provide important information indicating the aquatic habitat conditions that they prefer 

and the differences between prairies within the swamp. Changes within the swamp may also be 

revealed by examining this data over the next 15 years. 

Sandhill Crane - Prior to the 1940s, breeding sandhill crane populations could be found from the 

Texas coast to peninsular Florida and may have formed a contiguous population prior to European 

settlement. Today, remnant populations are found in coastal Mississippi and peninsular Florida and 

southeast Georgia. The Mississippi subspecies is listed as federally endangered, while the Florida 

subspecies is generally considered stable but is listed as threatened by the State of Florida. The 

resident population of Florida sandhill cranes at Okefenokee Refuge is a non-migratory population 

that is considered to be isolated from other populations of cranes in the southeast. However, greater 

sandhill cranes from the upper midwestern United States and Ontario migrate through or spend the 

winter months with resident cranes on the refuge. Wright and Harper (1913) noted that cranes were 

found throughout the refuge’s wet prairie habitat. Extensive logging within the swamp during the 

early 1900s may have resulted in greater opportunities for crane hunters and possibly resulted in 

over-hunting and a decline in the population (Bennett 1989). Bennett also suggested that the 

practice of fire suppression in the swamp in the mid- to late-1900s likely resulted in shrub/scrub 

vegetation encroachment and reduced the size of wet prairie habitat that is important to this species. 

Florida sandhill cranes are commonly seen in most of the large prairies – Grand, Chesser, Chase, 

Floyds, Maul Hammock, and Sapling prairies. Bennett (1989) estimated the Florida sandhill crane 

population within the swamp in the late 1980s to be 403, which included approximately 160 pairs. 

These numbers were obtained from extensive call counts and low level (32 m) helicopter flights 

searching for birds and nests. Refuge staff have counted the sandhill cranes that are observed 

during monthly bird surveys within the swamp. An average of 21.3 cranes between March and 

October are seen in the eastern and northern prairies. Staff also conduct an annual aerial survey in 

late October as part of a cooperative effort by the Service to estimate the size of the eastern United 

States’ migratory greater sandhill crane population. In most years, these surveys probably count 

resident birds, since most migratory cranes typically do not arrive until mid-November. Between 1990 

and 2003 (excluding 2001 when it appears an early migration took place), this aerial survey resulted 

in counts averaging 10.2 cranes within the major prairie areas. Despite differences in counts and 

area surveyed, it appears that there is a decline in the population of resident Florida sandhill cranes 

since the mid-1980s that needs to be investigated further. 

The migratory greater sandhill cranes generally arrive at the refuge the first or second week of 

November and the majority depart during the first two weeks of February. At times, their numbers 

have reached over 1,000 birds. These birds travel from Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan to the Jasper-Pulaski Wildlife Area staging ground in northwestern Indiana before 

proceeding to Georgia and Florida. Refuge counts of this migration have been conducted during 

monthly bird surveys conducted by airboat. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Wood Stork (Endangered) - The wood stork is also known locally as wood ibis, iron head, or gannet. 

The breeding area of the wood stork in the southeastern United States may have once extended from 

Texas to South Carolina. Currently within the United States, the majority of the breeding area is in 

Florida with about 20 percent in Georgia and South Carolina. United States’ breeding populations 

have been declining since the 1930s. The wood stork was determined to be endangered in 1984. 

The primary reason for declining populations is loss of suitable wetland habitat, alteration of natural 

hydroperiods, and a corresponding decline of their food base. The bird primarily feeds on small fish. 

An important wetland habitat involves the seasonal flooding of extensive areas of flat, low-lying marsh 

areas, followed by drying so that water is increasingly restricted to ponds and sloughs. Fish 

populations reach high numbers during the wet season, but become concentrated in increasingly 

restricted habitats as drying occurs. Groups of wood storks “grope feed” as they wade through these 

shallow ponds, stirring up concentrations of small fish. Breeding activities are apparently triggered by 

these seasonally heavy concentrations of fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servcie 1986). 

In this area, the majority of wood stork nesting occurs in Florida and coastal Georgia with movement 

into the Okefenokee Swamp in the summer and fall after the nesting season. Wood storks move 

onto the refuge in increasing numbers between June and August. Surveys for wading birds 

conducted by refuge staff have counted wood storks along with other waders. They are often seen in 

feeding groups in Grand, Chesser, and Chase Prairies. Their distribution is highly dependent on the 

fluctuating water conditions of the current year. 

Wood stork nesting activity within the refuge was first documented in 1967 when 12 nests were found 

at Cravens Hammock. Nests were again observed in 1976 and 1977 but have not been reported 

since this time. 

Waterfowl - Okefenokee Refuge is a temporary stopping point and overwintering site for waterfowl 

migrating along the Atlantic Flyway. However, the refuge only supports a small number of ducks 

compared to other refuges and wetlands along the east coast. Hebard (1941) reported that flocks of 

several thousand ducks spent the winter months at Okefenokee Refuge. He noted that the most 

common species included ring-necked ducks (Aythya collaris) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos). 

These species, along with blue-winged (Anas discors) and green-winged teal (Anas crecca) and 

wood ducks, are still observed individually and/or in small flocks on surveys but not in the numbers 

reported by Hebard. Wood ducks are the most common resident species of waterfowl on the refuge. 

Wright and Harper (1913) listed this species as the only resident species that was common 

throughout the swamp. Until the 1990s, refuge staff actively trapped and banded several hundred 

wood ducks annually at bait areas on the east and west sides of the refuge. The staff also submitted 

early January counts of waterfowl as part of the annual national winter waterfowl count. 

Osprey - Early records indicate that ospreys were fairly common and widely distributed throughout 

the refuge; nests were found in Chase, Honey Island, and Floyds Island Prairies and near Minnies 

Lake (Wright and Harper 1913). The refuge has monitored osprey nest sites via an annual aerial 

survey. During the past decade, the distribution of active osprey nests appears to have shifted 

toward “The Pocket” area. Many of the nest sites that were identified and monitored by refuge staff 

during the 1980s are abandoned. This shift and observed decline in nesting activity may be due to 

changes in the hydrology and the availability of food items. The distribution of osprey nests may 

again change in the future as the former river floodplain hydrologic regime within “The Pocket” area is 

restored by the breaching of the Suwannee River Sill. 

Bald Eagle - Nesting bald eagles are observed along the St. Marys River and at Banks Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge; however, the only bald eagle reported nesting within Okefenokee Refuge was in 

1957 near Buzzards Roost Lake. More sightings of bald eagles occur during the winter months. 
48 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Although there are more observations, aerial surveys conducted by refuge staff in early January to 

contribute to a national bald eagle survey have resulted in no observations. In addition, since eagles 

occur in low numbers in Georgia, no Georgia surveys are used in the national population trend 

analysis. Considering the cost of an aerial survey, time commitment, and the lack of observations 

and contribution to the national picture, it is not worthwhile to conduct an aerial survey during the 

specified winter count. However, records of all bald eagle sightings throughout the year will continue 

to be kept in the refuge files. 

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker (Endangered) - The ivory-billed woodpecker is North America’s largest and 

rarest woodpecker and until recently was believed to be extinct. The bird originally lived in swamps 

from southeastern North Carolina to eastern Texas. The woodpecker feeds upon wood-boring insects 

that live in the inner bark or between the bark and sapwood of dead or dying, old-growth pine and 

hardwood (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1967). Old-growth sweetgum stands are a particularly 

important habitat for the ivory billed woodpecker (Cypert 1965) as well. Most of the ivory-billed 

woodpeckers observed in the swamp were near Minnies Island, probably the most suitable habitat in 

the swamp. Before logging operations, the island contained an old-growth oak and sweetgum stand on 

one lobe of the island adjacent to an old-growth pine stand on another lobe. John M. Hopkins saw 

several of the birds while cruising timber for the Hebard Cypress Company between 1901 and 1903 

(Cypert 1965). In 1912, a wounded ivory-billed woodpecker was taken near Minnies Island and 

presented to refuge manager John Hopkins. Biologist Carter saw one in 1941 and 1942 in the area of 

Suwannee Canal’s Big Bend and Billys Bay. The latest sighting (reliable but unconfirmed) of an ivorybilled woodpecker was by Frederick V. Hebard near Grand Prairie Gap (Goose House Gap) in 1948. 

Although it is very unlikely the species persists due to the historical degradation of forested habitats 

during the early 1900s, habitat conditions that could support the species are returning on refuge lands 

through a combination of passive and active forest management. The potential also exists for longterm reintroduction or natural expansion of the species into this area. 

Swallow-tailed Kite - Early records of swallow-tailed kites indicate that they were commonly seen over 

islands (Wright and Harper 1913). These birds once occurred as far north as Minnesota and 

throughout the south; but, population declines in the early 1900s resulted in only a fraction of the 

original range being occupied. The total population today is estimated at fewer than 5,000 birds. The 

reasons for the drastic decline of this striking black and white raptor are uncertain but likely include 

habitat loss and illegal shooting. Today, swallow-tailed kites are found nesting only in association 

with major river systems in the southeast from South Carolina to Texas, with the majority of the 

population found in peninsular Florida. Following the breeding season, kites migrate through Central 

America and most of the United States’ population may winter in central Brazil. 

Prior to the State of Georgia’s Swallow-tailed Kite Initiative that began in 1997, there were no 

documented nests in the state. Nest surveys began in Georgia during 1999. More than 75 nests 

have been found, most of which are located in very large loblolly pine trees within mature bottomland 

forests or remnants of these forests. All but one of these nests is located on private lands. These 

lands are intensively managed for timber production. The only nest on public land was found on the 

western boundary of Okefenokee Refuge in 2001. The state has conducted aerial surveys over the 

swamp and the refuge actively participates in the state’s observation reporting system. 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Endangered) - The refuge has been designated part of the Osceola 

National Forest/Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge recovery population under the Service’s Redcockaded Woodpecker Recovery Plan (2003). Approximately 38 clusters of red-cockaded 

woodpecker (RCW) cavities are currently active (2003) on the refuge. Twenty-four of the active 

clusters are located on five upland pine islands in the interior of the swamp and fourteen are located 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

in the upland management compartments around the perimeter of the swamp. Table 5 and Figure 13 

show the distribution of RCW clusters on the refuge. Suitable habitat on the refuge is fragmented. 

Examining the distribution of clusters and the distances between them, four sub-populations are 

identified: northwest, central, east, and south. Considering demographic isolation, populations of 2-

10 clusters are less likely to persist over the next 20 years, especially if immigration does not occur 

(Crowder et al., 1998). 

Early biological reports (Carter 1941, 1942) indicate that the RCW was not abundant on Okefenokee 

Refuge, although other naturalists and biologists imply that it may have been abundant on some 

islands before logging in the 1920s (Hebard 1941; Wright & Harper 1913). Harper (1921-1929) 

identified RCWs on five islands (Billy’s, Blackjack, Bugaboo, Chesser, and Floyds) in his notes from 

1921 to 1929. It is probable that the longleaf pine communities surrounding the refuge provided 

superior habitat to the fragmented, isolated stands in the swamp (Figure 14) and the birds were 

concentrated on adjacent lands. As mature timber was removed from these lands, the RCW 

gradually began to occupy refuge uplands. 

For two or three decades, RCW populations probably increased in numbers on the refuge as longleaf 

pine stands matured, supported by second and third growth natural pine stands on private lands. 

Dormant season prescribed fire, introduced in management compartments in the 1960s and 1970s, 

followed by dormant season fire on the interior islands in the 1980s significantly improved RCW 

habitat within the refuge. A temporary increase in RCW activity resulted during this period in 

response to improved habitat within the refuge. This continued until the early 1990s when natural 

second growth pine stands adjacent to the refuge were clearcut and replaced with short rotation pine 

plantations leaving small isolated and fragmented refuge stands as the only habitat available. The 

natural second growth pine stands provided foraging and corridors for dispersal. Since 1990, active 

clusters have decreased in number or disappeared in almost all of the management compartments 

and some of the interior islands. Although habitat throughout the upland management compartments 

is improving, remaining groups are too isolated or too small to increase. During the mid-1970s, 

several clusters were using old longleaf pine stands in state and local parks, private yards, and other 

public places. Most of these are gone. Several other clusters are located in mature, commercial 

longleaf pine stands surrounding the swamp. Most of these are at risk as these mature longleaf pine 

stands are harvested. 

The Osceola National Forest RCW population of 84 groups (2004) is located primarily in the southern 

portion of the forest, which is approximately 40 miles southwest of the refuge. The acquisition of 

Pinhook Swamp, connecting the refuge and Osceola National Forest, is progressing. However, this 

land is also a naturally fragmented and highly modified industrial forestry. 

With limited possibilities on the refuge for expanding the RCW population to sustainable levels, 

developing management agreements with surrounding landowners to enhance foraging habitat and 

dispersal pathways is critical. To date, one agreement with Georgia Forestry Commission and 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources is in place that provides an additional 1,279 acres that will 

be managed for foraging habitat adjacent to upland management compartment 1. An agreement with 

International Paper is currently being drafted that will increase timber rotation to approximately 30 

years on 6,300 acres adjacent to compartment 3. 

In 1994, staff began to install artificial cavities within the refuge’s upland management compartments 

to provide suitable cavities within existing clusters and to create recruitment clusters to attract 

dispersing birds. No artificial cavities have been placed within the wilderness area due to issues 

related to access, chainsaw use, and the value of an unmanipulated population. Banding of RCWs 
50 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

began at the refuge in 1996. Only birds occupying clusters within the refuge’s upland management 

compartments are banded. Red-cockaded woodpeckers occupying territories on interior wilderness 

islands have not been banded due to access issues. 

In 1998, augmentation of the northwest sub-population, where only one pair remained in upland 

management compartment 15, began with two pairs translocated from Appalachicola National Forest. 

Another 10 birds were translocated from Ft. Stewart in 1999 and 2000, bringing the total number of 

translocations to 14 birds. In 2004, there were five active clusters that attempted to nest in 

compartment 15 and four pairs that fledged young. 

The refuge conducted a review of RCW management in June 1999. The RCW recovery coordinator, 

Ralph Costa, and regional refuge program supervisor, Ricky Ingram, participated in the review and 

based on the resulting recommendations, the original RCW population target of 126 groups was 

revised and established at 86 groups. The original population goal was based on 24,413 acres of 

pine uplands and 86 clusters is based on an estimation of 18,500 acres of upland pine forest that will 

be potentially suitable for woodpecker habitat. 

RCW management was also part of the review of the refuge’s biological program in 2001. Reviewers 

suggested that highest priority be given to augmenting the existing habitat through agreements with 

surrounding landowners, acquisition of uplands adjacent to existing perimeter compartments, and 

development of a model to predict the likelihood of long-term viability of refuge subpopulations. 

Resident Upland Bird Communities - Active management of upland pine stands, which includes 

commercial thinning, planting, and prescribed fire, is only conducted on the perimeter of the swamp. 

On the wilderness islands, only prescribed and wildland fires are used to manage the habitat. As 

stated previously, most of the management efforts on upland habitats is designed to meet the 

requirements of the RCW through restoration of mature longleaf pine forests, the native community 

that once covered large portions of the southeast. However, this habitat type is also beneficial to 

other “priority” species as well. Bachman’s sparrows reside in many of the upland pine forests, both 

on the perimeter of the refuge and on islands. These sparrows require open uneven-aged pine 

habitat with sparse midstory vegetation, conditions similar to RCWs. Use of prescribed fire is 

essential in these communities. The use of growing-season over dormant-season burns is 

emphasized. Other priority species that should benefit from these management actions include 

Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), chuck-will’s-widow 

(Caprimulgus carolinensis), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), redheaded woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), eastern wood-pewee (Contopus virens), and 

northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). 

Breeding bird point counts are established within the refuge’s upland habitats. This effort needs to be 

expanded and the results shared through regional databases. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds - Over the past few decades, scientists have detected a decline in the 

numbers of migratory birds to Central and South America. This decline has been attributed to the 

destruction of wintering habitat in tropical forests, predation, inclement weather during migration, and 

collisions with communication towers and utility lines. Although the movement patterns of landbirds 

migrating across inland portions of the southeastern United States are not very well understood, 

scientists have enough information to be concerned with loss of what is termed “stopover habitat” 

(i.e., places where migrating birds can rest and replenish their energy supply during long distance 

flights). Very little is known about the neotropical migratory birds that use the refuge. The 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Table 5. RCW clusters on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in 2003

Upland All clusters 

Management Compartment 

Active Inactive 

Artificial 

clusters Total Clusters 

2 0 2 1 2

3 7 4 3 11

4 0 2 1 2

5 0 5 1 5

6 0 1 1 1

7 0 2 0 2

8 0 1 1 1

11 0 1 1 1

12 0 2 0 2

13 0 2 1 2

14 0 2 2 2

15 7 3 5 10

Billys Island 11 4 0 15

Blackjack Island 2 5 0 7

Bugaboo Island 1 5 0 6

Honey Island 6 4 0 10

Mitchell Island 4 1 0 5

Number One Island 0 2 0 2

Totals 38 48 17 86

scrub/shrub habitat has drawn large flocks of these birds in other locations and may do the same 

within the refuge. The significance of the various habitats to this group of birds needs to be 

investigated to determine the role the refuge plays in migration corridors. 

Okefenokee Refuge also supports a number of species throughout the winter months. Hebard (1941) 

reported that Henslow’s sparrows (Ammodramus henslowii) were common during winter in several 

open areas. Suppression of fire and the widespread use of dormant-season prescribed fire may have 
52 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 13. Distribution of RCW clusters on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (2003) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Figure 14. Distribution of mature pine forest (>60 years) in vicinity of Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge 
54 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

promoted less suitable habitat for over-wintering sparrows. Growing-season burns should be beneficial 

to several species, such as the Henslow’s, field (Spizella pusilla), Le Conte’s (Ammodramus leconteii), 

and grasshopper (Ammodramus savannarum) sparrows by reducing palmettos, gallberry, and ferns 

and promoting grassy-herbaceous conditions preferred by these species. 

Mammals 

In the past, monitoring of mammal populations on the refuge has been limited primarily to game 

species. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) spotlight counts and black bear bait station 

surveys have been conducted by refuge staff while state agency and university biologists have 

conducted studies on deer herd health and black bear home range and habitat use. The Okefenokee 

Ecosystem was also looked at as a future potential reintroduction site for Florida panthers. Other key 

species that occur on the refuge include the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii) and 

round-tailed muskrat. 

White-tailed Deer - White-tailed deer are abundant throughout the refuge. They are commonly seen 

on the uplands, as well as traversing the wetlands. With private hunt clubs surrounding the refuge, 

deer move between the refuge and adjacent timber lands depending on available food sources and 

hunting pressure. 

The refuge allows hunting of deer at the east entrance, on “The Pocket”, and on the uplands on 

Cowhouse Island. In 2003, 12 deer were taken at the east entrance in two days, 11 deer were taken 

during the archery only hunt on “The Pocket” over a 34-day hunt, and 4 deer were taken on 

Cowhouse Island during a 4-day hunt. The refuge has surveyed the population at the east entrance 

and on “The Pocket” in the past. The deer taken at the east entrance were aged and weighted. This 

limited data set was determined to be of little scientific value and thus, the surveys have been 

stopped. Currently, the refuge periodically checks the health of the deer population. 

Florida Black Bear - The Florida black bear, the subspecies found at Okefenokee Refuge, has been 

proposed for listing as a federally threatened species and its current status is under court review. 

Historically, this subspecies occurred throughout Florida and the coastal plains of Georgia, Alabama, 

and Mississippi (Hall 1981). Urbanization and conversion of forested lands to agriculture have 

reduced the bears’ range to seven disjunct populations. Research by Dobey et al., (2002) studied the 

distribution and habitat use of bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola ecosystem. Dobey et al., estimated 

the population in this ecosystem to be approximately 400. Bears exhibited a preference for 

gum/bay/cypress habitats. Average home range sizes were 21.6 mi2

 and 132.4 mi2 for female and 

male bears, respectively. 

On upland and bottomland hardwood habitats within the refuge, black gum and palmetto fruits are 

considered important food sources for bears prior to the winter season. The availability of black gum 

fruit plays a role in the availability of bear on the uplands during the hunting season. If there is a 

good crop of black gum fruit, bears tend to stay within the wetlands of the swamp. If it is a poor year 

for black gum, bears seek the mast found on the uplands surrounding the swamp, increasing their 

contact with hunters. Frequency and timing of dormant season burns may be important to consider in 

providing suitable forage resources for bears on the uplands. A shift to growing season burns, which 

will be more effective in reducing and maintaining understory vegetation, should restore some native 

grasses but may reduce the amount of saw palmetto and mast producing oak on upland sites. 

Burning that is too frequent may affect the berry crop that the bears also utilize. 

In cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the refuge has conducted 

annual bait-station surveys in six (34 stations) perimeter compartments around the south and west 

borders of the refuge. Georgia DNR maintains another 160 bait stations around the perimeter of the 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

refuge. Over the past 23 years, an average of 38 bears have been harvested in the counties 

surrounding the swamp. No bear hunting has been allowed on the refuge. 

Florida Panther (Endangered) - The Florida panther is one of 27 subspecies of the cougar. It is one of 

the most endangered large mammals in the world. Before European settlement, the original distribution 

of the cougar throughout North America corresponded with that of the white-tailed deer and the mule 

deer. This subspecies once ranged throughout the southeast. The Florida panther, which once 

intermixed with the eastern cougar, is now the only cougar subspecies known to survive east of the 

Mississippi River. The only documented populations now surviving are in remote areas of south Florida, 

although confirmed sightings have occurred as far north as Glades and Palm Beach Counties, Florida. 

The range of the Florida panther varies from 25 to 500 square miles depending on season and 

circumstances. Two centuries of hunting and habitat destruction have contributed to reduction of the 

subspecies to its present level. The Florida population of the subspecies is now estimated to be 30 to 

50 animals. The goal of the recovery plan is to establish three self-sustaining populations within the 

historic range of the panther, two of which will have to be reestablished populations. 

No confirmed sightings have occurred in the vicinity of the refuge. The more intensely managed 

uplands may not provide adequate habitat; however, the interior of the swamp and some of the 

islands may provide enough suitable, undisturbed habitat for this species. Okefenokee Refuge was 

included in a panther reintroduction feasibility study conducted in the mid-1990s. The areas that 

were being considered for reintroduction were evaluated based on site size, prey density, human 

population density, paved highway density, land use, human attitudes toward reintroduction, human 

population growth, and land ownership. Okefenokee Refuge was not one of the top five rated sites 

for reintroduction of the Florida panther. 

Round-tailed Muskrat -The range of the round-tailed muskrat in Georgia, which is included in the 

state’s list of rare species, is restricted to Okefenokee Refuge and the Grand Bay - Banks Lake 

ecosystem in south central Georgia. Harper (1920) was the first to record this species in Georgia. 

He found neofiber to be common on most wet prairies, including Cowhouse, Floyds Island, Chesser, 

Grand, and Honey Island. Harper (1927) wrote that round-tailed muskrat nests on Floyd’s Island 

Prairie in June 1921 were “beyond belief, far surpassing anything seen there on previous trips.” This 

observation seems to indicate that populations were probably cyclic, fluctuating in relation to 

hydrologic conditions in the swamp. Observations of this species’ nests are infrequent today. 

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat - Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is a species of concern and on the Georgia 

list of rare species. Early records from Harper (1927) indicated that this species was the most 

common bat species seen during the summer months at Okefenokee Refuge. The primary roost 

sites for this species are hollow cavities in large old-growth cypress trees. Since most of the large 

cypress were removed from Okefenokee Swamp prior to the establishment of the refuge, lack of roost 

sites may be a limiting factor for this species. Its current status on the refuge is unknown. 

Fish

Historically, fish communities of the Okefenokee Swamp have been poorly studied resulting from 

inaccessibility and difficulty in surveying swamp habitats. It was not until 1920 that the first published 

records of fishes inhabiting the swamp became available (Palmer and Wright 1920). This survey was 

the only major account of the fish assemblage in the swamp until Laerm and Freeman published 

“Fishes of Okefenokee Swamp” in 1986. Laerm and Freeman (1986) identified 36 species of fish 

representing 14 families, as well as provided life-history information and qualitative assessments of 

species abundance and habitat use in the swamp. Despite the advances of these works, the 

population dynamics of the fish assemblage within the swamp are poorly understood. 
56 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Recreational fishing in the refuge has been well known locally, as well as through the southeast, for 

the quality of its sport fishery. Early reports from Palmer and Wright (1920) indicated that flier 

(Centrarchus macropterus) and bowfin (Amia calva) were common in the early 1900s. Fish surveys 

from 1992-2001 indicate that bowfin and flier remain the numerically dominant taxa in the eastern 

portion of the swamp, representing over 88 percent of all fishes collected (Herrington et al., 2004). 

Results also indicate that the dominant fish species (e.g., bowfin, flier, warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), 

and chain pickerel (Esox niger)) were persistent and stable over the past 10 years. When combined 

with the high catch-per-unit-effort and angler-preferable sizes reported, this indicates that the swamp 

supports an excellent flier and bowfin fishery, as well as a good fishery for chain pickerel and 

warmouth (Herrington et al., 2004). 

There has been concern over the status of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) and bluegill 

(Lepomis macrochirus) in the swamp since the early 1940s. Stocking of largemouth bass and bluegill 

was used to boost the swamp’s populations after low water in 1942, 1956, and 1965. Anecdotal 

information, as well as more recent survey data, indicates that the stocked largemouth bass and 

bluegill fishery has declined from the 1940s and currently are rarely encountered. Herrington et al., 

(2004) have suggested the lack of traditional sport fishes and other fishes common to the area is 

likely attributable to the abiotic conditions of the swamp, specifically low pH levels. Declines in 

stocked bass and bluegill may also indicate declines in other more sensitive species; however, there 

is no evidence for this trend, as forage fishes (including rare species like the black-banded sunfish) 

have not been adequately sampled. Heavy metal contamination may also play a role in the decline of 

these species, as surveys by the Service and University of Georgia indicate higher than accepted 

levels of mercury in bowfin, flier, chain pickerel, and warmouth. However, it is likely that the swamp 

never supported a strong natural population of largemouth bass and bluegill. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptiles and amphibians (herps) are an important component of both the wetlands and uplands of the 

refuge. Early investigations of amphibians in the swamp were conducted by A. H. Wright in the early 

1900s. Wright (1932) focused primarily on gathering basic information on frog species within the swamp. 

Many populations of herps are declining nationwide due to combinations of habitat loss, environmental 

degradation, and exploitation. Federally listed species occurring on the refuge include the indigo snake 

and the American alligator. Other species that are either in decline or have specialized habitat 

requirements include the gopher tortoise, striped newt, flatwoods salamander, gopher frog, pine snake 

(Pituophis melanoleucus), eastern hognose (Heterodon platyrhinos), diamondback rattlesnake 

(Crotalus adamanteus), and eastern glass lizard (Ophisaurua ventralis). All except the flatwoods 

salamander are known to be currently present on the refuge. These upland species are found in pine 

habitats with an open understory. Understory requirements for these species are consistent with 

understory objectives for restoring native longleaf pine communities. When fire is eliminated or 

infrequent in longleaf pine communities, habitat for these species is reduced or degraded. The 

amphibians mentioned above also depend on temporary wetlands that do not contain fish. These 

species require a suitable wetland surrounded by an appropriate amount of suitable upland. 

American Alligator - The American alligator, considered a sentinel of the swamp, is one of two 

members of the order Crocodilia existing in North America. The other species, the American 

crocodile (Crocodylus actus) is found only in south Florida. The natural range of the American 

alligator is throughout all of Louisiana and Florida, and parts of Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, 

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina (Chabreck1967) 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Alligators are one of the prime landscape architects of the swamp. The Okefenokee Swamp is crisscrossed with alligator trails and small alligator pools that have been excavated from the peat. This 

forms a network of travel corridors used by many other species inhabiting the swamp. In addition, 

their eggs provide food for raccoons (Procyon lotor elucus) and black bears. 

This reptile was once present in tremendous numbers, proving at first, a nuisance to settlers, but later 

provided a means of livelihood. During the mid 19th century, the demand for alligator hides for shoes, 

boots, saddlebags, and other items began to grow. From this point until the mid 20th century, millions 

were slaughtered for this purpose. In Florida and Louisiana, between 1880 and 1904, alligator 

populations had been reduced 80 percent (Chabreck 1967). By the middle of the 20th century, the 

American alligator was practically non-existent over most of its range except where rigid protection 

was provided. Alligator populations continued to decrease even after protective legislation was 

enacted by the states during the 1960s due to continued illegal hunting (Chabreck 1971). 

The Endangered Species Act passed by Congress in 1970, controlled the shipment of alligators or 

hides across state lines. This coupled with closed hunting seasons by the states, effectively curtailed 

the alligator skin trade and subsequently the illegal kill of the animal (Chabreck 1971). The alligator 

was downlisted from endangered to threatened throughout its range in 1987. Although the population 

has recovered, it is still listed due to similarity with the endangered American crocodile. Georgia 

started an alligator hunting season in select locations in 2003. 

Alligator populations in the refuge remained in good condition throughout the 1960s in spite of a great 

deal of illegal hunting. This may be due to vast areas of the swamp being remote and inaccessible to 

hunters. Present alligator populations in the Okefenokee Swamp are estimated to be about 10-

12,000. The numbers fluctuate with duration of drought conditions as open water areas increase or 

decrease. Fewer alligators are found outside the refuge boundary as development increases in the 

area. Also, contaminants that have accumulated within the food chain are present in the alligators of 

the refuge and may be affecting reproduction. 

Eastern Indigo Snake (Threatened) - The eastern indigo snake is Georgia’s largest snake, attaining 

a maximum length of about 81⁄2 feet. During the warmer spring and summer months, indigos are 

found in mesic habitats, such as river floodplains or other wetlands, where they hunt a variety of small 

prey. During late fall and winter, indigo snakes retreat to the much drier sand ridges where they seek 

shelter from the cooler weather in tortoise burrows and stump holes. They are active during the 

winter, their breeding season, and seek prey all through the winter. Open, park-like habitat is 

preferable because the snake requires a sunny area to warm up before it can seek prey. 

 

Factors limiting the distribution of the snake include habitat loss and degradation. Disruption of the 

natural fire regime has allowed dense scrub oak thickets to invade longleaf pine communities. In 

addition to needing the open understory for sunning, this community is also the preferred habitat of 

the gopher tortoise, whose burrow is the snake’s primary winter shelter. Site preparation for pine 

plantations eliminates gopher tortoise and any available stump holes. Conversion of suitable habitat 

for other uses has severely fragmented the remaining habitat. Many are killed on the highway. 

Gassing or smoking out gopher tortoise burrows to control diamondback rattlesnakes is also a major 

threat to indigo snakes. Effects of pesticides which accumulate in indigo snakes (because they are 

high on the food chain) may be a contributing factor to reduced numbers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1982). In the past, large numbers were collected for the pet trade. 

A survey that began in 1978 by Joan E Diemer and Dan W. Speake of the Alabama Cooperative 

Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University, indicated a population of approximately 45 eastern indigo 

snakes in the Okefenokee basin (Diemer and Speake 1983). The current status of this snake on the 
58 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

uplands of the refuge is not known and needs to be evaluated. Sightings of this reptile are common 

in the Camp Cornelia area. Information gathered from this effort could be used to help prioritize 

areas for burning. Efforts should be made to maintain appropriate site conditions in areas with high 

gopher tortoise or indigo snake use. The refuge’s management of the longleaf pine communities is 

compatible with the needs of the indigo snake. 

Gopher Tortoise - The gopher tortoise occurs in the southeastern Coastal Plain from South Carolina 

to Louisiana. They are associated with well-drained sandy soils, which support a variety of firedependent plant communities. The gopher tortoise constructs subterranean tunnels, averaging 15 

feet in length, which protect the tortoise from temperature extremes, desiccation and predators 

(Diemer 1986). The burrows are of particular ecological importance. Their use has been 

documented by 60 vertebrates and 302 invertebrates (Jackson and Milstrey 1989). 

The major reasons for the decline of the gopher tortoise are habitat destruction, habitat degradation, 

and human predation. Recovery is very slow. Female gopher tortoises do not reach sexual maturity 

until 10 to 20 years of age. They produce a single annual clutch of about six eggs. Eggs and 

hatchlings are heavily predated (Diemer 1986). Gopher tortoises have been documented throughout 

the higher regions of upland management compartment 3, where Trail Ridge passes through the 

compartment. Throughout most of the refuge uplands, drainage is too poor to allow the tortoise to 

construct its burrows. Billys and Blackjack Islands have some suitable habitat for gopher tortoises 

and may have supported the tortoise in the past. The tortoise may have been exterminated by 

residents of the island during the logging era (Speak 1988). 

Flatwoods Salamander (Threatened) - The range of the flatwoods salamander is restricted to the 

coastal plains of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. These salamanders live in mesic 

flatwoods habitats within the vanishing longleaf pine/wiregrass communities. Breeding sites are 

typically shallow ephemeral cypress or tupelo ponds that have diverse emergent and submergent 

herbaceous vegetation with a relatively open canopy of primarily cypress (Dodd and Laclair 1995). 

The herbaceous, grass, sedge dominated perimeters of ponds are important sites for salamander 

egg deposition. Survival of larvae is dependent upon the rise of water levels in late winter and the 

absence of fish species that would consume the larvae. Both the terrestrial and pond sites are 

dependent on lightning season fires to maintain an open site and promote growth of grasses, sedges, 

and forbs (Jensen 1999). 

Habitat loss has been the primary cause of this salamander’s demise throughout its range. 

Agricultural and silviculture have eliminated the vast majority of the once widespread longleaf pine 

flatwoods community in Georgia and elsewhere. Disruption of the natural fire regime has allowed 

slash pine and high, dense shrubs to invade both ponds and uplands. Pines may alter the ponds 

hydrology (reduce hydroperiod) and create shading and needle fall that is unsuitable for flatwoods 

salamander and some other amphibians. In addition to appropriate pond conditions, flatwoods 

salamanders (and other pond breeding amphibians) require maintained uplands adjacent to the pond. 

No salamanders were located on the refuge or along Trail Ridge during a 1997 spring survey 

(Johnson 1997) or during surveys in 2000/2001 by U.S. Geological Survey researchers (Smith 2001). 

Some of the interior islands contain suitable habitat and additional surveys were recommended 

(Jensen 1995). 

Other Reptiles and Amphibians - Striped newts require sites similar to those needed by flatwoods 

salamanders, but this species also occur in more xeric sites. Johnson (2000) studied the life history 

characteristics of striped newts in a north Florida breeding pond and found that newts had four 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

distinct activity periods, defined by immigration and emigration around breeding ponds. Gopher 

frogs, another species of concern, also breed in temporary ponds. 

Invertebrates 

Invertebrates occupy many niches in each of the wetland and upland habitats. Visitors as well as 

researchers have been fascinated by the diversity of the invertebrate life. Researchers have 

examined termites, spiders, moths, ants, and dragonflies. The University of Georgia’s entomology 

class has regularly collected specimens from the refuge. In addition, an annual butterfly count has 

been conducted at the end of August by butterfly enthusiasts. 

Kratzer (2002) concentrated on aquatic invertebrates and found the taxa richness in the wetlands to 

be 104 taxa, which is within the range of similar wetlands. Chironomids, water mites, and 

ceratopogonids were the most dominant taxa making up 85 percent of the total individuals collected. 

The high abundance of predacious and parasitic water mites may have impacts on other aquatic 

invertebrate; however, DiSabatino et al., (2000) found water mites to be useful as indicators of water 

quality. Molluscs and oligochaetes were absent from Kratzer’s (2002) samples and may not be able 

to tolerate the acidity of the Okefenokee waters. Blalock-Herod and Williams (2001) did not find 

snails or mussels above Suwannee Springs State Park within the Suwannee River drainage. Also, 

invertebrates in the refuge do not tend to be responsive to different plant communities as in other 

wetlands. However, there are a few species that would be susceptible to changes in environmental 

conditions and would make good candidates for indicators. 

There is no doubt that invertebrates play a critical role in food web dynamics and trophic structure of 

many species assemblages on the refuge. Because of their structural level in the food chain, they 

have the potential to transfer contaminants released into the system, such as mercury, to fish, birds, 

amphibians, reptiles, and mammals that fill the role of consumers. George and Batzer (2002) found 

levels of mercury in excess of 20 ppm and levels averaged 1.6 ppm. These levels are extremely high 

compared to other wetlands. These levels were found in amphipods that are in close association with 

the sediment and mercury sequestering plants. Concentrations of mercury in odonates and crayfish 

were significantly less and corresponded to levels found elsewhere. Amphipods are considered the 

superior indicators of mercury in Okefenokee food webs. This food source may be contributing to the 

high levels of mercury found in the fisheries. Further study is needed to evaluate the connection 

between drought and extensive fires on the availability of mercury. George and Batzer concluded 

that the source of mercury is probably atmospheric deposition because similar levels were found 

between all sampling locations and habitats. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

The Okefenokee Swamp has shaped the culture of southeast Georgia. From Native Americans to 

canal diggers in the swamp, and from timber harvesters to fire fighters, most residents of Charlton, 

Ware, and Clinch Counties have ancestors who once lived, worked, or relied on the swamp for their 

very existence. To them, the swamp is a part of their family heritage. In addition to its cultural link, 

the refuge exerts a strong financial incentive to the local three-county area. During the 1990s refuge 

visitation grew to an estimated 400,000 visits per year. The economic impact is predicted to continue 

to increase along with the refuge’s continuing rise in popularity locally, regionally, and statewide, 

nationwide, and worldwide. 

EARLY SETTLEMENT 

Indians inhabited Okefenokee Swamp as early as 2500 B.C. Peoples of the Deptford Culture, the 

Swift Creek Culture, and the Weeden Island Culture occupied sites within the Okefenokee Swamp. 

They altered the landscape slightly as fire was set during other than lightning seasons for hunting, 
60 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

maintenance of berry fields, or clearing. The last tribe to seek sanctuary in the swamp, the 

Seminoles, conducted raids on settlers in surrounding areas. Troops led by General Charles R. 

Floyd during the Second Seminole War, 1838-1842, ended the age of the Indians in the Okefenokee. 

Early settlers cut and used trees for logs, lumber, fence posts, and fire wood. Small patches of timber 

were cut to clear land for gardens and fields. Roads and settlements were beginning to create 

barriers to fire in the upland landscape. Although burning to maintain cattle pasture occurred during 

the dormant season, a close semblance of the natural fire regime was maintained. Many virgin 

longleaf pine stands and their associated wildlife remained during this era, which is emphasized in 

this plan as the “historic condition era.” It encompasses the composition, structure, and functioning of 

the ecosystem resulting from natural processes that are believed to be present prior to substantial 

human-related changes to the landscape. 

After this era, extensive landscape changes took place. The Suwanee Canal Company purchased 

238,120 acres of the Okefenokee Swamp from the State of Georgia in 1891. The aim of the 

company was to drain the swamp for rice, sugar cane, and cotton plantations. When this failed, the 

company began industrial wetland logging as a source of income. Captain Henry Jackson and his 

crews spent 3 years digging the Suwannee Canal 11.5 miles into the swamp. Economic recessions 

led to the company’s bankruptcy and eventual sale to Charles Hebard in 1901. Logging operations, 

focusing on the cypress, began in 1909 after a railroad was constructed on the northwest area of the 

swamp. More than 431 million board feet of timber were removed from the Okefenokee Swamp by 

1927, when the Hebard Cypress Company ceased logging operations. 

LAND USE 

The earliest use of southeastern lands was by Native Americans starting some 4,000 years ago. 

Trowell (1998b) commented that “The frontier culture of the Okefenokee was a piney woods cracker 

culture. Men and women possessed and fostered a self-sufficient life style, a strong sense of 

independence in thought and behavior and a commitment to family relationships and traditions.” 

Trowell goes on to comment that “In contrast to the Plantation societies of the Georgia coast and the 

up-country, the Okefenokee frontier developed as a hunting-stockminding society. Some of the major 

economic and social events of the year were the spring wiregrass burns and cattle roundups, the 

winter drives to the cowhouses, and periodically, the bear hunts to protect the razor back hogs.” 

Trowell continues “The frontier culture gradually gave way to the new industrial world following the 

war. Steamboats made their way up to Traders Hill on the St. Marys River as early as the 1830s and 

a steam sawmill was operating at Burnt Fort on the Satilla River by lumbermen from Maine by 1836. 

But it was the railroad and commercial society that undermined and supplanted the independence 

and self-sufficiency of frontier culture. . . . The railroad that really altered the landscape and culture of 

the Okefenokee was the Waycross and Jacksonville branch of the Savannah – Florida and Western 

completed along the eastern rim of the swamp in April 1881.” 

“Trees grow jobs” is a sign often seen along the roadways of southeast Georgia. Hundreds of 

thousands of acres of land are dedicated to the production of commercial pine trees. Although 

primarily produced for pulp and paper, some trees are also marketed as posts/poles and some for 

commercial lumber construction. In contrast to the past, the 396,000-acre Okefenokee Refuge and 

the U.S. Forest Service (Osceola National Forest), along with State of Florida lands to the south of 

the swamp, are now dedicated to wildlife and wildlife habitat protection. 

Although the Okefenokee area is quite rural, population centers are developing in the area. The 

cities of Waycross and Homerville to the north of the swamp and Folkston, Kingsland, and St. Marys 

to the east are experiencing significant growth. To the south of the swamp, the cities of Jacksonville 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

and Lake City are growing rapidly. This growth directly translates to the use of land for homes, 

shopping centers, roads, etc. The Okefenokee Refuge is somewhat unique in that it is closely 

bounded on three sides by interstate highways. With population centers located where they are and 

road systems developing, the refuge and its adjoining state and federal lands to the south appear to 

be a “framed wildlife habitat or haven preserved for future generations.” 

ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

A description of the physical features of Okefenokee Refuge is not complete without a description of 

adjacent properties. Resource management and protection activities on the refuge have an impact 

on adjacent lands. Each land manager, including the Service, assumes some liability for the impacts 

of management activities on adjacent properties. A spirit of cooperation between landowners is 

necessary to maintain a productive relationship. 

The refuge is surrounded by high value commercial forestland, most of it in slash or loblolly pine 

plantations. Scattered throughout the commercial forests are small parcels of private lands with a 

mixture of modern and "old swamper" home sites. Working relations with these public, corporate, 

and private landowners have been excellent. Cooperation between fire management personnel and 

the adjacent agency, industrial, and private landowners is facilitated through the Greater Okefenokee 

Association of Landowners (GOAL) organization. Activities of GOAL include setting of priorities, 

acquisition of local resources, technology transfer, and general problem solving. The formation and 

development of GOAL is discussed in Section A, Ecosystems.

Listing of Adjacent Landowners 

Following is a list of landowners sharing the Okefenokee Refuge’s 162-mile boundary. Many other 

landowners, particularly private property owners with dwellings, are located within a short distance of 

the refuge boundary. 

The Dixon Memorial Forest, managed by the Georgia Forestry Commission is located next to the 

north end of the refuge. The Dixon Memorial Forest extends approximately 10.4 miles or along 6.4 

percent of the refuge boundary. In the past, the forest has been managed on medium long rotation 

for pulpwood, poles, and saw timber. After an initial commercial thinning for pulpwood, the remaining 

stems are tapped for naval stores. After a period of naval store operations, the stand is clear-cut for 

poles or saw timber. In 2002, the Service entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the 

Georgia Forestry Commission and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to manage 

cooperatively suitable upland habitat sites for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, 

with the long-term goal for the restoration of the longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystem. 

Within the Dixon Memorial Forest, Land Lot 20 is leased to The Okefenokee Swamp Park 

Association. Okefenokee Swamp Park is a private, non-profit organization, operating as a 

concession to provide an entrance to the north end of the swamp. Several million dollars of 

improvements are located on the park. 

Adjoining the Dixon Memorial Forest and extending 32.5 miles along the northeastern and eastern 

refuge boundary are lands managed by International Paper Company and owned by The 

Conservation Fund. The boundary line follows the swamp line throughout the length of the property. 

During 1978, a former owner, Union Camp Corporation, donated most of the swampland in its 

ownership to the Service. International Paper Company lands adjoin 20.1 percent of the refuge 

boundary. This land includes the lands on which E.I. duPont de Nemours & Company Inc., proposed 

to mine zircon, staurolite, and titanium bearing minerals. Lands are managed on an 18- to 25-year 

rotation, primarily for wood fiber products. Some larger stems are utilized by a chip and saw mill to 
62 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

provide lumber and pulpwood. Slash pine and loblolly pine grow on almost all of the lands. A 

Memorandum of Understanding for managing approximately 6,000 acres at the south end of the 

property is being discussed. This land would be managed on a longer rotation to enhance foraging 

areas for the red-cockaded woodpecker adjacent to nesting habitat on the refuge. 

Several private tracts adjoin the refuge along the eastern boundary. Residences, farms, and 

forestlands are located on these private lands. Two private tracts on the west side, one near 

compartment 9 and the other near Council, are managed for commercial timber. The total boundary 

length along private lands is 6.4 miles, 4.0 percent of the refuge boundary. 

Toledo Manufacturing Company, Inc., lands share the refuge boundary from Camp Cornelia, 17.3 

miles south to the vicinity of Boone Creek, representing 10.7 percent of the refuge boundary. Toledo 

Manufacturing Company, Inc., manages its timberlands on a medium-long rotation, thinning stands 

heavily for pulpwood, then retaining the remaining stems until about age 40. They are then cut for 

poles, chip, and saw logs and saw timber. The portion of Toledo lands on Trail Ridge directly 

adjacent to the swamp was leased to DuPont and was part of the mining foot print. The lease has 

expired. Several thousand acres of Toledo’s ownership lies within the swamp line, within the refuge 

acquisition boundary. In addition, two Land Lots belonging to Toledo Manufacturing are inholdings, 

completely surrounded by refuge property. 

South of the Toledo Manufacturing lands are lands formerly belonging to Gilman Paper Company. 

These lands are now owned by Wachovia, and managed by F & W Forestry Services, Inc. The 

company owns land along 5.2 miles, or 3.2 percent of refuge’s southeastern boundary. The company 

manages slash and loblolly pine on a pulpwood rotation. 

Florida Division of Forestry recently acquired a tract of land adjacent to the refuge, west of the St. 

Marys River. It borders the refuge for 10.5 miles (6.5 percent) and is being managed as John Bethea 

State Forest. 

Rayonier Incorporated presently owns tracts of land adjoining several parts of the refuge boundary. 

One tract joins 2.8 miles of boundary near Ellicotts Mound. After purchasing Jefferson Smurfit 

Corporation lands, Rayonier borders the refuge along the entire northwest side totaling 27.4 miles and 

the southwest boundary totaling 27.1 miles. Rayonier, Inc., has the most boundary in common with the 

refuge at a total of 57.3 miles, or 35.4 percent of the total boundary. Rayonier manages most of its 

forest for wood fiber products, but manages some stands on a longer rotation for other purposes. 

Langdale Corporation owns two tracts of land near Sapp Prairie and Strange Island, joining the 

refuge boundary for a total of 7.5 miles. These two segments represent 4.6 percent of the refuge 

boundary. Langdale Corporation performs a commercial thinning after its stands reach pulpwood 

size with the ultimate goal of producing poles and saw timber. 

Superior Pine owns land next to the refuge near compartment 9. Superior Pine’s land lies along 8.4 

miles of refuge boundary, representing 5.2 percent of the boundary. The land is managed by 

Champion International. 

The Pinhook Unit of the Osceola National Forest joins the refuge along 3.7 miles of boundary on the 

south end of the refuge, representing 2.3 percent of the total. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

DEMOGRAPHICS 

Okefenokee Refuge encompasses portions of Charlton, Ware, and Clinch Counties in Georgia, and 

Baker County in Florida, and attracts 350,000 visitors annually. Three staffed entrances are located 

near the Georgia towns of Folkston, Homeland, St. George, Waycross, Homerville, and Fargo. 

These communities serve the refuge and visitors by providing supplies, lodging, restaurants, and 

customer services. Their support and understanding of the refuge’s management and contribution to 

the area influence the direction of growth and enhancement in southeast Georgia. For this reason, it 

is important to understand the demographics of the people living within these counties. 

Charlton County 

Charlton County is considered the most timbered county in Georgia. In addition, the Okefenokee 

Swamp covers one-third of the county’s land. The refuge’s East Entrance, also known as Suwannee 

Canal Recreation Area, and the administrative headquarters are located in this county, 11 miles 

southwest of the town of Folkston, Georgia. This entrance has the highest visitation. Other towns 

near the refuge within Charlton County include Race Pond, Homeland, Moniac, and St. George. 

As of the 2000 Census, there were 10,282 people and 3,327 households residing in Charlton County 

(http://www.census2000.com). Sixty-nine percent of the residents were white, twenty-nine percent 

were black, and the remaining two percent were other races. The median income for a household 

was $27,869. Twenty-one percent of the population were living below the poverty level. Tables 6 

and 7 compare the income and education levels of the four counties the refuge lies within. 

Ware County 

Okefenokee Swamp Park located near Waycross, Georgia, in Ware County, is the north entrance into 

the Okefenokee Swamp. Ware County is the largest county, in area, in Georgia. Waycross is the 

hub for the small towns that surround it. 

As of the 2000 Census, there were 35,483 people and 13,478 households residing in the county. 

The racial makeup of the county was 70 percent white, 28 percent black, and 2 percent other races. 

The median income for a household in the county was $28,360. Twenty-one percent of the 

population were living below the poverty level. 

Clinch County 

Stephen C. Foster State Park provides the facilities at the west entrance to the refuge. This entrance 

is in Charlton County; however, Fargo, Georgia, in Clinch County, is the nearest town. The 

Suwannee River Visitor Center, administered by the State of Georgia, is located south of Fargo on 

the bank of the river. Other towns in Clinch County that are near the refuge are Homerville, DuPont, 

Argyle, Edith, and Council. 

The total estimated population for Clinch County reported in the 2000 Census was 6,878 and 2,518 

households. The racial makeup of the county was 69 percent white, 30 percent black, and 1 percent 

other races. The median income for a household in the county was $26,755. Twenty-three percent 

of the population were living at the poverty level. 

Baker County 

A portion of the Okefenokee Refuge is located in Baker County, Florida. Baker County is one of 

Florida’s First Coast counties located only a short distance from Jacksonville on the Atlantic Ocean. 

Baker County is growing rapidly due to its prime location and the availability of five interchanges on 

Interstate 10, which crosses the county from east to west. Towns or cities within Baker County are 

MacClenny and Glen St. Marys. 
64 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 6. Household income of the four counties the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge lies 

within - numbers are based on the 2000 Census 

Subject Charlton Ware Clinch Baker 

2000 Population 10,282 35,483 6,878 22,259

Households 3,327 13,478 2,518 7,075

Household Income in 1999 

Less than $10,000 570 2,208 559 768

$10,000 to $14,999 290 1,347 267 445

$15,000 to $24,999 623 2,494 360 958

$25,000 to $34,999 497 1,979 405 969

$35,000 to $49,999 521 2,186 426 1,375

$50,000 to $74,999 539 2,010 331 1,668

$75,000 to $99,999 147 741 67 516

$100,000 to $149,999 102 339 69 255

$150,000 to $199,999 21 71 22 58

$200,000 or more 17 103 12 63

Median household income 

(dollars) 27,869 28,360 26,755 40,035

Table 7. Educational attainment of the population 25 years and over within the four counties 

the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge lies within - numbers are based on the 2000 

Census 

Subject Charlton Ware Clinch Baker 

Population 25 years and over 6,404 23,380 4,380 13,953

Less than 9th grade 696 2,394 845 1,164

9th to 12th grade, no diploma 1,540 4,545 957 2,758

High School graduate (include 

equivalency) 2,695 9,060 1,421 5,780

Some college, no degree 905 3,860 589 2,144

Associate degree 161 862 111 964

Bachelor’s degree 215 1,582 265 744

Graduate or professional degree 192 1,077 192 399

Percent not completed high school 34.92 29.68 41.14 39.1

Percent bachelor’s degree or higher 6.36 11.37 10.43 8.2
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

As of the 2000 Census, there were 22,259 people and 7,075 households residing in the county. The 

racial makeup of the county was 84 percent white, 14 percent black, and 2 percent other races. The 

median income for a household in the county was $40,035. Fifteen percent of the population were 

living at the poverty level. 

FINANCIAL BENEFITS 

The Georgia Department of Industry, Trade, and Tourism reported an annual tourism expenditure 

during Calendar Year 2000 at over $16 billion, and support for more than 200,000 jobs per fiscal 

quarter. Eco-tourism is defined as responsible travel that results in sustainable economic 

development while conserving the environment. Spending by tourists directly benefits towns and 

communities where goods and services are purchased. Wildlife-dependent recreation found at a 

refuge like Okefenokee can have a significant and lasting economic impact on local economies, 

especially in small towns and rural areas that form “Gateway Communities” adjacent to national 

wildlife refuges nationwide. 

Okefenokee Refuge contributes heavily to the economies of the surrounding three Georgia counties 

and one Florida county. Tourism expenditures for the year 2000 totaled $77.2 million. Ware County 

(north entrance) received the greatest benefit at $57.5 million followed by Charlton County (east 

entrance) at $13.5 million and Clinch County (west entrance) at $6.2 million. 

In the three Georgia county areas, a total of 66 businesses and 1,083 jobs were supported by tourism 

in 2000. The east entrance concessionaire, Okefenokee Adventures, employs as many as 12 people 

seasonally and generates sales tax on goods and services utilized by as many as 200,000 visitors 

per year. The west entrance, Stephen C. Foster State Park, employs as many as 14 employees and 

generates sales tax on goods and services utilized by as many as 120,000 visitors per year. Both the 

east and west entrances are located in Charlton County. West entrance sales tax funds are credited 

to Charlton County but there is a residual economic effect within the towns of Fargo and Homerville, 

Georgia, due to their close proximity to the entrance. The north entrance (Okefenokee Swamp Park) 

employs between 20-40 people on a seasonal basis and generates sales tax on goods and services 

utilized by as many as 80,000 visitors per year. 

The refuge has a current staff of 31 permanent employees and numerous volunteers who live within 

the surrounding communities and support the local businesses. 

All counties that the refuge has land within benefit from federal payment in lieu of taxes, called 

Refuge Revenue Sharing. This annual payment is comparable to taxes paid by other landowners. 

Table 8 shows the amounts paid to each county over the past four years. 

Table 8. Revenue sharing amounts paid to each county in lieu of taxes 

Counties 2003 2002 2001 2000 

Baker $1,531 $1,639 $1,606 $1,831

Charlton $79,954 $85,587 $83,852 $95,587

Clinch $27,280 $29,202 $28,610 $32,614

Ware $103,463 $110,753 $108,508 $123,694
66 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

PUBLIC SERVICES 

Although the Okefenokee Refuge is primarily managed for wildlife, public use is an important aspect 

of the refuge. The east entrance has a visitor center, hiking trails, wildlife drive, boardwalk, 

observation tower, and a restored homestead in addition to concession services. The north entrance 

via Okefenokee Swamp Park is a private, non-profit attraction operating under a lease agreement 

with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Interpretive displays, a boardwalk, boat tours, 

animal habitats, and lectures are available to visitors. The west entrance via the 82-acre Stephen C. 

Foster State Park operates under a lease agreement with the Service. Its facilities include a 

museum, guided boat tours, boat, motor and canoe rentals, a campground, and furnished cabins. 

The two secondary entrances, Kingfisher Landing and the Suwannee River Sill, have public boat 

ramps and parking lots available to the public. 

Okefenokee Refuge provides opportunities related to the six priority uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The majority of 

visitors come to the refuge to view and photograph wildlife and birds (86 percent). Hunting 

opportunities are offered for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, turkey, and small game. The four areas of 

the refuge opened for hunting during specified seasons are the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area, 

Chesser Island, Cowhouse Island, and “The Pocket”. Sport fishing is a year-round activity primarily 

done from boats. Interpretation of the resources is accomplished through the visitor centers, special 

presentations, guided tours, brochures, and informational signs. The refuge also provides an outdoor 

classroom for environmental education ranging from pre-school to college level courses. 

In addition, the refuge gives the visitor the opportunity to experience the solitude of wilderness while 

expanding the opportunities for wildlife observation, fishing, and photography by permitting overnight 

camping within the wilderness. Seven overnight campsites are scattered over the refuge’s 120 miles of 

boat trail. Wilderness canoe groups consisting of one to twenty people make advanced reservations 

and secure permits, which allow them to spend from two to five days in the swamp (one to four nights). 

Travel on these trips is entirely non-motorized and averages between eight and twelve miles of 

paddling per day. Four overnight campsites consist of wooden platforms about 20’x28’ in size with a 

partial roof and composting toilet. The other three sites are located on dry ground. Only one party per 

site reduces contact with other parties and promotes the feeling of solitude. 

VISITOR CHARACTERISTICS 

Of the 350,000 annual visitors to the refuge, roughly 35 percent originate from within Georgia, while 

up to 25 percent originate in Florida. Visitation records kept at the refuge for over twenty years 

indicate a repeating pattern of visitation from all 50 states and several foreign countries each year. 

Urban population centers surrounding the refuge include: Jacksonville, Gainesville, and Tallahassee, 

Florida, as well as Brunswick, Savannah, Macon, Columbus, and Albany, Georgia, all of which are 

within 150 miles of the refuge. 

The influence of I-95 and I-75, which link Georgia and Florida (and run parallel east and west of the 

Okefenokee refuge), contributes to refuge visitation. Visitors traveling north and south on these 

interstates often include side-trips to the refuge as a part of their Georgia-Florida vacation. 

 

Longwoods International (2001) surveyed travel and tourism in Georgia during the Calendar 2000 

Travel Year and found that the Okefenokee Swamp was the 12th most popular attraction to visit. 

Okefenokee Refuge is the most visited refuge in Georgia and the 16th most visited refuge in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

In 2000, a visitor survey was conducted by the Georgia Institute of Technology at the refuge’s three 

main entrances and other neighboring recreational attractions, such as Obediah’s Okefinok. A total 

of 300 interviews were completed. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with these visitors 

to develop a more comprehensive profile. The survey found that 49 percent of the visitors originated 

their trip in Georgia of which 17 percent came from Atlanta. Twenty-one percent originated their trip 

in Florida of which five percent came from Jacksonville. Only 4 percent originated their trip in North 

Carolina, 3 percent in Alabama, and 23 percent came from other states. Georgia was the destination 

of 85 percent of the people surveyed while 11 percent had Florida as their final destination. Table 9 

describes the refuge’s visitors. 

The Georgia Institute of Technology survey showed that visitors came to the refuge for its nature, 

wilderness and animals, water birds, and the whole experience of the swamp. Other reasons 

included boating, relaxation, and visiting the state park or wilderness area. Ninety-four percent had a 

good experience and eighty percent were likely to make a repeat visit. 

Table 9. Visitor characteristics as described by Center for Economic Development Services 

(2001) 

Average party size 4.67

Most common party size 2 (36%)

Visitors without children 55%

Visitors with 1 or 2 children 31%

Median pleasure trips/year 5

Average visitor’s age 50

Most common age bracket 35 to 54

Married 86%

Most common occupations 

-Professionals 26%

-Retired 24%

-Executives 9%

Education 

-Less than college 25%

-College grad 23%

-Post graduate study 27%

Average Income $62,500

In 1999 and 2000, the Virginia Institute of Technology also conducted a study on the refuge’s 

wilderness visitor characteristics, perceptions and management preferences (Roggenbuck and Yoder 

2001). During on-site contacts, 770 individuals agreed to participate in the study. These individuals 

were sent a mail-back questionnaire, and 542 returned the completed survey. Of these, 16 percent 

were overnight visitors, and 84 percent were day users. 

The Virginia Institute of Technology (Roggenbuck and Yoder 2001) study showed that the range of 

distance traveled by respondents from home to the refuge ranged broadly, but the mean distance 
68 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

was 693 miles. Persons on the guided trips came from even a farther distance with a mean distance 

of 798 miles. The average size of all groups coming to Okefenokee Wilderness was 6.7 persons. 

The most common type of group that visited the Okefenokee Wilderness was the family (39 percent) 

and about 23 percent of all groups were friends only. Visits were typically quite short. For the day 

visitors, the average length of stay was 3.1 hours with guided visitors staying only 1.5 hours. For 

overnight visitors, the average number of nights spent in the swamp/wilderness was 1.5. 

It is interesting to note that in this survey of wilderness users, only 33 percent knew they had entered 

a federally declared wilderness area and 79 percent knew they had entered a national wildlife refuge. 

A high percentage believed the land was managed by the National Park Service. About 38 percent of 

all Okefenokee wilderness visitors admitted that they had no idea or knew only a little about the 

purpose and characteristics of federally declared wilderness. 

CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT 

PREHISTORIC INFLUENCES 

According to archaeological evidence, the swamp was uninhabited until about 2500 B.C. Prior to this 

time, the basin was probably too dry (Trowell 1989). Evidence indicates that small bands of Native 

American cultures occupied campsites throughout the swamp from this time through the 1830s. 

Several cultures existed during this period, identified by the types of pottery sherds they left behind. 

These cultures are listed below and summarized in Appendix VII. Detailed descriptions of Native 

American cultures living around the Okefenokee are described in Chris Trowell’s Publication “Indians 

of the Okefenokee” (1998). 

• 2000 B.C. to 1000 B.C. - Fiber Tempered Pottery Period. 

• 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D. - Deptford and Swift Creek Culture. 

• 500 A.D. to 1000 A.D. - Weeden Island Culture. 

• 1000 A.D. to 1200 A.D. - Cord Marked Cultures. 

• 1200 A.D. to 1700 A.D. - Spanish Period. Miscellaneous Native American Cultures remain 

including Lamar Culture, Timucuan and Apalachee speaking natives. Native populations declined 

sharply due to diseases introduced by the Spanish, and slaughter by military and Creek warriors. 

By the time the swamp was occupied by the Seminoles, the early natives had disappeared 

(Hopkins 1947). 

• 1750 to 1840: Seminoles. Remnants of other native tribes including Creeks, Yuchees, Hitchitis, 

and others who took refuge in the swamp following skirmishes with European settlers and military 

(Trowell 1998). 

Continued skirmishes between the Seminole Indians and the settlers led to the establishment of 

several forts around the perimeter of the swamp to protect the settlers. Two forts were built within the 

swamp, one on “The Pocket”, another on Billys Island. Campaigns by federal and state militia were 

conducted to eradicate or move the Seminoles from the area. Several forts remained manned and 

U.S. Army troops continued to patrol the rim of the swamp until 1842. By 1850, "the age of the 

Indian” in the Swamp had passed. Only Indian stories, mounds, scattered ceramic and stone 

artifacts, and several names on the map remained" (Trowell 1998). 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Native American occupation had some effect on Okefenokee habitats. Fire was used as a hunting 

tool. Huckleberry, blueberry, and chinkapin productivity was enhanced by regular burning of islands. 

Villages, garden sites and other activity areas may have created permanent relic openings. Some of 

the lakes or openings in the swamp may be related to accidentally or intentionally set fires by Native 

Americans (Trowell 1998). 

Since cultural sites are often difficult to identify without careful examination, construction of new 

roads, firebreaks, or other disturbances is only done with consultation from the regional 

archaeologist. General locations of known cultural resources are listed in Appendix VIII. Detailed 

descriptions and locations of cultural sites are restricted information and are on file at the refuge. 

HISTORICAL INFLUENCES 

The Okefenokee area was mapped in the early 1800s as part of Wayne County for disposal in land 

lotteries. Settlement of the area occurred very slowly because of the apparent worthlessness of the 

land, difficulty of transportation, periodic outbreaks of Indian or outlaw attacks, and the difficulty of 

protecting the settlements. Most of the original settlers had large families skilled in swamp living. 

They were highly mobile and usually squatted for a few years on government or unclaimed land and 

then moved on to a more attractive homestead site (Allen 1854; Trowell 1984). 

During the mid-19th century, pioneer families moved in as Native Americans began to disappear, 

generally settling on isolated farmsteads. The majority of the settlers lived in the tradition of the 

Native Americans, using fire for hunting and habitat management. Their frequent burning of the wiregrass pine woods was probably their greatest legacy. Fire-adapted species of plants, and the 

creatures that lived in these open woods, became even more dominant. Not only did they burn the 

upland woods that encircle the swamp, but they burned the islands. This increased visibility for 

hunting, invigorated the growth of grass for deer, and improved the huckleberry yield. Hunters often 

set fires on the islands when they left after a hunting trip. Some of the lakes are probably the result of 

accidentally or intentionally set fires on tree-houses, especially the prairie lakes near the eastern rim 

(Trowell 1998). 

The communities of Traders Hill and Folkston were established. In 1857, railroads began to 

penetrate the swamp area, and a new settlement, Waycross, was located at an important trail 

crossing. By the turn of the century, railways circled the swamp, helping to build other cities and 

villages including Folkston, Fargo, Homerville, and others (Hurst 1974; Trowell and Fussell 1998). 

Up to this point, Native Americans and early settlers were essentially part of the environment, 

changing only slightly the events that took place naturally. Lightning fire frequency of one to three 

years in the southeast supports a truly fire-dependent ecosystem as opposed to the ecosystems in 

the west, lake states, and northeastern states where natural fire frequency was 25 to 150 years. The 

primary effect of fires set by Native Americans and early settlers was to extend the fire season into 

the dormant season. 

Livestock grazed on wiregrass beneath the pines.. Some disagreements exist among researchers 

and historians about the effects of cattle grazing on longleaf communities. The consensus seems to 

be that improperly managed cattle grazing destroyed longleaf regeneration and the understory 

communities. According to Wahlenberg (1946), in a traditional native grass understory, cattle and 

horse grazing has a significant effect only during the seedlings first year. Cattle normally avoid 

seedlings in the grass stage (Wahlenberg 1946). Much greater damage occurred when non-native 

pasture grasses were introduced into the forests. Apparently, bermuda and carpet grass were 
70 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

planted in the forest stands for pasture (Pendleton 1900). These non-native grasses could feed many 

times more cattle than wiregrass and are cropped very closely to the ground. The result is trampling 

and destruction of longleaf seedlings (Wahlenberg 1946). 

Annual or biennial burning along with grazing has been credited with deterioration of the wiregrass 

range (Pendleton 1900), although burning should have been beneficial to the wiregrass understory. 

During the cattle grazing era, an aggressive burning program was developed. The most effective time 

for burning wiregrass for pasture was January 1 to February 10 and it should be burned annually 

(Blocker 1875). The dry stems would be burned and a flush growth of new grass would provide cattle 

forage. This is not the best season for control of woody vegetation, but the annual burning and 

constant grazing probably accomplished this objective. Also, dormant season fire would not stimulate 

the wiregrass to seed. The combination of constant dormant season burning with no interval between 

burns, along with constant trampling of the grass clumps, probably caused the rangeland to deteriorate. 

Compaction of the soil by grazing animals may have contributed to the deterioration of the range. 

Damage by razorback, piney woods hogs (mongrel hogs escaped from settlers farms and bred in the 

wild) is far greater than grazing by cattle or other livestock. Hogs relish the taproot, larger lateral 

roots, the succulent inner bark and even eat fallen longleaf pine seeds. Hogs can completely 

eliminate a longleaf pine regeneration area in three to five years (Wahlenberg 1946). 

During the late 1800s, industrial operations began to take place that forever changed the face of the 

Okefenokee. 

Resource Exploitation – Pre-refuge Era 

Exploitation of the Okefenokee and its resources began with the turpentine industry. The naval store 

industry began in America during colonial times, although it was not an important part of the economy 

until the 19th century when the industry was centered in North Carolina. As demand for turpentine 

and resin products increased and resources in North Carolina could no longer satisfy demand, the 

industry began to move south. From 1880 until the present, the States of Georgia or Florida led the 

nation in the production of crude gum naval stores. As other sources of turpentine and alternative 

products were developed (1930 to 1950), the crude gum naval stores industry began to decline. By 

1960, the number of crude gum producers and the volume of crude gum produced dropped to only 14 

percent of the 1950 figures (Thomas 1975). There are now only a few scattered operations 

throughout the southeast to fill a small demand for naval stores and to provide historic interpretation 

for a vanishing era. The naval store industry, however, had a long lasting effect on the longleaf pine 

community that will take more than a century to mitigate. 

By the time Okefenokee Refuge was established in 1936, the naval stores industry had made its 

mark. During a visit to the refuge in the early 1940s, Ira N. Gabrielson expressed his disappointment 

that the uplands around the swamp and virtually every island within the swamp had been “worked 

again and again until the trees are dying prematurely” (Gabrielson 1943). Management notes from 

the refuge’s Narrative Reports mention removal of substantial volumes of turpentine faced trees 

throughout the refuge in 1944, 1946, 1947, 1949, 1952, 1954, 1955 and 1956 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1939-1960). Many more cat-faced trees were probably removed during salvage operations 

following the 1954-55 fires. In most cases, it was probably not the naval store operations that caused 

premature mortality but the fires that periodically burned the longleaf pine uplands. The tar covered 

turpentine faces catch fire easily when subjected to fire that ordinarily would not harm the tree. Once 

the face catches fire, it will burn until it kills the tree or burns it down. These salvage operations 

removed a substantial part of the longleaf pine stems on the refuge. Most of the remaining oldgrowth longleaf pine trees have turpentine faces. Faced trees are no longer salvaged, but they are 

subject to mortality during prescribed or wildland fires. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Okefenokee Swamp has long been considered for various other schemes of exploitation including a 

barge or ship canal. According to Hopkins (1947), President Washington is believed to have had 

some investigations made during his first administration. Subsequent investigations for the same 

purpose were made in 1829, 1832, 1877 and 1920. In 1856, the State of Georgia (owners of the 

swamp at the time) commissioned Colonel R. L. Hunter to survey the swamp with intentions of 

draining it and utilizing it for agricultural purposes. Nothing was actually done until 1891 when the 

Georgia Legislature authorized the Governor to grant 235,000 acres of the Okefenokee Swamp to the 

Suwanee Canal Company for the expressed purpose of draining the swamp (Hopkins 1947). 

In 1891, a canal was begun between the swamp and the St. Marys River. Sixteen miles were excavated 

into the swamp and through the upland before the project finally failed due to economic and engineering 

difficulties. The company did remove some pine timber from Camp Cornelia and about 11,000,000 board 

feet of cypress from the swamp. The lumber, sawed at the sawmill at Camp Cornelia, was shipped to Bull 

Head Bluff by trains over the company's railroad, the Brunswick and Pensacola Railroad. At Bull Head 

Bluff, the lumber was loaded aboard ships (Hopkins 1947; Trowell 1984). 

In 1901, the Suwanee Canal Company holdings of 257,889 acres were purchased by Charles 

Hebard. His sons who inherited the property later formed the Hebard Lumber Company. The 

property was then leased to the Hebard Cypress Company in 1909 (Trowell personal 

communication). 

Between 1909 and 1927, the Hebard Cypress Company and the Twin Tree Lumber Company 

(harvesting mainly the pines on the islands) utilizing logging railroads, cut and removed most of the 

cypress and pine trees from the Okefenokee. The Hebard Cypress Company built a huge sawmill west 

of Waycross at Hebardville and manufactured lumber for 17 years. Logging camps housing hundreds 

of workers were built on Billys Island and “The Pocket” near the present site of Stephen Foster State 

Park. The swamp resounded and trembled with logging activity. By 1927, the Hebards and Twin Tree 

had cut the most profitable stands of timber and they ceased operations (Trowell 1989). The company 

removed 423,600,000 board feet of lumber between 1909 and 1927 (Hopkins 1947). 

Probably as much as 400,000,000 additional board feet of lumber were harvested by other 

companies as logs and cross ties between 1926 and 1942. Other small companies constructed 250 

miles of temporary railroads into the swamp during this period. In addition, Brinson Lumber Company 

also harvested logs from the Coffee Bay area by tug boat during the 1930s (Trowell 1983). 

Indiscriminate harvesting of the valuable lumber species accelerated the conversion of longleaf pine 

stands on the uplands and cypress stands within the swamp to other species. 

Longleaf pine is a long-lived species (up to 350 years) but does not reproduce very proficiently. The 

absence of fire allowed invading seedlings to out compete longleaf pine seedlings. Even where a 

longleaf seed source still existed, lack of periodic fire has allowed a dense understory to develop, 

permitting very little natural regeneration. 

The overall result of resource exploitation throughout the southeast is virtual destruction of a major 

habitat group, the longleaf pine communities, and a decline in the populations of those wildlife 

species that are specifically dependent upon these communities. Throughout the longleaf pine 

range, traditional longleaf pine community wildlife populations have been replaced by species more 

adapted to hardwoods, dense, younger timber stands and higher understories. 
72 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Within the swamp, the effect of clear cutting was no less devastating to the centuries old stands of 

cypress that once existed in the Okefenokee. When young cypress up to 200 years old is blown 

down or cut, sprouts rapidly develop from the stumps. Older cypress sprouts less readily after 

cutting. Most of the cypress cut in the Okefenokee was between 400 and 900 years old. Therefore, 

the sprout growth was probably minimal. In addition, when cypress is girdled prior to cutting, as was 

the practice in the Okefenokee, regeneration through sprouting generally does not occur. 

Reestablishment of cypress, therefore, would have to occur primarily through natural seeding. 

Records indicate that all cypress greater than 12 inches were removed, leaving very few seed trees 

suitable for regeneration. The very restrictive set of conditions under which cypress seed will 

disperse, germinate, and survive, severely restrains the reestablishment of cypress through natural 

seeding. As a result, most areas where cypress were harvested in the Okefenokee are not likely to 

return to their pre-logging condition (Hamilton 1982). Clear cutting of the old-growth cypress was 

followed by the 1932 wildfire. The fire burned in extensive concentrations of slash, probably burning 

areas it might otherwise have passed. Natural cypress regeneration, if it existed, was probably 

destroyed. The result was conversion of cypress stands to other wetland hardwood species. 

As people moved into the area, aggressive fire suppression also grew in popularity removing the 

benefit of the occasional fire that would start in individual stands. However, the greatest effect on the 

fire regime was the fragmentation of the landscape. Wildfires, when they occurred, were suppressed; 

but, it was other attempts to harness the resources of the southeastern coastal plain that altered the 

natural fire regime. As settlement continued, roads, fields, pastures, and homesites were cleared, 

fragmenting the landscape. These man-made barriers stopped or altered the fires that once spread 

for miles through the countryside. Slash, loblolly and pond pines, once confined to wet areas around 

drains and ponds due to frequent fires on the uplands, were now able to encroach into the open 

longleaf pine communities. Hardwood understory species that could not survive the periodic growing 

season fires now replaced the open understory. Fires no longer approached the swamp on a several 

mile front, slamming into the swamp's edge, burning out areas of scrub/shrub and scrub forest within 

the swamp or burning depressions into the peat layer during drier periods. Without fire, open marsh 

areas and ponds within the swamp are no longer created or maintained. 

On a smaller scale, the peat/sphagnum moss harvesting that occurred between the 1930s and the 

1960s had a more localized impact. Peat was mined for only one year by John King during 

development of approximately 3 miles of canals. Alton Carter harvested sphagnum moss for about 

20 years (Carter, personal communication). The operation resulted in the existence of Kings Canal, a 

popular entrance to the Okefenokee Swamp for local residents for many years, and one of the 

entrances to the wilderness canoe system. The hydrology of the area was altered through the 

creation of a 3-mile canal. This canal begins at the swamp’s edge, enters Carters Prairie, and 

extends a short distance north and south. Mining of the peat may have also released into the water 

some contaminants deposited into the peat over periods of time (Winger 1997). 

MODERN INFLUENCES 

Efforts to establish a biological preserve or wildlife refuge in the Okefenokee Swamp can be traced to 

the first decade of the twentieth century. Between 1909 and 1917, Roland M. Harper and later A. H. 

Wright, J. G. Needham, and Francis Harper suggested that the swamp be preserved (Trowell 1998a). 

In 1918, the “Okefinokee Society" was organized, led by Dr. J. F. Wilson of Waycross and members 

of the scientific community, to give authentic publicity regarding the Okefenokee Swamp and to 

secure its preservation (J. G. Needham Collection). During the 1920s, a Cornell group and Francis 

Harper of the U.S. Biological Survey continued to promote the swamp as a preserve. The U.S. 

Biological Survey continued to study the potential of the swamp, especially following the cessation of 

logging activity by the Hebard Cypress Company in 1927. The U.S. Senate Special Committee on 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

Conservation and Wildlife Resources investigated the feasibility of the Okefenokee as a preserve in 

1931. Articles by Francis Harper, in such magazines as National Geographic and Natural History

during the early 1930s, sustained interest in the project. 

The Georgia Society of Naturalists, organized in 1929, promoted the preservation of the Okefenokee 

and became the primary force lobbying the state and federal government to purchase the Hebard 

property as a game preserve (Trowell 1994). 

A survey by the Works Progress Administration to locate a route for a road across the swamp in 1935 

finally prompted action (Trowell 1998a). During 1936, the Government offered the Hebard Lumber 

Company $1.50 per acre for the land and took possession of the land on November 30, 1936. 

Okefenokee Refuge was established by executive order in 1937 to preserve habitat for all native 

species of wildlife, birds, mammals, and reptiles. At that time, a Government survey showed 292,979 

acres as the refuge area (Hopkins 1947). Several purchases and donations over the past 59 years 

have brought the refuge size up to its present 401,880 acres. 

Refuge Management History 

The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge was established by Executive Order 7593, dated March 30, 

1937, to be "reserved and set apart for the use of the Department of Agriculture, subject to valid existing 

rights, as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife." Management philosophy 

was then, and continues to be, a major issue. Acquisition of the swamp was advocated by many for 

several different reasons. Some wanted to set the Okefenokee aside as a national park; others as a 

wilderness area; others as a waterfowl refuge; and others wanted to exploit its scenic wonders. 

A series of reports were prepared for the U.S. Biological Survey prior to acquisition. In 1936, a 

Preliminary Report on Okefenokee Swamp was prepared for the U.S. Biological Survey by William D. 

Marshall. The report described the Okefenokee Swamp, the habitats, wildlife, and recommendations 

for management of the swamp as a national wildlife refuge. The report described the Okefenokee 

Swamp as about 418,000 acres, 20 percent of which is waterfowl habitat, and recognized its values 

as a wilderness area and waterfowl refuge. Little consideration was given to the uplands in this 

report. Recommendations by the U.S. Biological Survey for an initial 3-year management program 

for the Okefenokee Refuge were as follows (Marshall 1936): 

• Program of blocking out the refuge on the east side. This involves purchase of about 80,000 

acres. 

• Very energetic enforcement against unauthorized trespassers. 

• Development of a permit system for authorized entry. 

• Building of two cabins and telephone lines to each. 

• Building a skeleton firefighting organization on the west side. 

• Ecological study of the prairies and of Eriocaulon compressum (hatpin) and Xyris smalliniana 

(yellow-eyed-grass). 

• Engineering study of the possibilities of a dam at Mixons Ferry. 

The possibility of constructing a dam in the vicinity of Mixons Ferry received serious consideration in 

Marshall's report. It was noted that most of the 13-foot drop in the swamp surface elevation between 

east and west occurs between Billys Lake and Mixons Ferry. In this case, a low dam would have little 

effect beyond the western edge of the swamp. It was noted that careful engineering would be 

necessary to influence water levels in the eastern prairies. 

During this same period, James Silver of the U.S. Biological Survey, while recommending acquisition 

of the swamp noted that: “The key to its value, as a waterfowl refuge, in my estimation, lies in the 
74 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

construction of a dam across the Suwannee River to enable the control of the water level. At present 

the water is very low and many thousands of acres normally under water are now dry. At least 50 

percent of the 300,000 acres of Hibbard [Hebard] holdings are open prairie practically all of which at 

high water are under water, and by raising the water 2 feet an open water area of over 150,000 acres 

would result” (Trowell 1994). Later, in a letter to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1956, 

he opposed the dam (Silver 1956). 

In 1941, refuge biologist Hayden A. Carter completed a study to "investigate and study the need of and 

opportunities for wildlife development and management." The report was based on six months of 

intensive field work and previous studies. The report concluded that "life in the swamp" is only 

secondarily dependent upon biological factors. The primary single physical factor in the environment that 

controls life in the swamp is the fluctuation of water-level. Stabilization was thought to preserve conditions 

in the Okefenokee Swamp much longer than continued fluctuation of water levels (Carter 1941). 

The basis of much of the management philosophy was to develop or improve the refuge’s value as a 

migratory waterfowl refuge. According to Carter and Marshall, to improve, or even maintain its prerefuge value, water levels were to be stabilized. Marshall recommended an impoundment in the 

Mixons Ferry area high enough to raise water levels throughout the swamp. It was believed at this 

time the major loss of water was through discharge into the Suwannee River. Later investigations 

showed the majority of water to be lost through evapotranspiration (80 percent) while only 20 percent 

was discharged through the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers combined (Rykiel 1977). Early 

investigators may have ignored the presence of several natural sills within the swamp. These natural 

impoundments may maintain swamp surface levels in a series of steps rather than a gradual sloping 

surface to the west as may have been envisioned. Also, not considered were oxidation of organic 

materials during dry periods and the importance of fire during dry cycles, both of which alter or set 

back succession. 

On the uplands, managers and biologists were concerned that upland game bird populations, already 

set back by removal of the old-growth forest, were continually declining due to deterioration of 

understory habitat. Hopkins (1947) continually noted that the upland understory (interior islands and 

perimeter uplands), which had once been open, was becoming too rough for native game birds. The 

need for prescribed fire was noted in many of the early narratives. 

A summary of management and development of the refuge programs follows: 

Physical Development - In order to establish the refuge and allow management activities to function, 

the major thrust between 1938 and 1942 was site development. Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

Camps were established at Camp Cornelia and the north end of “The Pocket” to construct the initial 

service buildings, residences, and other buildings. Road construction, boundary line marking, and 

fencing began. The canal and boat trails were opened and maintained. 

During the following half century, buildings were repaired, enlarged, improved, and replaced. Fire 

and forest management facilities were constructed. Additional tracts of swampland and adjoining 

uplands were acquired until the refuge reached its present size of 401,880 acres. A major public use 

program was developed involving three entrances into the swamp. 

Wetlands Management - Although recommendations to the U.S. Biological Survey stressed the 

importance of stabilizing water levels within the swamp (Marshall 1936), little was done during the first 

few years. Marshall recommended a 25-foot dam at Mixons Ferry that would raise water levels to 

the 120-foot level. At one point, the introduction of beavers was considered to stabilize water levels 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

throughout the swamp (Creaser 1939). Emphasis was placed on law enforcement within the swamp. 

The canal and many boat trails were opened to facilitate patrol of the refuge. 

Biologist Carter's investigation and report in 1941 showed continued interest in impoundments to 

stabilize swamp water levels for maintenance of waterfowl habitat in the swamp (Carter 1941). Carter 

believed that stabilizing water levels would retard the spread of the emergents into the prairies. 

During dry (low water) periods, grass and shrubs were observed to be encroaching into dry peat 

areas, which had been open water. In light of this, Carter favored stabilization of water levels by 

controlling discharge from the swamp in the Suwannee River area (Carter 1941). During the same 

period, Director Ira Gabrielson proposed to the Secretary of the Interior, a series of water control 

structures in natural and man-made channels throughout the swamp in order to stabilize water level 

fluctuations throughout the swamp (Hopkins 1947). The outbreak of World War II, lack of materials, 

personnel, and funding limited serious interest in actual construction. 

During the next decade, fire suppression action increased interest in impounding water in the swamp 

to reduce wildfire hazard, but again because of limited resources, no action was taken. The drought 

of 1954-55 and the associated wildfires that burned 80 percent of the swamp and thousands of acres 

of privately owned timber brought serious consideration of the idea of an impoundment to stabilize 

Okefenokee's water levels. Various schemes were proposed to stabilize water levels (Gresh 1955). 

At this time, maintaining water levels to prevent what were perceived as “disastrous wildfires” in the 

swamp had greater priority than waterfowl management objectives. The construction of an 

impoundment drew a great deal of support from local citizenry, adjacent landowners and timber 

companies, the Georgia Forestry Commission, and individuals within the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

During this time, local representative Iris Blitch introduced congressional action to construct a sill and 

dike in the Suwannee River with additional sills in the old St. Marys River Canal (actually the 

Suwannee Canal) and at such other points within the refuge as determined necessary (H.R. 9742). 

The same legislation directed the Department of the Interior to construct a fire access road system 

around the perimeter of the swamp. Representative Blitch's Bill was passed in March 1956 (Public 

Law 84-810; 70 Stat. 668), and the sill was completed in 1960. A copy of Public Law 84-810 is 

located in Appendix I. 

The Suwannee River Sill was not constructed near Mixons Ferry as Marshall recommended but 

between “The Pocket”, Macks Island, Middle Island, and Pine Island. The sill was not constructed as 

high as Marshall recommended. (The impoundment Marshall recommended probably would have 

flooded a great deal of upland in the vicinity of “The Pocket”.) The intended purpose of the sill was to 

impede flow out of the swamp so that swamp water levels would remain higher longer after the onset 

of dry periods to reduce fire hazards. 

Recent studies indicate that during low water periods, the sill affects water levels only in a 10,000- to 

15,000-acre area between the sill and the first natural sill near Billys Lake (Loftin 1998). Stabilization 

of water levels was thought to be necessary to maintain waterfowl habitat, but it may be fluctuation of 

water levels that has kept the swamp alive. 

If, as Carter believed, fluctuation of water level is the single physical factor in the environment that is 

the determinant of life in the swamp, he neglected other factors, driven by water level fluctuation. 

One is oxidation of organic material when exposed during dry periods. The other tool is fire. Without 

water level fluctuation, the fire regime is greatly altered. Time has shown that without fire, the swamp 

is dying. In 1998, an environmental assessment of the management of the sill was completed and 

after four years of further study by the U.S. Geological Survey, funds are being sought to remove the 

water control structures in the sill and breach it in selected locations. 
76 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Other management activities affecting wetlands include annual cutting of boat trails with a trailcutter, 

removal of debris from trails, and spraying of herbicides to reduce encroachment of grasses, sedges, 

and aquatic vegetation from boat and canoe trails. 

Some activities periodically take place on private lands adjacent to the refuge that could affect the 

health of the swamp. These activities include fire retardant drops, fertilization of commercial forests, 

use of herbicides in commercial forests, and channelization of drainages or drainage of cypress 

ponds. 

Wilderness Management - The establishment of the Okefenokee Wilderness by Congress on 

October 1, 1974, designated 353,981 acres within the existing refuge as a Class I Wilderness. This 

wilderness designation was supplemental to the purposes for which the refuge was established. 

Wilderness legislation provides additional environmental protection to the refuge from outside 

influences. This same legislation significantly increases the complexity of decision making regarding 

the management of various refuge resources. The Okefenokee Wilderness is administered to 

preserve its wildlife habitat, to protect its wilderness character, and is devoted to the public purposes 

of recreational, scenic, scientific, and educational use. 

Public Use Management - The overall philosophy of the refuge is to provide a quality experience for 

visitors. Interpretation and recreation management are tools that help the refuge meet its objectives. 

Optimum habitat and protection for threatened, endangered, and other wildlife species are provided 

through public use policies and facility designs. These practices concentrate the impact of the large 

numbers of people visiting the refuge on a fraction of the area managed. A large percentage of 

refuge visitors never venture beyond the public use areas provided. Fishermen, photographers, 

researchers, and other more intrepid visitors are restricted to day-use visitation or are issued a 

special use permit, which restricts access. The interpretive program provides exhibits, brochures, 

films, and videos, as well as live program presentations, which enhance the recreational experience 

by providing accurate, up-to-date environmentally oriented educational and recreational experiences 

that incite constituents to make informed decisions at the local, state, and federal levels. 

Fire Management - Fire suppression activities began almost as soon as the refuge was established. 

The 1939 Annual Narrative Report lists 2,500 acres of uplands burned by wildland fire. Early Annual 

Narrative Reports (1939 - 1960) listed several fires almost every year, burning a total of a thousand 

acres or more. During this period, many fires spread onto the refuge from adjacent areas burned by 

cattlemen. Other fires were started by lightning. 

The need for prescribed fire for hazardous fuels reduction and resource management was recognized 

by John Hopkins and others from the time the refuge was established. The 1944 Narrative Report 

submitted to the Service’s Regional Office mentioned a "Controlled Burn Plan." A small amount of 

fire suppression equipment was acquired. Prescribed burning began in 1945. Two areas were 

burned: 200 acres around Camp Cornelia and 1,000 acres in compartment 13. Burning was 

generally conducted in an attempt to improve northern bobwhite quail habitat. No more burning was 

conducted until 1951 because of lack of equipment. Prescribed fires after 1951 averaged 1,000 to 

2,000 acres per year. Burning was restricted to the perimeter upland areas. Burning was not 

authorized on any of the interior islands including Chesser Island. Prescribed burning began on 

Chesser Island in 1957 after the 1945-55 fire destroyed almost all of the mature pine on the Island. 

The fire hazard continued to increase on all other interior islands. Billys Island received its first 

prescribed fire in 1968. A 100-acre section of Floyds Island was burned in 1971. Lack of access 

made prescribed fire on most interior islands impractical. Aerial ignition by helicopter was initiated on 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

the refuge in 1981 with the burning of Billys and Honey Islands during one burning period. The other 

interior islands were included in the prescribed fire schedule of 1984. With the approval of prescribed 

fire on all of the interior islands, up to 16,000 acres have been burned annually. 

Until the mid-1980s, all prescribed burning was accomplished during the dormant season. Prescribed 

fire can be accomplished most easily and economically during the dormant season. The steady, 

predictable winds following winter frontal passages provide excellent burning conditions. Danger of 

escape or resource damage is lowest at this time. Dormant season burning, however, does not 

accomplish all of the refuge habitat management or hazard reduction goals. Fire naturally occurred 

during the growing season in the southeast and upland ecosystems and associated fauna have 

adapted to and are dependent upon growing season fire. Growing season fire must be utilized to 

some extent to restore and maintain the upland longleaf pine communities. Experimental growing 

season burns began with 20, 3-acre experimental plots in 1988. During the following years, parts of 

burning units and then whole burning units were prescribed burned. Over the past five years, an 

average of 515 acres have been prescribed burned during the growing season. However, a wildland 

fire in 2002 burned over all the interior islands, having the same effect as a prescribed growing 

season fire. 

Upland Habitat Management History - Restoration and maintenance of longleaf pine community 

habitats did not become a priority until recent times when more emphasis was directed towards 

habitat management rather than single species management. In 1937, a fair representation of the 

longleaf pine wiregrass community still remained. Refuge manager John Hopkins repeatedly 

documented concern over the deterioration of bobwhite quail habitat, and the need for prescribed fire 

to restore and maintain the habitat. Prescribed fire plans were approved. Increasing amounts of 

prescribed burning occurred each year. By this time, woody shrubs had apparently become 

established on most of the uplands. Although several thousand acres were burned annually, dormant 

season burning did little to reverse the encroachment of woody vegetation into the understory. 

In addition, almost all of the mature longleaf pine timber left after the 1920 logging operations were 

“cat-faced” trees, those with some type of injury scar that had been rejected by the loggers. Each fire 

occurring after this period ignited the faces of some of these trees, often killing them. Those trees 

that escaped fire still required constant suppression and mop-up action during prescribed burning 

operations. The solution to this problem was to remove the "cat faced" trees before fire could kill 

them, further reducing the longleaf pine component of the refuge forest uplands. Although no forest 

management program existed at the time, the 1944 and 1946 Annual Narrative Reports describe 

surveys and plans to inventory and remove turpentine-faced trees, those trees that had scars from 

turpentine operations, from the refuge. During 1947, 1,500 acres of faced trees were removed from 

Camp Cornelia and Chesser Island. The operation was continued around Camp Cornelia until 1949. 

In 1952, additional faced trees were harvested around Camp Cornelia. In 1954, during salvage 

operations on Mims Island (compartment 6) after the Mule Tail Fire, faced trees were removed from 

areas adjacent to the salvage areas. In 1955, after the fires were out, more turpentine-faced trees 

were removed during fire salvage operations. During 1956, 225,000 board feet of "cat faced" trees 

were removed from “The Pocket” (compartment 8). 

These faced trees would have been our relict stands of today. The objective behind removal of the 

old faced trees was often "to improve the appearance of the pine lands," or to create areas for 

propagation of longleaf pine. While longleaf pine on some high ridges dates back to this period, the 

altered fire regime and growing hardwood understory favored encroachment of slash pine into most 

areas. 
78 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

The 1954-55 wildfire destroyed a substantial amount of longleaf pine forest, particularly in areas 

which had not burned by recent prescribed or wildland fire. After the fire, a considerable effort was 

expended in reestablishing longleaf pine. Between 1956 and 1959, longleaf and slash pine seed and 

seedlings were planted on Chesser Island, Camp Cornelia, Fowls Roost Island, Cowhouse Island, 

Soldier Camp Island, and Jones Island. While slash pine planting was apparently successful on all of 

these areas, there is little evidence of longleaf pine plantations except at Camp Cornelia and Chesser 

Island, where several excellent direct seeded stands of longleaf pine exist. 

A Timber Management Plan for Okefenokee Refuge was begun in 1951. In 1960, a plan was 

completed for the management of 9,533 acres of upland. During this period, Fish and Wildlife 

Service objectives focused upon individual species or groups of species, managing their numbers or 

attempting to create habitat to benefit those species. With emphasis on species, the importance of 

the individual communities that fit together to make up an ecosystem was not fully recognized. Within 

the southeastern coastal plain, resource managers did not appreciate the importance of longleaf pine 

communities, their fire dependency, or their association with the wildlife species that are adapted to 

and dependent upon them. Consequently, forest management often meant replacing an old stand 

with a new, vigorous, well-stocked stand; after the stand was established, it was managed to create 

the conditions for the featured wildlife species. 

Accepted forest management practices tended to increase the number of slash pine stands on the 

refuge at the expense of longleaf pine. Annual Narrative Reports and Forest Management 

Prescriptions of the past document the clearcutting of "poorly stocked" stands of longleaf pine with 

wiregrass understories so that they could be replaced with a "more productive" stand, usually slash 

pine. In addition, the site preparation that preceded planting of the new stand usually destroyed 

wiregrass and other ground cover components of the community. 

Attempts were made to plant longleaf; however, with the techniques available at that time, survival 

was often poor. Adding to the difficulty of establishing longleaf pine was the heavy understory 

resulting from changes in the fire regime and the raised water table following clear cutting of the old 

stand. After one or two failures, slash pine was usually planted in the intended longleaf site. 

Attempts were also made to establish longleaf pine regeneration under some stands of scattered, 

cat-faced, remnant longleaf pine by harrowing strips through the stand. By this time, however, the 

hardwood understory was too well established to allow longleaf regeneration. 

Soil and moisture conditions make most of the refuge’s forested uplands excellent slash pine sites. It 

was only the frequent occurrence of growing season fires throughout history that destroyed slash 

pine seedlings and allowed longleaf pine to dominate this area. Consequently, many of the species 

dependent upon fire-dependent sites are now threatened or endangered as their habitats 

disappeared. 

During 1968, a land-for-timber exchange was completed with Rayonier, Inc., for several tracts of land 

on the south end of the refuge. The result was the loss of many more acres of old (second) growth 

longleaf pine. In addition, the upland areas acquired contained several hundred acres of bare, 

cutover land, most of it supporting longleaf pine at one time. In 1974, with the exchange completed, 

several hundred acres of bare land to plant, the RCW recently classified as endangered, and an 

increased appreciation for natural longleaf pine communities, the refuge staff was challenged to 

restore longleaf pine on these bare acres. 

Between 1974 and 2003, 1,437 acres of refuge land were reforested, most of it with longleaf pine. 

Methods of regeneration include direct seeding, and planting of bare root and containerized longleaf 

seedlings. Many small areas have been naturally regenerated, the preferred method of reforestation. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Initially, extensive site preparation was accomplished (e.g., root raking, burning, chopping, harrowing) 

to create a "good bed" before planting. In each plantation, longleaf pine was planted on the best site. 

Slash pine was planted in the lowest areas next to the swamp, drains or around ponds. In recent 

years, with increased use of growing season fire, site preparation has been reduced to a minimum, to 

avoid destruction of scattered residual warm season ground cover plants that may have survived the 

many years of altered fire regime. Currently, longleaf pine is planted over the entire plantable area in 

a regeneration area. If slash pine manages to escape prescribed fire, it is allowed to regenerate 

naturally in low areas. In some areas, growing season fire may promote the reestablishment of 

wetland longleaf communities. 

The most successful method of restoration of longleaf pine in mixed stands practiced has involved 

selective thinning to remove other pine species or to open up small patches in mixed stands for 

natural regeneration. Prescribed fire is used to prevent reestablishment of slash and loblolly pine 

seedlings. The major tool used on interior islands within the National Wilderness Area has been 

dormant and growing season fire. All of the major islands have received prescribed fire in recent 

years. While slash and loblolly pine are not harvested from these areas, natural and prescribed fire 

has been used to kill or thin patches of unwanted pine, less tolerant to fire. Other patches die 

naturally due to lightning strikes, wildfires, and insect or disease outbreaks. With the continued use 

of fire, longleaf pine will eventually be established in these openings. 

Management of Adjacent Lands - Fewer and fewer forest landowners are using prescribed fire to 

reduce fuels on their forests. Reasons include cost of burning, reduced growth, resource damage, 

danger of escaped fire, and liability due to drift smoke on highways. Some forest managers are using 

herbicides to reduce fuel levels. Others are using harvesting, site preparation, and planting patterns 

to produce barriers to retard the spread of fire. Some landowners who have curtailed burning 

operations elsewhere are burning between the Swamps Edge Break and the Perimeter Road to 

reduce the risk of fire around the swamp. Most commercial forest landowners still use fire for site 

preparation. 

Management strategies on adjacent lands pose several threats to refuge wildlife and habitat. These 

include: 

• Escaped prescribed fire. While most refuge habitats are fire-dependent, fire at the wrong time 

can destroy habitat. 

• Heavy fuel accumulations. Heavy fuel accumulations next to the refuge increase the chances of 

high intensity fire adjacent to and spreading into refuge habitats. 

• Fertilization. Most industrial forest landowners now fertilize forest plantations to increase growth. 

Nutrients leaching into refuge wetlands will increase the growth of scrub/shrub encroachment, 

create algae blooms, and change the oxygen balance of the water. Changes of pH or nutrient 

levels may affect the growth or survival of aquatic organisms. 

• Pesticide applications. Periodic applications of herbicides intended to reduce fuels and 

competition for nutrients may affect wetland habitats and organisms. 
80 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

The presence of private lands adjacent to the refuge influences refuge management strategies in 

several ways: 

• Fire management. The presence of private property increases the level of responsibility of refuge 

fire managers for fire management actions and the liability of escaped fire. 

• Fragmentation of uplands. The refuge boundary in most areas is within or adjacent to the swamp 

edge, leaving only fragments of uplands around the perimeter of the swamp. Virtually all oldgrowth timber on adjacent lands has been harvested, eliminating available nesting and foraging 

habitat for the RCW outside the refuge. The value of refuge old-growth forests as nesting and 

foraging habitat is severely limited because of its location and size. Most forest management 

compartments are limited to one to four groups of RCW because of size. Genetic transfer is 

limited because of the distance between subpopulations. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

III. Plan Development 

PLANNING PROCESS 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge has been prepared 

in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Refuge System Improvement Act requires the Fish and 

Wildlife Service to actively seek public involvement in environmental planning. It also requires the 

Service to seriously consider all reasonable alternatives, including a “no action” alternative. These 

alternatives were considered in the environmental assessment, prepared in conjuction with the draft 

comprehensive conservation plan. 

In developing the refuge plan, the Service completed the following planning process: 

1. Established a planning team consisting of refuge management staff, a private ecology 

consultant and representatives from Ecological Services, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Division, Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites, 

and Osceola National Forest. 

2. Notified the public and interest groups about the planning process and distributed comment 

packets. 

3. Held public workshops to identify the important issues, concerns, and suggestions related to 

the future management of the refuge. 

4. Hosted professional reviews of the refuge’s forestry/fire, biological, and public use programs. 

5. Evaluated lands for additions to the Okefenokee Wilderness Area through the Wilderness 

Inventory and Study process. 

6. Prepared a draft plan and an environmental assessment for public review and comment. 

The refuge management staff began meeting regularly on March 16, 2001, to discuss the planning 

process. The first core planning team meeting was held on July 26, 2001. The team developed a 

vision statement for the refuge and identified a number of issues and concerns that were likely to 

affect the management of the refuge. Alternatives and goals were also developed after reviewing 

comments received during the public comment period and program reviews. These alternatives were 

evaluated through the environmental assessment. 

The public and interest groups were notified of the refuge’s intent to begin the comprehensive 

conservation planning process through a mailing to over 800 individuals, newspaper articles, and 

presentations at civic organization meetings. Upon request, a comment packet was sent in hopes of 

initiating feedback. 

 
82 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

The public scoping workshops were held in five towns surrounding the refuge. The location and 

dates follow: 

 Homerville, GA September 18, 2001 

 St. George, GA September 20, 2001 

 Fargo, GA September 25, 2001 

 Waycross, GA September 27, 2001 

 Folkston, GA October 4, 2001 

These meetings identified issues, concerns, and opportunities concerning the management of the 

refuge. All comments received during the scoping period are summarized in Appendix IX and were 

incorporated into management discussions throughout the environmental assessment. 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review concurrent with the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Service inventoried the refuge lands adjacent to the Okefenokee Wilderness 

Area for their eligibility as Wilderness Study Areas. Seven areas were evaluated. Through the 

review, it was recommended that these lands not be added to the wilderness area (Appendix XI). 

Without wilderness designation, they would benefit both the refuge and wilderness by providing areas 

for monitoring parameters, research, environmental education, managing fire and other threats, and 

options for distributing visitors to lessen their impact at a few entrances. 

The draft comprehensive conservation plan was distributed to officials of federal, state, and local 

government agencies, private organizations, and the general public for review and comment. A 

public comment period followed along with several public meetings where each alternative was 

presented and verbal comments were received from the public. The comments from the public 

comment period are summarized in Section B, Appendix X. 

PLANNING ISSUES 

The refuge received 25 completed questionnaires and 23 letters and phone calls during the pre-plan 

scoping period. Participation at the scoping workshops was low with at most ten individuals present. 

Combining these comments with comments received through program reviews, the following six 

issues were identified and formed the basis for the development and comparison of the different 

alternatives as described in the environmental assessment: 

A. Wildlife Management 

B. Resource Protection 

C. Wilderness Values 

D. Public Services 

E. Partnerships 

F. Administration 

After the draft plan was released, there was a 45-day public comment period and formal public 

meetings to gather comments on the proposed action. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The management direction for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge over the next 15 years is 

presented below. This includes the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the 

refuge vision. 

The planning team selected Alternative 2, Integrated Landscape Management, to direct the 

management of the refuge over the next 15 years. This alternative is the most comprehensive and 

balanced alternative, incorporating the responsibilities associated with the original purpose of the 

refuge, the Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, and other laws and directives. By viewing 

the refuge as a portion of a larger ecosystem, the refuge staff will strive to protect the resources to the 

best of its ability using the current knowledge base. The other alternatives evaluated in the 

environmental assessment were Alternative 1, Current Management; Alternative 3, Conservation 

Through Natural Processes; and Alternative 4, Refuge Focus Management. 

Implementing the selected alternative will result in the maintenance, protection, and enhancement of 

the native habitats of the refuge, while meeting the refuge’s primary purpose of providing “a refuge 

and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife.” It incorporates an understanding of the 

refuge’s place locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally and recognizes the potential benefits 

of networking, partnerships, and data sharing. Landscape management will strive to imitate historic 

conditions. The use of prescribed and natural fire is promoted for the maintenance and restoration of 

native habitats. Endangered species and other wildlife will benefit from improved or maintained 

habitat conditions. Monitoring is essential in evaluating the effects of management, natural 

processes, and human activity within the “zones of influence.” This alternative acknowledges the 

refuge’s responsibilities in the preservation of wilderness characteristics and emphasizes solitude. All 

activities within the wilderness will be evaluated through the Minimum Requirements Decision Guide. 

In addition, wildlife-dependent public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are incorporated into the plan. These 

activities will be allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. 

REFUGE VISION 

The vision for the refuge is as follows: 

The Okefenokee is like no other place on earth; 

where natural beauty and wilderness character prevail. 

The vision for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

is to protect and enhance wildlife and its habitat, 

ensure integrity of the ecological system, 

and embrace the grandeur, mystery, and cultural heritage 

that lead visitors to an enrichment of the human spirit. 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN SUMMARY 

Threats to the refuge are becoming more prominent as development activities increase in northeast 

Florida and southeast Georgia. Although the refuge is a large system in itself, the swamp may be 

greatly compromised by activities a great distance away from its boundary. This plan recognizes the 

impact these activities may have on the integrity of the swamp and the importance of looking beyond 
84 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

the refuge boundary. These “zones of influence” vary depending on the natural resources involved. 

The refuge staff will continue open communication and partnerships with adjacent landowners and 

interest groups downstream from the Okefenokee Swamp to protect the natural resources, especially 

during emergency fire/weather situations. In addition, partnerships beyond the refuge’s immediate 

neighbors will be developed to address issues associated with the aquifer, air shed, and biota 

exchange pathways. Extensive resource sharing and networking with other refuges, state agencies, 

organizations, specialists, researchers, and private citizens would expand the knowledge base and 

develop cooperation between interest groups. 

Upland management will emphasize the maintenance and restoration of longleaf pine communities to 

historic conditions. The refuge will continue to seek partnerships with adjacent landowners to 

enhance the refuge’s habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and associated species 

by providing corridors between refuge upland management compartments or expanding foraging and 

nesting areas. Restoration of natural systems, native communities, and healthy environments will be 

emphasized thus promoting a high quality of life regionally. Within the refuge, natural processes and 

the wilderness philosophy will be strongly considered in all decisions. Management within the 

wilderness will be evaluated through the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide. Monitoring 

environmental parameters, flora, and fauna will be incorporated into an integrated study to gain 

knowledge on the health of the Okefenokee Ecosystem. The biggest challenge is having a 

comprehensive monitoring network capable of identifying small changes in the system. The refuge 

staff and partners must be proactive and forward thinking to anticipate the potential of any apparently 

insignificant action that may cause a significant change to the overall system. 

The future of Okefenokee Refuge is dependent upon a constituency that is knowledgeable of refuge 

resources, mandates, and environmental issues, and willing to work toward common goals. To build 

and maintain this constituency, this plan not only provides actions to protect, restore, and conserve 

wildlife habitat, but also provides expanded educational and appropriate, compatible, wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. The refuge and surrounding area will be promoted, linking 

recreational and educational avenues. Developing partnerships among our constituencies is the 

common theme to implement these actions and opportunities. Promoting the refuge as an asset of 

Charlton, Clinch, and Ware Counties in Georgia and Baker County in Florida will enhance the 

refuge’s image and help expand local support. 

Staffing will be expanded to meet the increased communication commitment and accommodate data 

and resource sharing. Also, a significant increase in staff is presented due to the additional 

manpower that will be required to manage the refuge with a greater consciousness for the wilderness 

resource. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented below are the Fish and Wildlife Service’s responses 

to the issues and concerns expressed by the planning team, the public at the scoping meetings, and 

comments submitted by the public. The goals, objectives, and strategies are presented in 

hierarchical format. Following each goal is a list of objectives, and under each objective is a list of 

strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the Refuge System, the 

Endangered Species Act, the Wilderness Act, and the purpose and vision for Okefenokee Refuge. 

Depending upon the availability of funds and staff, the Service intends to accomplish these goals, 

objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

GOAL 1 – WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

Promote and provide high-quality habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species and 

conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and ecological function of native flora and fauna on and 

off refuge lands. 

Objective 1. Protect and maintain the threatened and endangered species populations, expanding 

their populations where possible, and enhancing the habitat on the refuge by working with adjacent 

landowners. Encourage other land managers in the area to promote appropriate habitat for 

threatened and endangered species to create a larger gene pool, increase opportunities for survival 

within the ecosystem, and restore a piece of the area’s natural heritage. 

• Strategy 1.1. Continue to monitor annually the status of RCW clusters on the uplands outside the 

wilderness. 

• Strategy 1.2. Continue to band all RCW outside the wilderness to identify movements and group 

dynamics and evaluate the need and feasibility of banding RCW within the wilderness. 

• Strategy 1.3. Use artificial cavities where needed to enhance existing clusters or encourage the 

use of an area adjacent to active clusters outside the wilderness, and evaluate the need for 

artificial cavities on the interior islands after each wilderness survey. 

• Strategy 1.4. Survey the status of RCW clusters on wilderness islands every other year during 

the breeding season to assess activity, suitability of cavities, and habitat conditions. Complete a 

summary report of conditions and recommendations. 

• Strategy 1.5. Identify potential RCW habitat using vegetation maps and aerial photos and survey 

10 percent of the area each year for RCW clusters. 

• Strategy 1.6. Evaluate the need for a population viability model to assess the RCW populations 

at the refuge and in cooperation with the Regional RCW Coordinator, identify the refuge’s 

contribution to the regional resource. 

• Strategy 1.7. Promote forest management practices designed to benefit RCWs and associated 

community species and facilitate growth of longleaf pine, both on the refuge and on adjacent state 

and private lands. 

• Strategy 1.8. Seek incentives for landowners to grow longleaf pine stands adjacent to the refuge 

to at least 60 years-old for the benefit of RCWs and other endemic species associated with 

longleaf pine – wiregrass habitat. 

• Strategy 1.9. Develop and implement surveys for “focal” species of mammals, birds, fish, 

amphibians and reptiles, particularly those species that are threatened, endangered, or species of 

special concern (e.g., Rafinesque’s big-eared bat, round-tailed muskrat, pocket gopher, 

Sherman’s fox squirrel, gopher tortoise, Bachmans sparrow, black-banded sunfish, mud sunfish, 

banded topminnow). 

• Strategy 1.10. Consider acquisition of property that would benefit populations of threatened and 

endangered species to be high priority. 
86 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 1.11. Evaluate the potential for reintroduction of endangered species that occurred 

historically at the refuge or augmentation of existing populations through translocation from 

outside sources (e.g. RCW, Florida panther, and ivory-billed woodpecker). 

• Strategy 1.12. Continue to work with landowner/land manager adjacent to the east side of the 

refuge on Trail Ridge to provide habitat that enhances the use of refuge lands by RCW. 

• Strategy 1.13. Continue working with Georgia Forestry Commission under a Memorandum of 

Understanding to create suitable habitat on Cowhouse Island for RCW and investigate additional 

partners on Cowhouse Island to expand the amount of suitable RCW habitat. 

• Strategy 1.14. Develop and implement surveys to determine distribution and population status of 

amphibians and reptiles, particularly those species that are threatened, endangered, or species of 

special concern. 

• Strategy 1.15. Determine the historic use of the refuge by wood storks and examine conditions 

for re-establishing populations within the refuge. 

• Strategy 1.16. Develop and implement surveys to determine distribution, population status, and 

needs of rare fishes within the refuge. 

• Strategy 1.17. Review the Draft Florida Panther Recovery Plan and engage in the decisionmaking process with the Service’s Ecological Services’ Recovery Team. 

• Strategy 1.18. Survey appropriate habitat for the ivory-billed woodpecker to determine whether 

this bird still exists within the landscape and determine the acreage of suitable habitat. 

Objective 2. Identify factors influencing declines in the refuge’s fishery by examining water 

chemistry, groundwater withdrawals, water quality, pH levels, invertebrate populations and the 

physical environment. Evaluate feasibility of restoring the fish population. 

• Strategy 2.1. Review past research for the extent of aquatic habitat changes that have occurred 

in the refuge that may relate to fish population dynamics. Use water quality databases and 

hydrologic information to parameterize and develop fisheries models. 

• Strategy 2.2. Determine the changes in fish population dynamics using current and historic 

census data. In cooperation with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources - Fisheries 

Section, and the Service’s Fisheries Resources Office, identify “focal” fish species to represent 

the overall health of the fisheries. Develop sampling scheme to sample fish species in aquatic 

habitats based upon availability of habitat types. Conduct surveys at 2-year intervals to assess 

changes in fish community structure, particularly with emphasis on abundance of aquatic 

invertebrates and non-game species. 

• Strategy 2.3. Develop or further promote partnerships with federal, state, and private 

organizations to manage water resources and protect fish habitat within the Okefenokee 

watershed. 

• Strategy 2.4. Analyze weather station and water quality monitoring data from refuge sites. 

Determine the need to modify existing monitoring protocols and collect additional water quality 

data to monitor long-term health of the refuge’s water resources and its fisheries. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Objective 3. Determine the status, specific habitat requirements, and limiting factors of reptile 

species, including those associated with the upland pine community. Evaluate feasibility of 

restoration. 

• Strategy 3.1. Develop and employ survey methods to determine status and distribution of reptiles 

within the upland pine community (including pine snake, southern hognose snake, eastern 

diamondback rattlesnake, and mimic glass lizard). Compare findings with other populations. 

• Strategy 3.2. Identify specific habitat requirements for the upland pine community reptile species 

and use GIS analysis to locate additional suitable sampling sites. 

• Strategy 3.3. Monitor the status of gopher tortoises on the refuge and compare with other 

populations. Map the location of gopher tortoise burrows; establish the level of activity and use by 

commensal species. 

• Strategy 3.4. Conduct a thorough review of literature to determine specific habitat requirements 

of indigo snakes, particularly for historic information (notes and sightings) that identifies sites 

within the refuge where indigo snakes were found. 

• Strategy 3.5. Develop methods to survey for indigo snakes within the refuge to determine status 

and health of the population. Use GIS analyses to locate optimal habitats in which to focus 

survey efforts. Compare results with other populations. 

• Strategy 3.6. Consider development of habitat management guidelines that would benefit indigo 

snakes and balance with the needs of other species. 

• Strategy 3.7. Develop and implement surveys to determine the status, health, and population 

dynamics of the American alligator. 

• Strategy 3.8. Identify the impact alligators have on the closure of prairies and other landscape 

dynamics. 

Objective 4. Maintain, enhance, and promote upland linkages to ephemeral wetlands for the 

flatwoods salamander, striped newt, gopher frog, and other amphibians. 

• Strategy 4.1. Develop a spatial database of ephemeral wetlands on and adjacent to the refuge. 

Analyze existing digital elevation models and aerial photography to identify potential areas and 

follow up with ground-truthing sites. 

• Strategy 4.2. Work with amphibian researchers from federal and state agencies or universities to 

establish sampling protocols and verify presence or absence of key amphibian species at 

ephemeral sites and surrounding habitat. 

• Strategy 4.3. Protect the ephemeral wetlands by restricting activity within 100 feet, maintaining 

low understory vegetation around the perimeter, keeping logging debris away from the wetlands, 

and allowing fire to move freely into the wetlands to maintain herbaceous characteristics of the 

ponds and relatively open adjacent uplands. 

• Strategy 4.4. Minimize impacts to breeding amphibians along ephemeral wetland edges during 

October – December by providing unburned patches. 
88 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 4.5. Develop additional habitat management strategies to promote or maintain 

ephemeral wetlands in upland habitats on interior islands and upland management 

compartments. 

• Strategy 4.6. Restore the hydrology of ephemeral wetlands disrupted by ditches and borrow pits 

on the refuge and promote the restoration of these wetlands off the refuge. 

Objective 5. Understand and maintain the role of invertebrates in the structure and function of the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 5.1. Survey specific habitat types for species composition and relative abundance. 

• Strategy 5.2. Develop a reference collection of invertebrates from specific habitat types. 

• Strategy 5.3. Identify invertebrate species associated with the ephemeral ponds. 

• Strategy 5.4. Evaluate Chironomidae (midge larvae) head capsules (and diatoms) in peat cores 

to categorize historical and present water quality regimes. 

Objective 6. Understand the use patterns of select resident and migratory birds to identify critical 

habitat components and the impacts of management practices and natural events. 

• Strategy 6.1. As an indicator of the aquatic system quality, initiate a formal monthly survey of 

waterbird foraging habits to cover the major open water and prairie habitats in a timely manner 

and correlate with measures of water depth and food sources. (Airboat and aerial methods will be 

evaluated and new remote sensing techniques will be evaluated as they are developed.) 

• Strategy 6.2. Establish a reporting system for potential wading bird nesting colonies if large flocks 

of wading birds are seen roosting or nesting during aerial flights between February and May. 

Further investigate these sites via foot, watercraft, or helicopter depending on accessibility. 

Identify potential colony sites through GIS habitat analysis and conduct standard aerial striptransect surveys in these areas. 

• Strategy 6.3. Conduct annual helicopter surveys for ospreys during the peak nesting season to 

determine productivity and how productivity may change with changing water levels. 

• Strategy 6.4. Expand annual point counts during migration and breeding periods to assess 

changes in passerine bird species composition and abundance. Contribute data to a national or 

regional database. Determine the need to augment point counts with other methods of studying 

avian species diversity (i.e., mist-netting and banding). 

• Strategy 6.5. Eliminate Midwinter Waterfowl Survey because the refuge is not an important 

contributor to this national database. 

• Strategy 6.6. Eliminate Annual Bald Eagle Survey because the refuge is not an important 

contributor to this national database. 

• Strategy 6.7. Remove artificial nest boxes for wood ducks on the east side of the refuge and 

continue to maintain and monitor through the assistance of the boy scouts the use of the boxes 

on the west side of the refuge annually until 2008, and determine the efficiency of this program. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

• Strategy 6.8. Establish at least 20 point counts in upland pine stands (>10 in longleaf and >10 in 

slash dominated; both presently existing and in areas to be restored) to monitor breeding bird 

populations for increases in priority species, focusing on brown-headed nuthatch and Bachman’s 

sparrow. 

• Strategy 6.9. Establish at least one transect along the Chesser Island Boardwalk to survey 

transient land birds and breeding and wintering species. Survey each transect weekly. 

• Strategy 6.10. Investigate the feasibility of remote sensing, such as radar, for determining 

passerine bird movements and use of habitat within the swamp. 

• Strategy 6.11. Continue to participate in the late October “Sandhill Crane Survey,” covering all 

potential occupied habitat, with emphasis on determining family group sizes as an indicator of 

yearly productivity of resident populations. Consider repeating several times within the count 

week to determine adequacy of a single count protocol. 

• Strategy 6.12. Develop strip-transect aerial surveys by helicopter of open marsh areas to provide 

an estimate of current resident sandhill crane population size and distribution. In addition, 

conduct call-counts, following protocol established in previous studies and determine the most 

appropriate survey method. Compare current population estimates with results of past studies. 

• Strategy 6.13. Determine the need for more intensive studies to detect changes in movements 

(home range), habitat use/suitability, and survival of resident cranes. Determine how the 

hydrological dynamics of Okefenokee Swamp’s wet prairie system affect the resident crane 

population. 

• Strategy 6.14. Continue cooperation with state agencies by providing sighting information for 

swallow-tailed kites. 

• Strategy 6.15. Determine the status of nesting swallow-tailed kites on the refuge and examine 

habitat components by conducting aerial (helicopter) surveys in late April through early May, 

based on sightings and potential sites in cooperation with Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources. Record GPS coordinates, nest tree species, dominant vegetation, and site 

description. 

• Strategy 6.16. Institute forest and wetland management practices that would optimize habitat for 

kites and also benefit other wildlife species. Encourage landowners of parcels adjoining the 

refuge to consider requirements of swallow-tailed kites in their management practices. Provide at 

least a 120-foot buffer around all nests found. 

Objective 7. Continue to work with Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission to monitor and manage the mammal populations within and 

around the refuge. 

• Strategy 7.1. Conduct the annual bait station surveys with Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources and assess the need by 2007 for increasing or decreasing the amount of effort. 

• Strategy 7.2. Evaluate and implement other sampling methods to provide a robust estimate of 

Okefenokee black bear population dynamics and mast production by 2007 (i.e., remote cameras 

and hair snares). 
90 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 7.3. Work with federal and state partners to evaluate the need for spatially explicit 

habitat models for Okefenokee black bears. 

• Strategy 7.4. Promote and assist in developing a cooperative management plan for black bear in 

Georgia and Florida. 

• Strategy 7.5. Monitor the health of white-tailed deer population within the refuge every 5 years by 

examining deer from both the east and west sides of the refuge. 

• Strategy 7.6. Determine suitable refuge habitat for “The Pocket” gopher and establish survey 

methods to assess the status of this species on refuge lands. 

• Strategy 7.7. Re-establish “The Pocket” gopher if it has been extirpated and prevent future 

management practices that could potentially damage the habitat conditions necessary for this 

species. 

• Strategy 7.8. Determine the presence or absence of the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat on the refuge 

by sound frequency survey techniques and determine the need for roost sites. 

• Strategy 7.9. Using wintertime aerial photography, identify location, density, and spatial 

distribution of round-tailed muskrat den sites every 5 years. 

Objective 8. Examine wildlife population health and contaminant availability within the ecosystem. 

• Strategy 8.1. Work with bio-contaminant specialists from federal and state agencies to develop 

sampling protocols for collecting tissue, blood, or hair/feather samples to evaluate the levels of 

mercury, lead, and other contaminants in selected species (e.g., mammal-river otter, round-tailed 

muskrat, black bear; bird-white ibis, sandhill crane, osprey; amphibian-pig frog, greater siren; 

reptile-American alligator; fish and invertebrate species) every 5 years or when there is a concern. 

• Strategy 8.2. Using water quality monitoring data and past contaminant studies, identify areas 

that may serve as “contaminant sinks” within which to focus sampling efforts. 

• Strategy 8.3. Examine amphipods for mercury and other contaminants to form a comparison 

level for future investigations. 

Objective 9. Strive to maintain the natural diversity and abundance of wildlife species within the 

physiographic region of the Okefenokee Swamp by forming a network of agencies and organizations 

that would share data in a timely manner to influence management decisions and recognize problems 

within the system. 

• Strategy 9.1. Develop or further promote partnerships with federal and state management 

agencies to identify threats to the resources within the “zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 9.2. Create a database indicating wildlife surveys conducted by agencies and 

organizations within the physiographic region of the Okefenokee Swamp to gain an understanding 

of the regional perspective and the potential of movements between wildlife areas. 

• Strategy 9.3. Participate in regional efforts to compile data from wildlife surveys and 

observations. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

GOAL 2 – RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Restore, maintain, protect, and promote native habitats and healthy natural systems where possible 

to imitate historic distribution, frequency, and quality on and off the refuge, and preserve the 

associated cultural sites and wilderness qualities. 

Objective 1. Restore, enhance, and promote the native upland communities and the associated 

wetlands to maintain the natural vegetation mosaic, diversity, and viability found historically within the 

Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem while improving opportunities for RCW activity. 

• Strategy 1.1. Investigate the historic vegetation of wilderness islands by 2007, compiling 

descriptions from the literature on specific islands. If another vegetation class currently 

dominates it, determine whether it is desirable and feasible to return it to the historic vegetation 

class. 

• Strategy 1.2. Inventory upland management compartments, including understory species, to 

monitor conditions and identify management needs to progress toward a self-perpetuating 

longleaf forest. Develop forest management prescriptions by compartment, using a 1 percent line 

plot cruise, on a return interval of 10 years. 

• Strategy 1.3. Evaluate prescribed burn cycle to maximize benefit to the community plant species, 

black bears, RCWs, and other species associated with fire-dependent systems. Base the use of 

prescribed fire on need rather than on a set schedule (holistic approach). 

• Strategy 1.4. Establish representative photo and vegetation sampling points within upland 

management compartments, islands, and wetlands to illustrate changes in the vegetation 

structure related to fire effects, management practices, and natural events. 

• Strategy 1.5. Strive for a self-perpetuating longleaf forest as the majority of trees reach 100 

years. Timber harvesting and prescribed fire would be conducted as needs occur. Use 

prescribed fire to maintain understory composition and structure as needed. 

• Strategy 1.6. Expand and maintain a multi-layered database for fire, forestry, and biological 

resource analysis including but not limited to soils, hydrology, wildlife distribution, and vegetation. 

• Strategy 1.7. Inventory Number One Island to identify the unique old-growth longleaf and slash 

pine components of the island for baseline information. 

• Strategy 1.8. Promote, through partnerships, the establishment of a demonstration/community 

area emphasizing the native longleaf pine community, such as that seen at Southern Pines 

Elementary School, Southern Pines, North Carolina. 

• Strategy 1.9. Refuge staff will seek and promote the local/regional development of a wood-based 

market that utilizes the historic products of the native longleaf (Pinus palustris) and slash pine 

(Pinus elliottii). 

• Strategy 1.10. Encourage the Georgia Forestry Commission and the Florida Division of Forestry 

on their respective state forests that adjoin the refuge to create demonstration areas that 

showcase long rotation silviculture and fire pre-suppression techniques. 
92 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 1.11. Continue to utilize the National Fire Plan Operation Reporting System to develop 

Wildland Urban Interface projects that support fire wise activities. 

• Strategy 1.12. Wilderness islands will be prescribed burned using aerial ignition in the dormant 

season for hazardous fuel reduction and in the growing season for habitat restoration. Prescribed 

fire will be applied as needed to meet habitat restoration goals, generally between 2 to 6 years. 

• Strategy 1.13. Prescribed fire, both aerial and ground ignition, will be applied to upland 

management compartments outside the wilderness in the dormant season for hazardous fuel 

reduction and in the growing season for habitat restoration on an “as needed” basis (generally 

between 2 to 6 years). 

• Strategy 1.14. Annually plan and implement an average 6,200 acres of dormant season and 

6,500 acres of growing season burning on refuge property to simulate the natural fire dynamics of 

the area. 

• Strategy 1.15. Utilize Firebase, National Fire Plan Operating System, and the Fire Reporting 

System to secure resources for all future prescribed burning, mechanical fuel reduction, and 

selected silvicultural operations. 

• Strategy 1.16. Develop as part of the joint GOAL Fire Management Plan the support and 

resources through the National Fire Plan to conduct interagency prescribed burning within the fuel 

reduction zone between the Swamps Edge Break and the Perimeter Road. 

• Strategy 1.17. Maintain annually, island helispots to provide an emergency landing area during 

prescribed fire operations and to allow safe access for forestry crews and biologists working with 

wildlife and habitat issues. 

• Strategy 1.18. Selective thinning in upland management compartments will be used as the 

preferred silvicultural management tool to accomplish habitat restoration goals. 

• Strategy 1.19. Use patch regeneration areas ranging in size from 1⁄4-acre to 15 acres to increase 

the age variability and promote the establishment of longleaf pine within upland management 

compartments. Log loading areas, natural openings, and proximity to seed source will be 

considered when establishing patch regeneration areas. 

• Strategy 1.20. Plan regeneration on approximately 50 acres (1/30 of each compartment visited) 

each year. Plant improved, containerized longleaf pine seedlings at 500 trees per acre. 

• Strategy 1.21. Exclude logging operations from all upland bog filled depressions and drains. 

• Strategy 1.22. Use prescribed fire to reestablish the natural size and composition of wetlands 

dispersed throughout the uplands by using water levels and duff moisture to regulate fire intensity 

and penetration. 

• Strategy 1.23. Evaluate annually the upland management compartment roads. As needed, pull 

ditches, grade, set culverts, or construct low water crossings to provide for fire and forest 

management access. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

• Strategy 1.24. Evaluate annually and maintain as needed the upland management compartment 

roads by mowing to provide for fire and forest management access and to serve as a permanent 

fuels break. 

• Strategy 1.25. Inspect and make needed repairs on the 26 perimeter road bridges as required by 

regional guidelines while considering fish movements and erosion potential. 

• Strategy 1.26. Monitor forest insects and disease according to Service and regional direction. 

• Strategy 1.27. Protect ephemeral wetlands by restricting activity within 100 feet, maintaining low 

understory vegetation around the perimeter, keeping logging debris away from the wetlands, and 

allowing fire to move freely into the wetlands to maintain herbaceous characteristics of the ponds 

and relatively open adjacent uplands. 

• Strategy 1.28. Develop educational programs on habitats and select wildlife needs for equipment 

operators, foresters, fire crews, etc., to instill an interest and heighten awareness of their potential 

impact to the environment through their management actions. 

• Strategy 1.29. Update the refuge Fire Management Plan by 2006 to comply with the National 

Format for Fire Management Plans. 

• Strategy 1.30. Ensure all refuge staff engaged in fire related activities meet National Wildfire 

Coordinating Group training requirements for positions held. 

• Strategy 1.31. Maintain assigned fire suppression equipment according to manufacturers 

specifications to ensure safe efficient operation. 

• Strategy 1.32. Maintain annual operating plans with Florida Division of Forestry and Georgia 

Forestry Commission to continue joint fire operations. 

Objective 2. Maintain, enhance, and promote the Greater Okefenokee Ecosystem’s native wetland 

communities, their natural vegetation mosaic, diversity, viability, and dynamics, as found within the 

Okefenokee Swamp. 

• Strategy 2.1. Investigate the vegetation of the swamp wetlands by 2007 for areas within the 

swamp that have been altered to the extent that natural succession will not restore it to the 

historic vegetation (i.e., examine cypress regeneration in the northeast basin). 

• Strategy 2.2. Investigate the influence of the underlying aquifer on the Okefenokee Swamp to 

identify threats from increased demands on ground water within 100 miles of the swamp. 

• Strategy 2.3. Develop a water monitoring network using wells around the perimeter of the swamp 

to examine both surface and ground water to determine changes in water depths, flows and 

hydroperiods. Investigate partnerships with USGS Water Resources, and Georgia and Florida 

scientists for this work. 

• Strategy 2.4. Continue to monitor pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen at selected water 

monitoring stations and develop further the monitoring program to address water chemistry 

dynamics related to fire, water levels, weather events, plant composition, public use activities, and 

land use adjacent to the refuge. 
94 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 2.5. Monitor the water quality exiting the swamp near the Suwannee River Sill to identify 

changes as they relate to natural and man-made events and how it relates to data collected 

downstream by USGS. 

• Strategy 2.6. Collaborate with a university/college to examine the pH levels through the history of 

the swamp using appropriate materials within the peat layers. 

• Strategy 2.7. Develop a means of updating the fuel model map on a yearly basis to reflect the 

effects of fire moving across the swamp landscape. 

• Strategy 2.8. Revise the vegetation map every 10 years (next 2011), using appropriate images 

and ground truthing and determine percent change of each vegetation class. 

• Strategy 2.9. Establish photo points within each major prairie to illustrate changes in the 

vegetation structure related to management practices and natural events. 

• Strategy 2.10. Educate the public on the importance of good air quality, the threats of light and 

noise to the resources, and the avenues to reduce the negative effects. 

• Strategy 2.11. Continue to restore the river flood plain associated with the Suwannee River that 

has been influenced by the presence of the Suwannee River Sill by removing the two concrete 

water control structures and breaching the sill in four places. 

• Strategy 2.12. Keep accurate records of water levels and rainfall throughout the swamp and 

relate them to public use opportunities, fire hazards and occurrence, wildlife distribution, and 

water distribution. Currently, 10 water monitoring stations are in use. Add additional stations at 

Breakfast Branch and at the outlet to the St. Marys River. Pursue making this data available on 

the web. 

• Strategy 2.13. Investigate the influence of boat trail maintenance on the hydrologic dynamics 

within hydrologic basins of the swamp. 

• Strategy 2.14. Expand and maintain a multi-layered database for fire, forestry, and biological 

resource analysis within the swamp including but not limited to soils, hydrology, wildlife 

distribution, and vegetation. 

• Strategy 2.15. Inventory the old-growth cypress stands (e.g., Grand Prairie and Dinner Pond) that 

remain for baseline information. 

• Strategy 2.16. Encourage the use of natural fires within the wetlands versus scheduling 

prescribed fires that may decrease the impact of a future natural fire. 

• Strategy 2.17. Using historical water level records, minimize the movement of prescribed fire off 

wilderness islands and upland management compartments to accomplish stated objectives. 

• Strategy 2.18. Minimize the impacts of corridors on the landscape (e.g., roads, fire lines, swamps 

edge break) that alter water flows, seepages, compaction, and wildlife movement by rehabilitating 

unnecessary lines and considering maintenance practices that minimize soil disturbance. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

• Strategy 2.19. Collect data from the on-site regional air quality station at the end of each wildland 

fire event to document levels of fire-related pollutants. 

• Strategy 2.20. At the beginning of each wildland fire event, contact local and state transportation 

officials to advise of possible smoke production that may adversely impact road visibility. 

• Strategy 2.21. Finalize the Fire Use Guidebook of the refuge Fire Management Plan to allow the 

use of fire for natural resource benefits and amend the refuge’s Fire Management Plan. 

• Strategy 2.22. By 2007, complete initial training of refuge personnel and state and federal 

cooperators in the implementation of fire use as the appropriate management strategy on the 

refuge. 

• Strategy 2.23. By 2007, have a wetland fuels modeling research project to accurately represent 

the unique wetland fuels found on the refuge in Firebase (the Service’s prescribed fire funding 

database). 

Objective 3. Conserve natural resources through partnerships, protection, and land acquisition from 

willing sellers within the “zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 3.1. Assess and prioritize lands within the watershed by 2010 that would protect the 

resources and/or enhance management opportunities to meet refuge objectives. 

• Strategy 3.2. Establish acquisition priorities based upon habitat values and/or possible threats to 

existing resources. 

• Strategy 3.3. Initiate and continue contact with all landowners within the refuge acquisition 

boundary to determine landowner interest and willing-seller status. Acquire land as opportunities 

arise or enter into agreements to protect resources associated with the health of the wetlands and 

native upland communities. 

• Strategy 3.4. Continue to utilize and seek partnerships with conservation organizations and 

others to complete acquisitions. 

• Strategy 3.5. Develop Property Proposals as lands are identified as critical for managing the 

resources of the refuge. 

• Strategy 3.6. Seek incentives for landowners to grow longleaf pine stands adjacent to the refuge 

to at least 60 years-old for the benefit of RCWs. 

• Strategy 3.7. Through presentations and the distribution of information, encourage other land 

managers to restore, maintain, and protect native upland and wetland communities as a part of 

southeast Georgia’s heritage. 

• Strategy 3.8. Keep abreast of the threats within the “zones of influence” and be proactive in 

reducing the negative impacts (e.g., aerial, biota, water, and soil pathways). 
96 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 3.9. Form a network of stakeholders within the surface and groundwater basins 

associated with the Okefenokee Swamp to protect and restore the natural flows and monitor for 

changes in flows and water quality. Identify the reason for changes and work toward resolving 

any detrimental consequences. 

• Strategy 3.10. Every 5 years beginning in 2007, examine select plant and lichen species for 

injury due to air quality. 

• Strategy 3.11. Maintain the annual operation plans for the two Memorandums of Understanding 

with International Paper Company and seek opportunities with other adjoining landowners. 

• Strategy 3.12. By 2007, begin to develop a GOAL Fire Management Plan to cover the 1,500,000 

acres now contained in the group’s zone of influence. 

Objective 4. Investigate presence of and reduce non-native invasive plants and animal populations 

to minimize negative effects to native flora and fauna. 

• Strategy 4.1. Develop and maintain by 2007, a GIS database on known locations within and 

outside the refuge and the area covered by invasive plants and animals, type and date of the 

treatment, and the results of treatment. 

• Strategy 4.2. Take measures to eradicate the non-native invasive species. This may include the 

use of pesticides within the wilderness. 

• Strategy 4.3. Develop a team of refuge staff to revisit known sites and new sites where exotic 

species have been reported on an annual basis to document the current condition and future 

needs. 

• Strategy 4.4. Work with neighbors that are harboring and/or promoting non-native invasive 

species to reduce the threat of invasion onto the refuge. 

• Strategy 4.5. Remove non-native animals such as feral swine and domestic cats and dogs from 

refuge lands. Educate the local community of the damage done by these animals. 

• Strategy 4.6. Use native plants to landscape around refuge facilities and developed upland 

areas, such as road edges, to reduce the potential for exotics becoming established and to 

promote the use of the most efficient plants for the landscape. 

Objective 5. Identify and protect the archaeological and historical sites on the refuge from illegal 

take or damage in compliance with the established Acts. 

• Strategy 5.1. By 2007, all known locations will be cataloged using GPS coordinates for inclusion 

into the refuge GIS data base system. Continue to collect location information on historic 

properties as identified. Sites will be identified as needed when disturbance of soil is proposed or 

expected during an emergency. 

• Strategy 5.2. Educate the public through programs on the significance of the archaeological and 

historical sites. 

• Strategy 5.3. Develop and implement a long-term maintenance plan for the Chesser Island 

Homestead, and buildings on the National Historical Register. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Objective 6. Preserve the wilderness resource within the designated wilderness area. 

• Strategy 6.1. Every 5 years, beginning in 2006, survey light and noise pollution on the edge of 

the swamp and within the interior according to the protocols established by the Georgia Institute 

of Technology. 

• Strategy 6.2. Identify light and noise sources and reduce negative impacts of light and noise 

pollution where possible. 

• Strategy 6.3. Review new industry and development within the airshed as they relate to visibility 

impairments and air quality over the swamp and coordinate comments with the Service’s Air 

Quality Division. 

• Strategy 6.4. Monitor air quality under the guidance of the Service’s Air Quality Division, including 

the current partnership with the three national programs: National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program, Mercury Deposition Network, and the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments. 

• Strategy 6.5. Monitor human disturbance factors within zones of influence to protect the 

wilderness resource including habitat, wildlife, and human values. 

• Strategy 6.6. Continue to consider development of visitor surveys, particularly for overnight 

canoeists, to assess the overall quality of wilderness experience and if appropriate, implement a 

survey. 

• Strategy 6.7. Use the approved Minimum Requirement Decision Guide for non-emergency 

wilderness activities that are not covered within this comprehensive conservation plan. 

• Strategy 6.8. Plan helicopter flight paths when possible to minimize disturbance to wildlife, the 

wilderness, and visitors. 

• Strategy 6.9. Conduct emergency operations in a safe manner that addresses wilderness 

concerns. 

• Strategy 6.10. Distribute wilderness information to special task teams, volunteers, interns, and 

researchers to give a clear understanding of the Okefenokee Wilderness and the management 

requirements. 

GOAL 3 – WILDERNESS VALUES 

Restore, preserve, and protect the primeval character and natural processes of the Okefenokee 

Wilderness, leaving it untrammeled by man while providing recreational solitude, education, scientific 

study, conservation ethics, and scenic vistas. 

Objective 1. Preserve the primeval character of the Okefenokee Wilderness through management 

and re-establishment of ecological conditions that allow maximum use of natural processes. 

• Strategy 1.1. Monitor and evaluate public impacts and modify management to protect the 

wilderness resource. 
98 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 1.2. Be proactive within the “zones of influence” in minimizing potential threats to the 

wilderness resource. 

• Strategy 1.3. Establish guidelines as in the Fire Use Management Plan to allow maximum benefit 

for the wilderness resource from natural processes. 

• Strategy 1.4. Investigate remote sensing techniques as they become available while using 

traditional monitoring techniques when determined appropriate through Minimum Requirement 

Guidelines to monitor wildlife populations and habitat conditions. 

Objective 2. Provide recreational opportunities in wilderness that emphasize solitude. 

• Strategy 2.1. Continue to maintain and use the existing wilderness reservation system, the trail 

system, and the overnight shelters to ensure solitude. 

• Strategy 2.2. Be sensitive to visitor use when scheduling administrative activities in wilderness. 

• Strategy 2.3. Conduct Minimum Requirement Decisions prior to all management activities within 

the wilderness. 

• Strategy 2.4. Encourage, modify, or if necessary, directly control wilderness uses and influences 

to minimize their impact on solitude. 

• Strategy 2.5. Work with FAA and military installations to alter flight paths of commercial and 

military overflights. 

• Strategy 2.6. Maintain a minimum of 700 feet for administrative overflights. Special use flights 

will be governed by the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide on the specified activity. 

• Strategy 2.7. Maintain low vegetation at helispots on interior islands for safety in transporting 

equipment and workers. 

• Strategy 2.8. Continue to pursue the use of electric motors for guided tours. 

Objective 3. Provide educational enrichment related to wilderness. 

• Strategy 3.1. Continue to waive fees for educational groups. 

• Strategy 3.2. Encourage all visitors to enjoy the Visitor Center services where they can be 

oriented to wilderness concepts. 

• Strategy 3.3. Continue to provide wilderness related environmental education and interpretation 

programs. 

Objective 4. Accommodate scientific study for the purpose of managing the area as wilderness and 

protecting the Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

 

• Strategy 4.1. Evaluate the management contribution of proposed studies and use the Minimum 

Requirement Decision Guide to evaluate the need and wilderness compatibility. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

• Strategy 4.2. Expand relationships with the Carhart Wilderness Center, the Leopold Institute, 

colleges, and universities to develop needed wilderness research. 

Objective 5. Promote conservation ethics in wilderness. 

• Strategy 5.1. Manage natural processes to the benefit of the wilderness resource. 

• Strategy 5.2. Continue to monitor air and water quality and investigate potential threats. 

• Strategy 5.3. Use interdisciplinary science skills to manage wilderness. 

• Strategy 5.4. Promote and practice wilderness concepts such as Leave No Trace principles. 

• Strategy 5.5. Distribute information through printed materials and the internet about wilderness 

issues and ethics to local businesses, concessionaires, Stephen C. Foster State Park, and 

Swamp Park to distribute to their customers for greater awareness of human impacts. 

Objective 6. Provide scenic vistas in wilderness. 

• Strategy 6.1. Allow natural processes to open areas to provide scenic vistas. 

• Strategy 6.2. Continue to maintain boat/canoe trails to provide access and scenic views. 

• Strategy 6.3. Camouflage equipment or use natural materials to minimize the “hand-of-man.” 

GOAL 4 – PUBLIC SERVICES 

Provide and enhance fully accessible opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation when compatible to promote public 

appreciation, understanding, and action on behalf of the Okefenokee Ecosystem while maintaining 

the wilderness resource of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. 

Objective 1. Promote the refuge, the work of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and wilderness 

philosophy and concepts through brochures, personal contacts, and the refuge’s website. Provide 

clear directional information and signage to lead interested parties to the refuge, as well as to visitor 

opportunities once they have arrived. Opportunities within the Okefenokee Ecosystem will be 

promoted. 

• Strategy 1.1. Implement revised refuge Sign Plan to direct individuals through their refuge visit. 

• Strategy 1.2. Enhance orientation along the refuge hiking trail system by incorporating 

informational signs and mile markers. 

• Strategy 1.3. Continue to maintain routed, painted, wooden signs along the canoe trails to assist 

visitors in their travels through the swamp. 

• Strategy 1.4. Clearly mark the wilderness boundary at each entry/access point. 

• Strategy 1.5. Ensure existing traffic signs meet standards as outlined in the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. 
100 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 1.6. Continue updating refuge brochures and web pages to provide the most up-to-date 

and accurate information possible including other environmental opportunities within the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 1.7. Revise, expand, and develop brochures and other outreach materials to increase 

awareness of the wilderness resource and the concept of “Leave No Trace.” 

• Strategy1.8. Revise brochures and other outreach materials to increase awareness of the 

Okefenokee Refuge’s designation as a Wetland of International Importance, Important Birding 

Area, and the existence of Research and Public Use Natural Areas. 

• Strategy 1.9. Expand and develop contacts with all Georgia and Florida interstate, regional, and 

local visitor centers to provide refuge information on a regular basis for travelers. 

• Strategy 1.10. Develop “Introduction to Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge” packets, including 

brochures, pictures, and a short orientation video to assist welcome center and rest stop 

personnel in addressing questions from travelers. Continue to offer introductory refuge visits to 

these individuals as a supplement to the information packets. 

• Strategy 1.11. Initiate contact with Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina interstate, regional, 

and local welcome centers as possible outlets for refuge information and offer orientation packets 

and visits for their personnel. 

• Strategy 1.12. Continue working with Georgia Department of Transportation on refuge 

informational signage for north and south bound lanes of I-75 near Tifton/Valdosta and I-95 near 

Brunswick/Kingsland. 

• Strategy 1.13. Initiate discussions with the Florida Department of Transportation about refuge 

informational signage for the north and south bound lanes of I-75 near Lake City/Valdosta and I95 near Jacksonville/Yulee. 

• Strategy 1.14. Expand eco-tourism opportunities for the refuge, as well as for regional and local 

communities in partnership with businesses, civic and conservation organizations by promoting 

area attractions and joining together for birding festivals, Earth Day events, canoe clinics, and the 

establishment of extended bike and canoe trails, car tours, etc. 

• Strategy 1.15. Expand supply of key outreach products (e.g., posters and tattoos). 

• Strategy 1.16. Develop public service announcements for radio and television markets to 

promote refuge events. 

• Strategy 1.17. Prepare for emergencies by developing appropriate procedures for quickly 

contacting and engaging refuge partners with information about rapidly developing refuge and/or 

local concerns or issues. 

Objective 2. Implement a fee demonstration program where revenues will be strategically invested 

to support the operation and maintenance of hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation opportunities on the refuge. 

• Strategy 2.1. Continue fee-demonstration program that was implemented in 1998 and that was 

re-authorized in 2004. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

• Strategy 2.2. Expand methodologies for tracking use of fee demonstration funding in support of 

visitor services. 

• Strategy 2.3. Adjust user fees as necessary to ensure that a safe and quality wilderness and 

recreational experience is provided to the public. 

• Strategy 2.4. Conduct an annual evaluation of the fee collection program. 

Objective 3. Provide quality hunting opportunities within specified upland management 

compartments, making every effort to provide hunts for universal accessibility where possible. 

• Strategy 3.1. Evaluate current and potential individualized hunting opportunities on specified 

upland management compartments in Georgia and Florida. Implement hunts as appropriate. 

• Strategy 3.2. Evaluate and where appropriate expand and develop special hunting opportunities 

for family-oriented groups (e.g., father/son and mother/daughter). 

• Strategy 3.3. Incorporate into hunting brochures the variability of wildlife populations and hunter 

success and skill in diverse refuge habitats. 

• Strategy 3.4. Provide a refuge hunt brochure that summarizes all pertinent refuge regulations, 

discusses each of the designated hunt areas in detail, and provides a means for the public to 

apply for the hunt(s) by mail, fax, e-mail, or via the refuge website. 

• Strategy 3.5. Evaluate hunting opportunities on newly acquired lands. 

• Strategy 3.6. Expand and develop contacts with Handicapped Sportsmen’s groups in Georgia 

and Florida to improve accessibility to hunts. 

• Strategy 3.7. Monitor hunt programs and provide end-of-the-season harvest reports, including 

suggested improvements, to the state and other interested parties. Gather results of state 

administered hunts surrounding the refuge. 

Objective 4. Provide quality fishing opportunities on the refuge, making every effort to provide 

universal accessibility where possible. 

• Strategy 4.1. Coordinate with Georgia Department of Natural Resources to maintain year-round 

fishing seasons. 

• Strategy 4.2. Survey and evaluate refuge ponds, dip sites, and canals for expansion or deletion 

of bank fishing opportunities. 

• Strategy 4.3. Expand and develop contacts with Handicapped Sportsmen’s groups in Georgia 

and Florida for suggestions on improving access to fishing opportunities. 

• Strategy 4.4. Investigate opportunities for youth fishing derbies at sites accessed from all refuge 

entrances. 

• Strategy 4.5. Continue to develop fishing access opportunities at the Suwannee River Sill and 

Kingfisher Landing. 
102 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 4.6. Monitor fishing program through periodic creel surveys and voluntary reporting 

system at the entrances to the swamp. 

• Strategy 4.7. Develop fishing brochure and expand refuge website to include maps showing the 

open fishing areas, regulations, and information on the dynamics of fish populations. 

Objective 5. Provide quality opportunities and facilities for wildlife observation and photography in 

different habitats of the refuge. 

• Strategy 5.1. Evaluate all access points for use patterns and the need for additional facilities and 

improve as needed. 

• Strategy 5.2. Expand and develop plans and associated costs for linking boardwalk spurs #1 and 

#2 into a loop boardwalk 

• Strategy 5.3. Develop a boardwalk and observation point leading from visitor center parking lot 

into Mizell Prairie. 

• Strategy 5.4. Expand development and interpretation of Phernetton Long-leaf Pine and Canal 

Diggers Trail extension. 

• Strategy 5.5. Investigate, expand, and develop, where feasible, hiking trails outside the 

wilderness area for optimum wildlife viewing opportunities while preserving the integrity of the 

habitat and wildlife. 

• Strategy 5.6. Evaluate and, where feasible, develop one fully accessible trail opportunity at all 

entrances. 

• Strategy 5.7. Maintain wilderness canoe trails for additional wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities while preserving the integrity of the habitat, wildlife, and wilderness resource. 

• Strategy 5.8. Maintain wilderness canoe trail reservation system to promote solitude and 

enhance opportunities to observe and photograph wildlife in their natural surroundings. 

• Strategy 5.9. Expand program offerings, workshops, activities, and exhibits used to teach and 

enhance wildlife viewing skills and ethics. 

• Strategy 5.10. Investigate the need for expanded wildlife oriented viewing opportunities including 

trails, exhibits, etc., at Kingfisher Landing and the Suwannee River Sill Area. 

• Strategy 5.11. Convert the manicured lawn area at Suwannee Canal Recreation Area to a 

backyard habitat for wildlife observation and photography. 

• Strategy 5.12. Continue to promote wildlife observation and photography opportunities at key 

points within the ecosystem through brochures, news releases, displays, and special events. 

Include messages on good wildlife observation and photography practices to minimize 

disturbance. 

• Strategy 5.13. Continue to promote the Colonial Coast Birding Trail in partnership with Georgia 

Wildlife Resources Division. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Objective 6. Expand environmental education to a multi-faceted, curriculum-based program for use 

on and off the refuge to enhance public awareness and understanding of the refuge’s natural 

ecology, the human influences on the swamp ecosystem, the wilderness philosophy and concepts, 

and to inspire action among local, national, and international education groups on behalf of the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the refuge, and the ecosystem. 

• Strategy 6.1. Develop grade-appropriate environmental education activities and materials that 

support the Georgia/Florida approved curricula. 

• Strategy 6.2. Develop environmental education facilities, including outdoor and indoor classroom 

settings at various entrances and locations, to balance environmental education demands on the 

landscape and to reduce conflicts between groups and/or activities. 

• Strategy 6.3. Enhance the existing Cane Pole Trail for an alternative environmental education 

area by creating an interpretive boardwalk with an observation platform extending out into Mizell 

Prairie. 

• Strategy 6.4. Develop a plan that deals with the administration of groups seeking environmental 

education from contact to follow-up activities. 

• Strategy 6.5. Expand and develop environmental education outreach to local schools and other 

interested groups covering on-going refuge activities. 

• Strategy 6.6. Expand and develop environmental education support materials for teachers to use 

both on and off refuge. 

• Strategy 6.7. Enhance teacher workshop materials and host teacher workshops at the refuge. 

• Strategy 6.8. Encourage concession operations at various entrances to support curriculum based 

environmental education and sales items. 

• Strategy 6.9. Develop a multifaceted Junior Refuge Manager program for all young refuge users, 

including those off the refuge via the Internet. 

• Strategy 6.10. Develop yearly environmental education projects that involve the financial support 

and physical assistance of the Okefenokee Wildlife League. 

• Strategy 6.11. Develop a partnership with the city of Folkston in the coordination of programs 

offered by the Okefenokee Education and Research Center and utilizing refuge facilities for 

environmental education to promote the purpose/objectives of the refuge and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

• Strategy 6.12. Increase or enhance the partnerships with environmental education organizations 

to develop and present educational programs, activities, and exhibits on the refuge that promote 

awareness of the resources. 

• Strategy 6.13. Continue to participate in the St. Marys to the Suwannee initiative for establishing 

a canoe trail from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. 
104 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 6.14. Evaluate and determine the effectiveness of all environmental education activities 

and modify as needed to meet refuge needs. 

• Strategy 6.15. Develop a multifaceted educational program for adult refuge users, including offrefuge users via the Internet. 

Objective 7. Provide non-personal and personal interpretive media and programs that increase 

awareness and understanding of the refuge’s natural and human influences, habitat diversity, wildlife 

values, wilderness philosophy and concepts, and management activities performed to protect, 

enhance, restore, and maintain the Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 7.1. Promote an understanding of the relationship among all programs of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and Okefenokee Refuge through 

interpretive panels, brochures, signing, etc. 

• Strategy 7.2. Re-examine and refine key resource management messages that define and 

simplify refuge actions to protect, enhance, restore, and maintain the Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 7.3. Develop interpretive panels, brochures, signing, etc., that increase awareness of 

the swamp ecosystem, the importance of wetlands, and wilderness management. Evaluate 

options for presenting the information to hearing and visually impaired visitors. 

• Strategy 7.4. Evaluate all brochures for necessity. Eliminate or condense brochures where 

possible. 

• Strategy 7.5. Evaluate all festivals and special events for appropriateness. 

• Strategy 7.6. Evaluate feasibility of interpretation within the wilderness area and consider the use 

of backcountry rangers. 

• Strategy 7.7. Expand and develop kiosks and interpretive panels for all upland trails and 

boardwalks with a trail map and brief description of the trail, including elements of interest. 

• Strategy 7.8. Continue current Memorandum of Understanding with International Paper Company 

for provision of an interpretive trail across its lands. 

• Strategy 7.9. Evaluate and develop, if feasible, other avenues for presenting the living history of 

the Chesser Island Homestead. 

• Strategy 7.10. Interpret through various media the conversion of manicured lawn area to a 

backyard habitat exhibit to promote natural landscapes. 

• Strategy 7.11. Evaluate current Memorandum of Understanding with Zoo Atlanta and the 

potential for partnerships with other zoos and aquariums (Jacksonville Zoo and Georgia 

Aquarium) to decide if there are common goals in interpretation and environmental education, 

which the refuge would want to share. 

• Strategy 7.12. Examine feasibility of maintaining an interpretive radio station available 24 hours a 

day to inform visitors of refuge hours, visitor center, trail locations, and a description of all refuge 

entrances. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

• Strategy 7.13. Develop news releases and magazine articles for weekly and monthly civic and 

conservation organization publications. 

• Strategy 7.14. Enhance website to reach major national and international markets. Establish 

web site links through civic and conservation organizations. 

• Strategy 7.15. Expand refuge outreach and media relations plan to reach major media markets 

locally, regionally, and nationally. 

• Strategy 7.16. Continue to cultivate partnerships with community or conservation organizations 

capable of developing and administering funds to assist in key refuge issues and interpretive themes. 

• Strategy 7.17. Expand refuge volunteers to include youth groups such as 4-H clubs, Girl and Boy 

Scouts, etc., working on projects that enhance the refuge while educating youth and their leaders 

about key refuge issues. 

• Strategy 7.18. Support off-site outreach programs when feasible and beneficial to goals of the refuge. 

Objective 8. Use concession contracts, permits, and commercial uses within the policies of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System and the National Wilderness legislation established for Okefenokee 

Refuge to assist in meeting the management goals of the refuge. 

• Strategy 8.1. Continue to meet regularly with concession supervisors to maintain lines of 

communication and to clarify policies and issues of interest to each party. 

• Strategy 8.2. Investigate the need, feasibility, and impact of concession contracts and facilities at 

Kingfisher Landing and the Suwannee River Sill area. 

• Strategy 8.3. As technology becomes available, negotiate concession contracts requiring 

conversion to battery-operated motors for guided tour boats, and boat and motor rentals. 

• Strategy 8.4. Evaluate the need and feasibility of alternative means of transportation for remote 

parking areas off refuge and an interpretive tram for tours on refuge. 

• Strategy 8.5. Develop specialized training for concession guides concentrating on interpretive 

messages and environmental education principles relevant to refuge issues and concerns. 

• Strategy 8.6. Re-negotiate commercial outfitter guidelines for soliciting, evaluating, awarding, and 

monitoring overnight and day use of the refuge. 

• Strategy 8.7. Re-negotiate Stephen C. Foster State Park’s contracts emphasizing compatible 

recreational activities on the refuge. 

• Strategy 8.8. Re-negotiate east side concession contract emphasizing interpretation and 

environmental education. 

• Strategy 8.9. Re-negotiate Okefenokee Swamp Park contract emphasizing interpretation and 

environmental education. 

• Strategy 8.10. Re-evaluate refuge commercial guiding procedures. 
106 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

GOAL 5 – PARTNERSHIPS 

Promote communication, cooperation, and partnerships between local, state, and federal agencies, 

land managers, and private citizens within the “zones of influence” to conserve the integrity of the 

pathways associated with resource protection, wildlife populations, and public services. 

Objective 1. Promote, support, and assist the cooperative efforts of land managers, interest groups, 

and government entities to protect and/or enhance the natural resources and processes within the 

“zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 1.1. Examine and develop, where feasible, innovative management agreements with 

adjacent landowners and other land managers within the “zones of influences” to protect the 

natural resources and processes of the area and promote fire use within the Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area. 

• Strategy 1.2. Continue to encourage and support the efforts of the Greater Okefenokee 

Association of Landowners. 

• Strategy 1.3. Continue to support Okefenokee Wildlife League and develop an advocacy group 

for the refuge. 

• Strategy 1.4. Continue to support the Tri-Agency Agreement with the National Park Service and 

the Forest Service. 

• Strategy 1.5. Continue to support the Suwannee River Interagency Alliance with the Suwannee 

River Water Management District and Georgia Department of Environmental Protection as 

partners. 

• Strategy 1.6. Continue to develop working relationships with Georgia Forestry Commission and 

Florida Division of Forestry in fire management, longleaf/wiregrass restoration, and endangered 

species management. 

• Strategy 1.7. Continue to develop working relationships with Georgia Division of Wildlife 

Resources and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission in an effort to enhance 

habitat conditions and data collection to promote cooperative management of resident species. 

• Strategy 1.8. Work with local and state governments to develop an understanding of the 

importance of the refuge and encourage environmentally friendly development in the “zones of 

influence.” 

• Strategy 1.9. Identify influences to the refuge’s natural resources from non-traditional sources 

and distances, and develop partnerships to reduce negative influences. 

Objective 2. Develop agreements, partnerships, and advocacy groups to support implementation of 

natural process management within the Okefenokee wilderness in concert with other agency and 

refuge missions. 

• Strategy 2.1. Identify experts in natural process management, particularly in the southeast. 

• Strategy 2.2. Sponsor a workshop on natural process management, agency mission, and refuge 

objectives to obtain ideas, techniques, and support for management decisions. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

• Strategy 2.3. Hold workshops and training sessions with professional natural resource managers, 

local citizens, local governments, state agencies, and congressional leaders to gain 

understanding and support for the integration of natural process management to meet the 

objectives of the agency and refuge. 

Objective 3. Maintain current relationships and encourage new partnerships with nationally 

recognized organizations, universities and colleges, and other agencies to provide valuable scientific 

data that will enhance natural resource management within the greater Okefenokee Ecosystem while 

providing research and education opportunities for their students. 

• Strategy 3.1. Organize a diverse group of multi-disciplinary professionals to determine the 

boundaries of the “zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 3.2. Encourage government agencies, colleges, universities, private institutions, and 

non-government offices to perform management and problem-based research within the “zones 

of influence” and issues related to wilderness management. 

• Strategy 3.3. Establish an agreement with all researchers conducting research on the refuge 

through the special use permit procedure to determine the benefit of the research, the appropriate 

techniques and methods, coordination needed, and the deliverables required, considering 

whether the research will be conducted within or outside the wilderness area. 

• Strategy 3.4. Monitor air quality under the guidance of the Service’s Air Quality Division, including 

the current partnerships with the three national programs: National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program, Mercury Deposition Network, and the interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments. 

• Strategy 3.5. Establish a liaison as part of an organized collaborative process within the 

Okefenokee Education and Research Center to promote sound scientific management-based 

research on issues concerning the refuge and the “zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 3.6. Serve as an advisor or member of a board for the Okefenokee Education and 

Research Center to promote integrated ecosystem-based research. 

Objective 4. Enhance and promote innovative environmental education opportunities within the 

greater Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 4.1. Develop partnerships with environmental education organizations to promote 

assistance with programs, activities, and exhibits on the ecosystem’s resources. 

• Strategy 4.2. Develop partnerships with the city of Folkston for coordinated operation of the 

Okefenokee Education and Research Center, utilizing refuge facilities for environmental 

education. 

• Strategy 4.3. Coordinate, integrate, and promote environmental education opportunities at the 

refuge with Suwannee River State Park and Swamp Park. 

• Strategy 4.4. Continue partnership with Zoo Atlanta to promote the ecosystem’s resources 

through environmental education and interpretation. 
108 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 4.5. Investigate potential for partnerships with Jacksonville Zoo, Georgia Aquarium, and 

others to facilitate environmental education on the area’s natural resources and implement if 

feasible. 

• Strategy 4.6. Continue to expand Okefenokee Wildlife League’s contribution towards 

environmental education. 

Objective 5. Identify and secure funding through grants and other available sources for research 

projects that will aid in the protection and management of those area resources influencing the health 

of the greater Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

• Strategy 5.1. Annually seek information and apply for grants from both inside and outside the 

Service. 

• Strategy 5.2. Work with non-government organizations and private institutions to identify potential 

partners in support of management-based research. 

Objective 6. Identify partners and cooperators within the “zones of influence” and develop a network 

for sharing and analyzing data that would enhance the protection and restoration of the area’s 

resources. 

• Strategy 6.1. Contribute to regional and national surveys, where appropriate, and develop a 

network among land managers within the “zones of influence” to share wildlife distribution data. 

• Strategy 6.2. Identify through a cooperative effort with other Service groups, local and State 

governments, universities, communities, and others the potential negative impacts within the 

“zones of influence” and lines of communication to keep abreast of potential threats. 

• Strategy 6.3. Develop a partnership with the Water Management Districts for the purpose of 

encouraging hydrologic and environmental research and information sharing within the “zones of 

influence.” 

• Strategy 6.4. Continue to contribute to national fire databases and promote and support fire 

behavior research through partnerships. 

• Strategy 6.5. Continue to monitor the health and status of the fisheries population through 

cooperation and support from the Service’s Fisheries Resource Office, Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources, and other fish specialists. 

Objective 7. Facilitate partnerships with other pertinent federal and state agencies, professional 

archaeologists, descendants of early settlers, Native American and other communities, and the 

general public to aid in the management of cultural resources. 

• Strategy 7.1. Investigate potential agreements with federal agencies, such as the U.S. Forest 

Service and the National Park Service, that facilitate investigations related to violations of the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act. 

• Strategy 7.2. Identify potential institutions specializing in archaeological and historic 

investigations and promote interdisciplinary research. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 109

• Strategy 7.3. Negotiate an agreement with the University of Georgia, or other appropriate 

facilities, for the permanent curation of archaeological collections and associated documentation 

derived from archaeological investigations on the refuge. 

Objective 8. Develop partnerships that promote and expand eco-tourism opportunities and the 

enrichment of the human spirit. 

• Strategy 8.1. Develop and promote eco-tourism opportunities within the greater Okefenokee 

Ecosystem through partnerships with businesses, civic and conservation organizations, and city, 

county, and state governments. 

• Strategy 8.2. Develop agreements with partners who support the interpretation of the area’s 

natural resources and are capable of securing funds. 

• Strategy 8.3. Continue supporting the St. Marys to the Suwannee initiative to establish a canoe 

trail from the Atlantic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. 

• Strategy 8.4. Continue to support the Colonial Coast Birding Trail in partnership with Georgia 

Wildlife Resources Division. 

• Strategy 8.5. Take an active roll in community improvements that promote natural resources 

and/or the enrichment of the human spirit. 

Objective 9. Develop partnerships with groups to provide a supplemental work force for maintaining 

trails and conducting other natural resource management functions following the minimum 

requirement decision guidelines. 

• Strategy 9.1. Continue to maintain and develop relationships with AmeriCorps, scouts, 4-H, and 

other groups, and develop “Leave No Trace” and other wilderness skills. 

• Strategy 9.2. Develop partnerships with canoe clubs to solicit help with Wilderness Canoe Trail 

maintenance. 

• Strategy 9.3. Develop partnerships with wilderness organizations to encourage participation in 

the refuge’s trail maintenance program. 

• Strategy 9.4. Develop a cache of appropriate tools for wilderness maintenance. 

• Strategy 9.5. Train all staff and volunteers in “Leave No Trace” and other wilderness skills along 

with providing a clear understanding of the Minimum Requirement Decision process. 

GOAL 6 – ADMINISTRATION 

Provide adequate staff, partners, volunteers, and others with the facilities and equipment to support 

the goals and objectives of the refuge in a safe manner while maintaining sensitivity to wilderness 

ethics and the “zones of influence.” 

Objective 1. Add an additional 98 staff (25 support, 8 Law Enforcement, 15 public service, 41 

resource management, 9 facility management). Develop and train expanded staff to support the 

comprehensive refuge management programs of the refuge. 
110 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• Strategy 1.1. Develop an implementation plan for increasing the staffing to levels appropriate for 

accomplishing the strategies proposed within the comprehensive conservation plan. 

• Strategy 1.2. Advertise vacancy announcements showing wilderness goal requirements as they 

relate to duties. 

• Strategy 1.3. Develop an Individual Development Plan for each employee and provide continuing 

education and training opportunities to meet individual goals and ensure a highly competent and 

motivated team. 

• Strategy 1.4. Provide wilderness training as part of new employee/volunteer/intern orientation. 

• Strategy 1.5. Provide program cross-training to all employees, interns, and volunteers. 

• Strategy 1.6. Encourage the further development of volunteer services to support all programs 

within the “zones of influence.” 

• Strategy 1.7. Provide on-going wilderness awareness training/workshops/seminars to staff to 

improve decisions made by program managers at refuge. 

• Strategy 1.8. Continue to enhance wilderness awareness at regular monthly staff/safety 

meetings. Encourage staff to express any concerns or questions regarding wilderness in relation 

to on-going projects. 

• Strategy 1.9. Create a staff advisory team to evaluate and determine if an administrative action is 

necessary using the minimum requirements decision guide. 

Objective 2. Recruit and retain high-quality volunteers to work in all refuge programs. 

• Strategy 2.1. Investigate sources for recruiting volunteers with specific skills. 

• Strategy 2.2. Continue to evaluate the role of interns within the overall volunteer program. 

• Strategy 2.3. Develop a volunteer management plan. 

• Strategy 2.4. Evaluate annually the volunteer program. 

• Strategy 2.5. Provide advanced and basic training opportunities for volunteers in safety, first aid, 

and various techniques. 

• Strategy 2.6. Develop a series of day programs for volunteers on wilderness issues and 

concepts. 

• Strategy 2.7. Develop volunteer newsletter, news releases, and video and audio public service 

announcements concerning volunteering at the refuge. 

• Strategy 2.8. Develop a written evaluation process for volunteers and supervisors to gain 

feedback on the volunteer program. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 111

• Strategy 2.9. Evaluate periodically the volunteer-incentive program. 

• Strategy 2.10. Develop procedures for nominating and following through on local, regional, and 

national awards for volunteers, interns, and Americorps. 

Objective 3. Provide facilities and equipment as appropriate for the growing number of staff in 

support of the goals presented in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

• Strategy 3.1. Expand administrative office and maintenance facilities to accommodate additional 

staff. Approximately 110 square feet are needed per person plus additional common 

work/meeting areas. 

• Strategy 3.2. Provide up-to-date facilities for biological staff to set up and test new equipment, 

store supplies, and conduct in-house research. 

• Strategy 3.3. Develop housing facilities for the growing number of volunteers, interns, and 

researchers. Consider off-refuge sites, as well as at the east and west entrances, and evaluate 

the need at Kingfisher Landing. 

• Strategy 3.4. Create a centralized database network compatible with GIS to house information on 

fires, forestry inventories, biota, water, weather, soil, and public use so information is readily 

accessible by the management staff. 

• Strategy 3.5. Obtain and use up-to-date computer-based maintenance software available from 

either the Service or open market sources to keep track of preventive and needed maintenance 

on facilities, equipment, and vehicles. 

• Strategy 3.6. Investigate, purchase, and maintain appropriate tools to be used in wilderness as 

established by the minimum requirement decisions. 

• Strategy 3.7. Promote the use of environmentally friendly construction material and site planning 

in refuge construction projects to minimize impacts to wildlife and their habitat and to demonstrate 

the efficient use of natural resources. 

Objective 4. Increase support for comprehensive refuge operations, maintenance, facilities 

management, endangered species, wilderness, habitat, and partnership programs. 

• Strategy 4.1. Use the comprehensive conservation plan to promote refuge and ecosystem needs 

through grant writing and networking with other entities. 

• Strategy 4.2. Analyze existing RONS and MMS projects to determine consistency with the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Update project needs every 6 months. 

• Strategy 4.3. Develop Memorandums of Understanding and other agreements with federal and 

state agencies and private stakeholders to share equipment, staff, and services. 

• Strategy 4.4. Promote partnerships in support of fish and wildlife resources, recreational 

opportunities, and educational programs, and seek challenge cost-share grants. 
112 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 5. Ensure resource protection, enforcement of all refuge-related acts and regulations, and 

the safety of visitors, staff, volunteers, interns, and researchers. 

• Strategy 5.1. Continue to provide up-to-date training and equipment to all full-time and collateral 

duty officers. 

• Strategy 5.2. Develop Memorandums of Understanding with state and county enforcement 

agencies to facilitate cooperation and assistance in law enforcement activities. 

• Strategy 5.3. Integrate law enforcement concepts in all aspects of refuge management, including 

agreements with partners, special use permits, plans, and specific refuge activities. 

• Strategy 5.4. In accordance with the approved Law Enforcement Plan, conduct patrols and visitor 

compliance checkpoints in addition to regular contacts with visitors to ensure understanding and 

compliance with laws and regulations. 

• Strategy 5.5. Assist Public Use and other staff in the development of environmental education 

and interpretation programs and provide up-to-date information on applicable laws and 

regulations. 

• Strategy 5.6. Increase law enforcement presence during refuge activities to educate and assist 

the public and provide information and monitor compliance. 

• Strategy 5.7. Provide education and outreach programs in local communities as part of a 

preventive law enforcement effort to encourage voluntary compliance. 

• Strategy 5.8. Train and provide search and rescue operations when appropriate. 

Objective 6. Develop and implement law enforcement procedures to protect the refuge’s cultural 

resources and diminish site destruction due to looting and vandalism. 

• Strategy 6.1. All refuge law enforcement officers will attend the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act training course. 

• Strategy 6.2. Pertinent refuge staff will attend the Overview for Cultural Resources Management 

Requirements course. 

• Strategy 6.3. Establish and implement a protocol for site damage assessments. 

• Strategy 6.4. Conduct law enforcement patrols and/or surveillance of archaeological sites on a 

regular basis. 

Objective 7. Enhance awareness of the refuge’s socio-economic and biological contribution to the 

area through enhanced communications, participation, and partnerships. 

• Strategy 7.1. Identify and develop working relationships with stakeholders within the “zones of 

influence” to keep them informed of refuge objectives. 

• Strategy 7.2. Develop Friends Group in neighboring towns of Waycross and Homerville, Georgia. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 113

• Strategy 7.3. Encourage refuge staff to be community-friendly and contribute to the enhancement 

of the surrounding communities. 

• Strategy 7.4. Take an active role in the Okefenokee Education and Research Center programs 

as a place to distribute information on the importance of the Okefenokee Refuge within the whole 

ecosystem. 

• Strategy 7.5. Continue to develop and promote the Okefenokee Wildlife League to its full 

potential. 

• Strategy 7.6. Provide opportunities for the staff to participate in cooperative activities that 

exemplify the benefits of working together. 

STEP-DOWN PLANS 

This comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the 

refuge. The strategies presented above are tasks that will be accomplished in support of the refuge’s 

vision, goals, and objectives. The specifics of how these tasks will be done are presented in detailed 

step-down plans. Okefenokee Refuge staff are currently preparing four step-down plans: Habitat 

and Population Management Plan, Public Services Plan, Law Enforcement Plan, and Safety Plan. 

These plans will be completed by 2008. 

The Habitat and Population Management Plan incorporates the following plans: 

• Habitat Management Plan 

• Nuisance/Exotic Plant and Animal Control Plan 

• Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan 

• Fire Management Plan 

• Wilderness Stewardship Plan 

The Public Services Plan incorporates the following plans: 

• Visitor Services Plan 

• Fishing Plan 

• Hunt Plan 

• Environmental Education Plan 

• Sign Plan 

• Volunteer Management Plan 
114 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 115

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

To achieve the proposed management plan for the refuge, this section identifies major projects, 

staffing and funding needs, partnership opportunities, monitoring and evaluation of progress, and 

plan review and revision process. 

PROJECT SUMMARIES 

Listed below are project summaries related to wildlife management, resource protection, public 

services, and administration and the associated costs. Wilderness and partnership activities are 

included in the various projects. Staffing is presented in the following section. The recurring cost 

listed is an estimated yearly cost. The special projects cost is an estimation of costs associated with 

research, investigations, physical improvements, and other special projects that are of short duration 

(1-6 years). While this project list is not intended to be all inclusive, it does reflect the basic needs 

supporting the outlined goals and identified by the public, planning team members, and refuge staff, 

based upon available information. 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Enhancing Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat - Suitable upland habitat for the RCW is highly 

fragmented on Okefenokee Refuge. Enhancing the habitat through the continued use of fire assists 

in maintaining the population. Manipulation of the refuge habitat outside the wilderness, along with 

the promotion of forest management practices designed to benefit RCW on adjacent lands, can 

encourage an increase in the population. Memorandums of Understanding, partnerships, and 

incentives for adjacent landowners are needed for long-term health of the RCW population at 

Okefenokee Refuge. 

Recurring cost: $80,000 Special Project Cost: $100,000 

Population Status of Threatened and Endangered Species - Okefenokee Refuge strives to maintain 

its population of RCWs to fulfill its role as a recovery population. Monitoring the status of the 

population and condition of the habitat inside and outside the wilderness is important to determine the 

effects of natural events and management practices. Access to most wilderness islands requires a 

helicopter, adding to the cost. In addition, surveys need to be established to determine the status of 

other “focal” species that are threatened, endangered, or of special concern. 

Recurring cost: $40,000 Special Project Cost: $30,000 

Fisheries 

Factors Influencing Fish Populations - Biotic and abiotic factors affecting the fish assemblage within 

the Okefenokee Refuge are poorly understood. Fish are important throughout the food chain and can 

bio-accumulate contaminants. Identification of factors influencing the health of the fisheries is 

needed. Water chemistry, groundwater withdrawals, water quality, pH levels, invertebrate population, 

and the physical environment all may play a role in the current health of the fisheries. Specific 

research projects are needed along with a consistent monitoring protocol to understand the dynamics 

of the fisheries within the Okefenokee Swamp. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $60,000 
116 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Reptiles

Population status and trends of selected reptile species - Okefenokee Refuge is home to a variety of 

reptile species including the alligator and those associated with the upland pine habitat. Consistent 

and reliable surveys are needed to determine their status and identify trends over the next 15 years. 

The effects of management practices need to be determined. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Amphibians

Population status and habitat enhancement for amphibians - The Okefenokee Refuge is world 

renowned for its amphibian diversity. Little is known on the population status of those species 

dependent on ephemeral wetlands. A sampling protocol needs to be established along with 

strategies for enhancing the habitat for these species. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Invertebrates

Role of invertebrates within the Okefenokee Ecosystem - Invertebrates being at the base of the food 

chain have a wide-ranging effect on the health of the ecosystem. Invertebrates found within the 

layers of peat may be sources of information about historical environmental conditions. Knowledge of 

their current distribution and abundance is important in evaluating the distribution and abundance of 

other wildlife. 

Recurring Cost: $5,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Birds 

Status of the Florida sandhill cranes in relation to habitat conditions - Florida sandhill cranes are 

residents of the Okefenokee Swamp. Changes in the habitat may be reflected in the population of 

these cranes. It is believed that the population has decreased since it was last studied in the 1980s. 

Surveys are needed to determine their current status, as well as the potential limiting habitat factors. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Wading birds as indicator of wetland health - Wading birds are prominent features within the 

Okefenokee Refuge landscape. Foraging and nesting have varied over the years. An understanding 

of the dynamics of wading bird populations may lead to an increased awareness of changes in the 

landscape. Accurate distribution and trends data related to environmental parameters are needed. 

Recurring Cost: $30,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Role of Okefenokee Refuge in migratory and breeding passerine bird species conservation - Little is 

known about the role the refuge plays in providing habitat for passerine birds. Through various point 

counts in the habitats, the refuge can better understand its contribution and insight into how to 

improve the habitat. It is speculated that the expanses of scrub/shrub occurring on the refuge harbor 

flocks of migratory birds as they do in other areas. Through a special investigation, this use may be 

identified. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $70,000 

Mammals

Population health of Okefenokee’s mammals - Trends in Okefenokee’s black bear population may 

indicate changes in the landscape. A reliable survey method giving the most information about the 

population is sought. Periodic deer health checks also signal changes in the landscape. 

Recurring Cost: $25,000 Special Projects: $30,000 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 117

Contaminants

Contaminant availability within the Okefenokee Ecosystem - Contaminants have been identified 

within the Okefenokee Ecosystem. To assist in identifying sources and the impacts of these 

contaminants, periodic checks from standard sampling protocols need to be established. 

Recurring Cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Upland Communities 

Restore, enhance and promote native upland communities - Native upland communities are rare 

outside the refuge boundary. Many native wildlife species depend on these communities. 

Okefenokee Refuge is restoring the native habitat where appropriate to enhance conditions for native 

fauna. The use of fire helps to maintain the communities. With limited and fragmented uplands, 

agreements with adjacent land managers are promoted, encouraging forestry practices that enhance 

the wildlife use of refuge uplands. 

Recurring cost: $80,000 Special Projects: $200,000 

Wetland Communities 

Maintain the health of the wetland communities of the Okefenokee Refuge - Human activities outside 

the refuge can threaten the health of Okefenokee wetlands. A robust monitoring network of 

environmental parameters will give insight into changes related to the health of the wetland 

communities. The swamp’s connection with the Floridan aquifer is of interest since there has been 

greater demand for water from this aquifer by coastal communities. Understanding past and present 

vegetation changes also helps predict fire behavior as it moves across the landscape. 

Recurring cost: $40,000 Special Projects: $100,000 

Restore connection between the Okefenokee Swamp and the Suwannee River - An environmental 

assessment has been completed on the future management of the Suwannee River Sill. Pending a 

final report from U.S. Geological Survey, which studied downstream effects of the sill, the two water 

control structures will be removed and the earthen dam breached in four places. This action will 

restore the connection between the swamp and the Suwannee River and revert the immediate area 

to a functioning river floodplain. 

Recurring costs: Special Project: $4,400,000 

Invasive Plants and Animals 

Reduce non-native invasive plants and animals - Okefenokee Refuge does not currently have a large 

problem with invasive non-native plants and animals. Monitoring for threats and occurrences on the 

refuge is necessary on a routine basis. 

Recurring cost: $5,000 

Archaeological and Historical Sites 

Protect the archaeological and historical sites on Okefenokee Refuge - An accurate catalogue and 

routine surveys of the sites on the refuge assist with identifying changes and damages. The 

preservation of selected sites requires adherence to a long-term maintenance plan. 

Recurring cost: $15,000 Special Projects: $20,000 
118 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Resource 

Preserve the wilderness resource within the Okefenokee Wilderness Area - Pollution from air, light, 

and noise degrades the wilderness resource and the human experience of wilderness. Air quality is 

monitored regularly, while light and noise pollution are measured every 5 years to determine any 

changes in levels. Direct human impacts to the wilderness also need to be examined periodically. 

Refuge activities are evaluated through the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide. 

Recurring cost: $20,000 Special Projects: $80,000 

PUBLIC SERVICES 

Promotion

Promote the refuge and eco-tourism - Signs, brochures, personal contacts and the refuge’s website 

are all avenues to bring visitors to the refuge and the surrounding area. Expanding and updating 

these items increase awareness of the area. Forming partnerships for the promotion of the overall 

area increases the benefit of the refuge to the local communities. 

Recurring cost: $80,000 Special Projects: $100,000 

Recreational Fee 

Support the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program - User fees support visitor services. Tracking 

these funds and adjusting them as necessary will help provide safe and quality visitor experiences. 

Recurring cost: $25,000 

Hunting

Provide quality hunting opportunities - Hunting on the refuge is promoted at compatible levels. Each 

year current hunting opportunities are evaluated and possible expansions are considered. The 

refuge strives for universally accessible hunts. 

Recurring cost: $15,000 

Fishing

Provide quality fishing opportunities - Promotion of fishing opportunities will be accomplished through 

brochures, youth fishing derbies, and improved access. The fishing opportunities will be monitored 

through periodic creel surveys. 

Recurring cost: $12,000 Special Projects: $30,000 

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Provide quality opportunities for wildlife observation and photography - Maintenance of the current 

boat and hiking trails, boardwalks, towers, and platforms will allow continued use. Expansions and 

improvements to boardwalks and hiking trails will be considered in relation to the natural resources 

and disturbance. Emphasis is on solitude and natural settings in any expansion or renovation. 

Improvements to brochures and maps are proposed. 

Recurring cost: $80,000 Special Projects: $200,000 

Environmental Education 

Multi-faceted, curriculum based environmental education program - To enhance public awareness 

and understanding of the refuge’s natural ecology, wilderness philosophy and concepts, and human 

influences, the refuge plans to expand available facilities to include outdoor and indoor classroom 

settings, provide grade-appropriate activities, develop outreach programs, and encourage 

concessionaires to support curriculum based environmental education. Strong partnerships and 

coordination with other agencies and organizations that are providing environmental education 

opportunities around the refuge will be emphasized. 

Recurring cost: $100,000 Special Projects: $500,000 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 119

Interpretation

Provide interpretive media and programs - With 350,000 visitors each year, all avenues for 

interpretation need to be explored to increase the public’s awareness and appreciation of the refuge 

and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Interpretive panels, brochures, signs, festivals, special events and 

programs, and backcountry rangers are being considered to improve interpretation. Enhancing the 

refuge’s website and increasing coverage in news releases and magazine articles expand the 

refuge’s audiences. The role of concessions in interpretation needs to be evaluated and expanded. 

Recurring cost: $100,000 Special Projects: $100,000 

ADMINISTRATION 

Facilities and Equipment 

Provide appropriate facilities for the staff and volunteers - With an increase in staff and volunteers, 

the administration office, maintenance and biological facilities, and volunteer housing need to be 

maintained and expanded. 

Recurring cost: $200,000 Special Projects: $5,000,000 

Provide appropriate equipment for the staff and volunteers - Equipment from pens and paper to 

computers to vehicles to heavy equipment will be needed throughout the life of this plan in support of 

the staff, volunteers, and partners. Equipment repair and replacement are included. 

Recurring cost: $2,600,000 based on $20,000 per person. 

Special Projects: $1,000,000 

STAFFING 

The following is a staffing chart for accomplishing the tasks set forth in this Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. It is a “road map” for the next 15 years 

that will guide the hiring process and direct changes in the organization of the refuge staff as 

positions are filled. The staffing chart demonstrates careful consideration for how the staff would 

work most efficiently and contribute to the long-term goals of the refuge system. Staffing the refuge 

to the level presented would advance it towards similar staffing patterns in other land management 

agencies and bring forward the Refuge System as a significant contributor to environmental 

knowledge. The refuge supports regional and national efforts, including training and promotional 

activities. Networking, partnerships, and data sharing are emphasized within this plan to manage the 

refuge as an integral part of an ecosystem and national system of lands. The staffing chart reflects 

an increased commitment to communicating and negotiating that a flagship refuge staff will 

incorporate into its responsibilities. In addition, the refuge is not an island separated from 

surrounding human development. The refuge will need protection from outside threats throughout 

the life of this plan. Knowledge is a powerful tool in the protection process. To understand the 

Okefenokee system and changes that occur within, inventorying and monitoring are of high priority 

and require additional specialists and technicians who are capable of performing fieldwork under the 

guidance of the Wilderness Act. The next 15 years are important in anchoring the human value of 

natural areas such as the Okefenokee Refuge and striving for the establishment of environmentally 

acceptable development. Providing opportunities and educating children and adults through 

expanded public services support the establishment of human values toward natural landscapes. 

These services also require the expansion of staff. With the increased number of staff and visitors 

comes the need for support staff in the form of maintenance workers, laborers, and administrative 

support. The rate at which Okefenokee Refuge will participate at this level depends on the funds 

received through the next 15 years. 
120 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Optimal Staffing Chart for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Salary including benefits (calculated at the highest potential wage possible for each position using 

Fiscal Year 2003 wage scales). 

T- temporary or seasonal 

T1-Support Tri-Agency Facility 

#-Shared with Osceola NF 

Title Grade Annual Cost* 

Refuge Manager (GS 14/15) $169,862

Deputy Refuge Manager (GS 13/14) 144,410

 Assistant Manager (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Assistant Manager (GS 5/7/9) 70,864

 Volunteer Coordinator (GS 7/9) 70,864

 Office Manager (GS 11/12) 102,764

 Human Resource Officer (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Writer/Editor/Publications/Web Site (GS 7/9) 70,864

 Administrative Clerks (2) (GS 5) 93,526

 Administrative Officer (GS 9/11) 85,747

 ADP (2) (GS 9/11) 171,494

 Receptionist (GS 5) 46,763

 Personnel Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,757

 Administrative Clerk (GS 5) 46,763

 Contracting Officers (2) (GS 9/11) 171,494

 Travel/Time Keeper (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Administrative Clerk (GS 5) 46,763

 Budget Analyst (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Lead Fee Collector (GS 7/9) 70,864

 Fee Collectors (8) (GS 5) 374,104

 Data Manager (GS 9/11) 85,747

 GIS Technicians (3) (GS 5/7) 173,796

 Data Technicians(2) (GS 5/7) 231,728

 Supervisory LE Officer (GS 11/12)* 102,764

 LEOs (6) (GS 7/9)* 425,184

 Seasonal Staff (4) (GS 5/7)T 231,728
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 121

Title Grade Annual Cost* 

 Supervisory Refuge Ranger (GS 11/12/13) 122,205

 Assistant Refuge Ranger (West Side) (GS 9/11) 85,747

 EE Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Refuge Rangers (4) (GS 5/7) 405,524

 Interpretive Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Refuge Ranger (GS 5/7) 57,932

 Seasonals-1040 (2) (GS 5/6)T 52,132

 Outreach Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Lead Visitor Services (GS 9/11) 85,747

 VC/CIH Staff (6) (GS 4/5) 280,578

 Clerk (GS 4/5) 46,763

 Wildlife Biologist/Ecologist/Forester (GS 11/12/13) 122,205

 Hydrologist GS 9/11) 85,747

 Wetland Biologist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Biological Technicians (3)(1-Fisheries) (GS 5/7/9) 70,864

 Term Biologists (2) (GS 5/6) 104,264

 Upland Biologist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Biological Technicians (3) (GS 5/7/9) 212,592

 Term Biologists (2) (GS 5/6) 104,264

 Forester (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Biological Technicians (3) (GS 5/7/9) 212,592

 Term Biologist (2) GS 5/6) 104,264

 Refuge/District FMO (GS 11/12/13 122,205

 Assistant FMO (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Dispatcher/Fire Information (GS 5/7/9) 70,864

 Communication Tech (GS 5/7)# 57,932

 Seasonal Dispatcher (GS 4/5)T1 46,763

 Prescribed Fire Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Equipment Operators (3) (WG 8) 155,750

 Lead Firefighter (GS 5/6/7) 57,932

 Firefighters (3) (GS 4/5) 140,289
122 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Title Grade Annual Cost* 

 Seasonal Firefighters-1040 (6) (GS 4)T 125,388

 Wildland Fire Specialist (GS 9/11) 85,747

 Equipment Operators (3) (WG 8) 155,850

 Lead Firefighter (GS 5/6/7) 57,932

 Firefighters (3) (GS 4/5) 233,815

 Facility Manager (GS 11/12) 102,764

 SAMMS Coordinator (GS 7/9) 70,864

 Equipment Operators (2) (WG 7/8) 103,900

 Heavy Equipment Mechanics (2) (WG 8) 103,900

 Light Equipment Mechanics (2) (WG 8) 51,950

 Electrician (WG 8) 51,950

 Carpenter (WG 8) 51,950 

 Plumber (WG 8) 51,950

 Safety/HazMat Officer (GS 7/9) 70,864

 Maintenance Workers (4) (WG 5) 164,468

Subtotal (annual staff costs) 130 employees 8,305,099

FUNDING 

Table 10 presents the estimated funding needs for addressing the issues within this plan. 

Accomplishments over the next 15 years depend on the funding sources and the amounts obtained. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is 

directed over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More 

specifically, adaptive management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation indicate undesirable 

effects for target and not-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s comprehensive conservation plan will be revised. 

Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 
Section A. Comprehensive Conservation Plan 123

Table 10. Estimated funding needs to address the issues presented in this plan 

Issue Recurring Annual 

Cost Special Projects 

Wildlife Management

Threatened and Endangered Species $120,000 $130,000

Fisheries 15,000 60,000

Reptiles 15,000 30,000

Amphibians 15,000 30,000

Invertebrates 5,000 30,000

Birds 60,000 130,000

Mammals 25,000 30,000

Contaminants 15,000 30,000

Resource Protection

Upland Communities 80,000 200,000

Wetland Communities 40,000 4,500,000

Invasive Plants and Animals 5,000 

Archaeological and Historical Sites 15,000 20,000

Wilderness Resources 20,000 80,000

Public Services

Promotion 80,000 100,000

Recreational Fee 25,000 

Hunting 15,000 

Fishing 12,000 30,000

Wildlife Observation and Photography 80,000 200,000

Environmental Education 100,000 500,000

Interpretation 100,000 100,000

Administration

Staffing 8,305,099 

Facilities 200,000 5,000,000

Equipment 2,600,000 1,000,000

TOTAL $11,947,099 $12,200,000
124 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This comprehensive conservation plan will be reviewed annually to reinforce the management 

direction presented in the plan, as well as determine the need for revision. If a revision is within the 

guidelines of the plan, changes would be made as a supplement to the appropriate step-down plan. 

If a significant change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion occurs that affects the 

refuge’s goals and objectives, the revisions to the comprehensive conservation plan and the stepdown management plans would be subject to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Section B. Appendices 125 

SECTION B. APPENDICES 

Appendix I. Relevant Legal Mandates 

Departmental Policy 

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural 

and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. In accomplishing this mission, the 

Department is committed to the following (105 DM 1): 

• Restoring and maintaining the health of federally managed lands, waters, and renewable 

resources. 

• Preserving our Nation's natural and cultural heritage for future generations. 

• Providing recreational opportunities for the public to enjoy natural and cultural resources. 

• Providing for appropriate commercial use and development of federally managed natural 

resources in an environmentally sound manner. 

• Encouraging the preservation of diverse plant and animal species and protecting habitat critical to 

their survival. 

• Working to transfer Federal program operations to Tribal governments through Indian selfdetermination and self-governance agreements. 

• Protecting and conserving the trust resources of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and 

working with these tribes to enhance education, economic opportunities, and the quality of life for 

their members. 

• Advancing scientific research and monitoring to improve our understanding of the interaction of 

natural and human systems and to reduce the impacts of hazards caused by natural processes 

and human actions. 

• Providing useful scientific information for sound resource decision making. 

• Applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively, placing priority on compliance and 

enforcement, prevention and problem solving. 

Service Policy 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for the administration of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. As of September, 1999, 521 National Wildlife Refuges and 1200 Waterfowl Production 

Areas existed within the National Wildlife Refuge System totaling over 93125 million acres. As one of 

its administrative responsibilities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for developing a 

program for the restoration, preservation, and management of wildlife and habitat to obtain maximum 

benefits from these resources. Management guidance for Service lands is provided by the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual (http://policy.fws.gov). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System received additional guidance in 1997 with the passage of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997: 

$ Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (the Act) to state 

as the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System to administer a national network of 

lands and waters for the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife and 

plant resources and their habitats. 
126 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

$Adds requirements that, in administering the System, the Secretary of the Interior shall: (1) 

ensure that the System's mission and policies are carried out, except that if a conflict 

exists between the purposes of a refuge and the System mission, it shall be resolved in a 

manner that first protects the purposes of the refuge; and (2) monitor the status and 

trends of fish, wildlife, and plants in each refuge. 

$ Recognizes and supports wildlife-dependent recreation (recreation which involves hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and 

interpretation) within the System. 

$ Authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative arrangements with State fish and 

wildlife agencies for the management of programs on a refuge. 

$ Prohibits the Secretary from initiating or permitting a new refuge use or expanding, 

renewing, or extending an existing use, unless the Secretary determines that such use is 

a compatible use which is not inconsistent with public safety. 

$ Establishes compatibility standards and procedures, including those for wildlife-dependent 

recreational uses. Requires the Secretary to issue final regulations establishing the 

process for determining a compatible use. States that the compatibility determination 

provisions of the Act shall not apply to overflights above a refuge or to activities 

authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency having primary jurisdiction over a 

refuge. 

$ Directs the Secretary to propose comprehensive conservation plans for each refuge in the 

System except for lands in Alaska (which are governed by the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act). Requires maximum 15-year cycles of plan revision. Sets forth 

matters to be considered in plan development, including fish and wildlife distribution and 

migration patterns, plant populations, archaeological and cultural values, habitat 

problems, and opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

$ Authorizes the Secretary to temporarily suspend any refuge activity when necessary to 

protect the health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife population. 

Enabling Legislation 

The executive order establishing government owned lands or lands to be acquired by the United 

States within the Okefenokee Swamp area as a wildlife refuge is reproduced below. 

 

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

 Executive Order 

 Establishing Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge 

 Georgia 

By virtue of and pursuant to the authority vested in me as President of the United States, and in order 

to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1228), it is ordered 

that all lands, including lands under water, acquired or to be acquired by the United States, lying 

within the following-described area, and comprising approximately 479,450 acres in Charlton, Clinch 

and Ware Counties, Georgia, be, and they are hereby, reserved and set apart for the use of the 

Department of Agriculture, subject to valid existing rights, as a refuge and breeding ground for 
Section B. Appendices 127 

migratory birds and other wildlife: Provided, That any private lands within the area described shall 

become a part of the refuge hereby established upon the acquisition of title thereto or lease thereof 

by the United States: 

Beginning at the southeast corner of Ware County, Georgia, in the boundary between the States of 

Florida and Georgia; 

Thence from said initial point, westerly along said State line, with the south boundary of Ware County 

and in part with the south boundary of Clinch County to a point in the west boundary of lot 564, 13th

District, Clinch County; 

Thence passing within Clinch County, 

Northerly with lot lines through the 13th District to the northwest corner of lot 30 in the north boundary 

of the 13th District; westerly between lot 29, 13th District, and lot 29, 12th District; 

Thence continuing with lot lines in 12th District, Clinch County, 

Northerly, between lots 28 and 29; 

Westerly, between lots 28 and 45; 

Northerly, with the west boundary of lots 45, 100, 117, 172, 189 and 244; 

Easterly, between lots 244 and 261; 

Northerly, between lots 260 and 261, and lots 316 and 317; 

Easterly, between lots 317 and 332; 

Northerly, between lots 331 and 332; 

Easterly, between lots 331 and 390, 330 and 391, and lots 329 and 392, to the boundary between 

Clinch and Ware Counties; 

Thence, northerly, on county line between lots 392 and 393; 

Thence passing within Ware county and continuing with lot lines in 12th District, 

Easterly, between lots 393 and 400, and lots 394 and 399; 

Northerly, between lots 398 and 399; 

Easterly, between lots 398 and 467; 

Northerly, between lots 467 and 468, and lots 469 and 470; 

Easterly, between 469 and 540, and lots 615 and 616, to the boundary between Ware and Charlton 

County; 

Thence passing within Charlton County, with lot lines in the 4th Section, 10th District, 

Easterly, Between lots 3 and 4; 

Northerly, between lots 3 and 22; 

Easterly, between lots 22 and 23; 

Northerly, between lots 23 and 26, and lots 24 and 25, to the boundary between Charlton and Ware 

Counties; 

Thence, easterly, with county line to the southwest corner of lot 523, 8th District, Ware county; 

Thence passing within Ware County, with lot lines in the 8th District, 

Northerly, between lots 522 and 523, 490 and 491, and lots 476 and 477; 

Easterly, between lots 444 and 477; 

Northerly, between lots 443 and 444, and lots 431 and 432; 
128 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Easterly, between lots 397 and 432, 396 and 433, 395 and 434, 394 and 435, 393 and 436, and lots 

392 and 437 to the line between the 8th and 9th Districts; 

Thence continuing in Ware County, with lot lines in the 9th District, 

Easterly, between lots 18 and 19; 

Southerly, between lots 19 and 28; 

Easterly, between lots 27 and 28, 65 and 66, 73 and 74, 111 and 112, 119 and 120, and lots 157 and 

158; 

Southerly, between lots 158 and 165; 

Easterly, between lots 164 and 165, and lots 204 and 205; 

Southerly, between lots 205 and 210, 206 and 209, and lots 207 and 208, to the boundary between 

Ware and Charlton Counties; 

Thence, easterly, with county line, to the northeast corner of lot 48, 1st Section, 10th District, Charlton 

County; 

Thence passing within Charlton County, with lot lines in 1st Section, 10th District, 

Southerly, between lots 48 and 49, 47 and 50, 46 and 51, 45 and 52, 44 and 53, 43 and 54, 42 and 

55, 41 and 56, 40 and 57, 39 and 58, and lots 38 and 59 to the south corner of lot 59 in the line 

between the 1st and 10th Districts; 

Thence, southwesterly, with district line, to the southwest corner of lot 26, 1st District, Charlton 

County; 

Thence, continuing in Charlton County, with lot lines in 1st District, 

Southeasterly, between lots 26 and 37; 

Southwesterly, between lots 36 and 37, 38 and 39, 48 and 49, 50 and 51, 60 and 61, and lots 62 and 63; 

Southeasterly, between lots 63 and 70; 

Southwesterly between lots 69 and 70, and lots 73 and 74; 

Southeasterly, between lots 74 and 79, 75 and 78, and lots 76 and 77, to the line between the 1st

District and the Headright Grants; 

Southwesterly, with line between lot 77, 1st District, and the Headright Grants, 48.29 chains, to a point; 

Thence passing within the Headright Grants with the following described line; 

N. 88 16' E., 96.73 chains; 

S. 28 17' W., 22.07 chains; 

S. 89 10' W., 60.08 chains; 

N. 83 06' W., 38.04 chains; 

to the line between lot 77, 1st District, and the Headright Grants; 

Thence, southwesterly, with the southeast boundary of lots 77 and 87; 

Then passing within 1st District, with lot lines, 

Northwesterly, between lots 86 and 88, and lots 85 and 89; 

Southwesterly, between lots 89 and 90, 95 and 96, and lots 104 and 105; 

Southeasterly, between lots 104 and 111; 

Southwesterly, between lots 111 and 112, and lots 122 and 123; 

Southeasterly, between lots 122 and 131; 
Section B. Appendices 129 

Southwesterly, between lots 131 and 132, 144 and 145, 154 and 155, 170 and 171, 180 and 181, 

198 and 199, 208 and 209, and lots 227 and 226; 

Northwesterly, between lots 227 and 237, and lots 228 and 236; 

Southwesterly, between lots 235 ad 236; 

Northwesterly, between lots 235 and 259, 234 and 260, and lots 233 and 261; 

Northeasterly, with northwest boundary of lot 233, to place of beginning. 

This refuge shall be known as the Okefenokee Wildlife Refuge. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt 

The White House, 

March 30, 1937. 

PUBLIC LAW 84-810 (70 STAT. 668) 

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

An Act

To provide for the protection of the Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge, Georgia, against damage from fire and drought. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled. That (a) for the purpose of protecting the natural features and the very 

substantial public values represented in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia, from 

disastrous fires such as those which swept over 80 per centum of the area between October 1954 

and June 1955, and for the purpose of safeguarding the forest resources on more than four hundred 

thousand acres of adjoining lands recently damaged by wildfires originating in or sustained by the 

desiccated peat deposits in the Okefenokee Swamp, the Secretary of the Interior shall construct a 

continuous perimeter road around the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge with additional fire 

access roads (leading from such perimeter road) in and around such refuge; and for the purpose of 

protecting such refuge against damage from drought he shall construct a sill and dike in the 

Suwannee River near the point where the river leaves the refuge together with additional sills in the 

Old Saint Marys River Canal and at such other points within the refuge as he may determine to be 

necessary to prevent drainage of the Okefenokee Swamp during periods of drought such as 

those which occurred in 1953-1955 and other years. 

(b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to conduct such surveys as he deems 

necessary to provide more adequate protection for the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, through 

the development and construction of perimeter and fire access roads and the installation of water 

controls as described in subsection (a), against the damaging effects of fire and drought. 

(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to cooperate with State and local 

authorities in protecting public and private lands from wildfires originating in or sustained by the 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge by integrating the perimeter road and fire access roads with 

existing woods roads in such manner as he determines will best carry out the purpose of this Act. 
130 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

SEC. 2. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act (1) the sum of $453,500 

for the construction of a continuous perimeter road around the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

and approximately one hundred and sixty-two miles of fire access roads, together with necessary 

bridges and culverts, in and around such refuge, and (2) the sum of $275,000 for the construction of 

a sill and dike in the Suwannee River and sills at other appropriate points in the Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

Approved July 26, 1956. 

Wilderness Act 

The Wilderness Act sets aside areas of "undeveloped Federal land, retaining its primeval character 

and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions--". Lands placed under protection of the wilderness 

act are administered by the host agency. The act does not alter the objectives for which the unit was 

established; however, management activities generally must be conducted with minimum tool and 

without the aid of motorized equipment. The act provides that the area shall be managed "so as to 

preserve its natural conditions and which -- generally appears to have been affected primarily by the 

forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable" (Public Law 88-577; 88th 

Congress, S.4; September 3, 1964). This implies that management is permitted; however, 

management actions must appear to have been accomplished by natural forces. 

Public Law 93-429 dated October 1, 1974 designated certain lands in the Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. This Act added 353,981 acres to the National Wilderness System. 

Public Law 93-429 

93rd Congress, H.R. 6395 

October 1, 1974 

An Act 

To designate certain lands in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia, as wilderness. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, That, in accordance with section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat.890, 892), 

certain lands in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Georgia, which comprise about three 

hundred forty-three thousand eight hundred and fifty acres and which are depicted on a map entitled 

“Okefenokee Wilderness Proposal” dated October 1967, revised March 1971, are hereby designated 

as wilderness. The map shall be on file and available for public inspection in the offices of United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 

Sec. 2. Within the wilderness designated by this Act, subject to such restrictions as the Secretary of the 

Interior deems necessary for public safety and to protect flora and fauna of the wilderness, (1) the use 

of powered watercraft, propelled by motors of ten or less horsepower, will be permitted, (2) watercraft 

trails including approximately one hundred twenty miles as delineated on such map will be maintained. 

Access to watercraft trails in the wilderness area will be provided from the Suwannee River Sill, Steven 

Foster State Park, Kings Landing, and Suwannee Recreation Area (Camp Cornelia). 
Section B. Appendices 131 

Sec. 3. Fishing shall be permitted in the waters of the Okefenokee Wilderness, in accordance with 

applicable State and Federal regulations, except that the Secretary of the Interior may designate 

zones and establish periods when no fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, 

administration, fish and wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment. 

Sec. 4. As soon as practicable after the Act takes effect, a map and a legal description of the 

wilderness area shall be filed with the Interior and Insular Affairs Committees of the United 

States Senate and the House of Representatives, and such description and map shall have 

the same force and effect as if included in this Act: Provided, however, That correction of 

clerical and typographical errors in such description and map may be made. 

Sec. 5. The area designated by this Act as wilderness shall be known as the Okefenokee Wilderness 

and shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provision of the 

Wilderness Act. 

Approved October 1, 1974. 

The House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in recommending these provisions commented 

(Report No. 93-872): 

“The Committee carefully considered the advisability of prohibiting use of powered watercraft and the 

maintenance of ‘watercraft trails’ within the area. However, such a prohibtion would, for all practical 

purposes, eliminate public use and enjoyment of the entire wilderness. In addition, the Congress 

recognized that this is a long established and continuing use within the area and that such a use, if 

properly controlled and regulated, would not materially detract from wilderness values. It was 

therefore the Committee’s position that powered watercraft, propelled by motors of ten horsepower or 

less, should be permitted to continue to operate within the area. It was also the Committee’s position 

that the ‘watercraft trails’, including those now designated, should be maintained. However, by 

authorizing the maintenance of these existing trails and also recognizing that certain relocations or 

modest additions may be desirable and necessary, the Committee wants it clearly understood that it 

does not favor any major expansion of the trail system beyond the approximately 120 miles now in 

existence ... the total mileage of that portion of the trail system devoted to use by motorboats should 

not be increased at the expense of the mileage of that portion dedicated to non-motorized watercraft.” 

Other Relevant Mandates 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps: A federal grant program established under 

Subtitle C of the law, the Corps offers an opportunity for young adults between the ages of 16-25, or 

in the case of summer programs 15-21, to engage in approved human and natural resources projects 

which benefit the public or are carried out on Federal or Indian lands. To be eligible for assistance, 

natural resource programs must focus on improvement of wildlife habitat and recreational areas; fish 

culture, fishery assistance, erosion, wetlands protection, pollution control and similar projects. A 

stipend of not more than 100 percent of the poverty level will be paid to participants. A Commission 

established to administer the Youth Service Corps will make grants to States, the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Interior and the Director of ACTION to carry out these responsibilities. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (1992): Prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and 

services. 
132 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 431- 433): The Act of June 8,1906, (34 Stat. 225) authorizes the 

President of the United States to designate as National Monuments objects or areas of historic or 

scientific interests on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The Act required that a permit 

be obtained for examination of ruins, excavation of archaeological sites and the gathering of objects 

of antiquity on lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretaries of Interior, Agriculture, and Army and 

provided penalties for violations. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 U.S.C.470aa-47011): Public Law 96-95, approved 

October 31, 1979, (93 Stat. 721) largely supplanted the resource protection provisions of the 

Antiquities Act for archaeological items. This Act established detailed requirements for issuance of 

permits for any excavation for or removal of archaeological resources from Federal and Indian lands. 

It also established civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized excavation, removal, or damage of 

any such resources; for any trafficking in such resources removed from Federal and Indian lands in 

violation of any provision of federal law; and for interstate and foreign commerce in such resources 

acquired, transported or received in violation of any state or local law. 

Public Law 100-588, approved November 3, 1988, (102 Stat. 2983) lowered the threshold value of 

artifacts triggering the felony provisions of the Act from $5,000 to $500, made attempting to commit 

an action prohibited by the Act a violation, and required the land managing agencies to establish 

public awareness programs regarding the value of archaeological resources to the nation. 

Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 469-469c): Public Law 86-523 approved 

June 27, 1960, (74 Stat. 220) and amended by Public Law 93-291, approved May 24, 1974, (88 Stat. 

174) directed federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Interior whenever a federally assisted or 

licensed or permitted project may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric or 

archaeologic data. The Act authorized use of appropriated 

donated and/or transferred funds for the recovery, protection and preservation of such data. 

Architectural Barriers Act (1968): Requires federally owned, leased, or funded buildings and 

facilities to be accessible to persons with disabilities. 

Clean Water Act (1977): Requires consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for major 

wetland modifications. 

Emergency Wetland 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 also requires the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Wetlands Priority Conservation 

Plan, requires the states to include wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund an amount equal to import duties on arms and 

ammunition. 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (1986): The purpose of the Act is “To promote the 

conservation of migratory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of wetlands by the 

acquisition of wetlands and other essential habitat, and for other purposes." 

Endangered Species Act: The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat. 

884) requires all federal agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and 

endangered species. The Act provides for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened 

and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend both through federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of state programs. The Act authorizes “the determination and listing of 
Section B. Appendices 133 

species as threatened and endangered; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and 

transport of endangered species; provides authority to acquire land for the conservation of listed 

species using land and water conservation funds; authorizes establishment of cooperative 

agreements and grants-in-aid to states that establish and maintain active and adequate programs for 

threatened and endangered wildlife and plants; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal 

penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone 

furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction of anyone violating the Act and any regulation 

issued thereunder." 

All habitat management actions proposed for Okefenokee's uplands and wetlands are examined 

through Section 7 consultation to determine that they meet provisions of the endangered species act. 

Environmental Education Act of 1990(20 U.S.C. 5501-5510: 104 Stat. 3325): Public Law 101-619, 

signed November 16,1990, established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a federal environmental education 

program. Responsibilities of the Office include developing and supporting programs to improve 

understanding of the natural and developed environment and the relationships between humans and 

their environment; supporting the dissemination of educational materials: developing and supporting 

training programs and environmental education seminars; managing a federal grant program; and 

administering an environmental internship and fellowship program. The Office is required to develop 

and support environmental programs in consultation with other federal natural resource management 

agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Executive Order 11988 (1977): Each federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to 

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of floods on human safety, and preserve the 

natural and beneficial values served by the flood plain. 

Executive Order 11988, Flood plain Management: The purpose of this Executive Order, signed 

May 24, 1977, 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 flood plain 

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 flood plain.” 

Executive Order 12996 Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (1996): Defines the mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. It also presents four principles to guide management of the system. 

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites (1996): Directs federal land management agencies to 

accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners, 

avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where appropriate maintain 

the confidentiality of sacred sites. 

Executive Order 1312 Invasive species (1999): This order seeks to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, provides for their control, and minimizes the economic, ecological, and human 

health impacts that are caused by invasive species. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act (1990): Requires the use of integrated management systems to control 

or contain undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary approach with the cooperation of other 

federal and state agencies. 
134 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Fish and Wildlife Act (1956): Established a comprehensive national fish and wildlife policy and 

broadened the authority for acquisition and development of refuges. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ( 1958): Allows the Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into 

agreements with private landowners for wildlife management purposes. 

Fish and Wildlife 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 System Administration Act, and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. It 

authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal property on 

behalf of the United States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects and 

appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Historic Sites. Buildings and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 461-462. 464-467): The Act of August 21, 

1935 (49 Stat. 666), popularly known as the Historic Sites Act, as amended by Public Law 89-249, 

approved October 9, 1965 (79 Stat. 971), declared it a national policy to preserve historic sites and 

objects of national significance including those located on refuges. It provided procedures for 

designation, acquisition, administration, and protection of such sites. Among other things, National 

Historic and Natural Landmarks are designated under authority of this Act. As of January 1989, 

thirty-one national wildlife refuges contained such sites. 

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 of 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. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965): Uses the receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, outer continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for land acquisition under several 

authorities. 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (1929): Establishes procedures for acquisition by purchase, 

rental, or gift of areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (1934): Authorized the opening of part of a 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718-718j. 48 Stat. 451) as 

amended: The “Duck Stamp Act,” of March 16,1934, requires each waterfowl hunter, 16 years of age 

or older, to possess a valid federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are deposited 

in a special Treasury account known as the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and are not subject to 

appropriations. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918): Designates the protection of migratory birds as a federal 

responsibility. This Act enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations including the closing of 

areas, federal or non-federal, to the hunting of migratory birds. 
Section B. Appendices 135 

National and Community Service Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C. 12401:104 Stat: 3127): Public Law 101-

610, signed November 16, 1990, authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the United States 

in full- and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy and poverty, provide job skills, enhance 

educational skills, and fulfill environmental needs. Several provisions are of particular interest to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1959 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 

852) as amended by Public Law 94-52, July 3, 1975, 89 Stat. 258, and Public Law 94-83, August 9,1975, 

89 Stat. 424): Title I of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act requires that all federal agencies 

prepare detailed environmental impact statements for “every recommendation or report on proposals for 

legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." The 

1969 statute stipulated the factors to be considered in environmental 

impact statements, and required that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related 

decision-making and develop means to ensure that unquantified environmental values are given 

appropriate consideration, along with economic and technical considerations. Title II of this statute requires 

annual reports on environmental quality from the President to the Congress, and established a Council on 

Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President with specific duties and functions. 

National Environmental Policy Act (1969): Requires the disclosure of the environmental impacts of 

any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470-470b, 470c-470n): Public Law 89-665, 

approved October 15, 1966, (80 Stat. 915) and repeatedly amended, provided for preservation of 

significant historical features (buildings, objects and sites) through a grant-in-aid program to the 

states. It established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of matching grants under 

the existing National Trust for Historic Preservation (16 U.S.C. 468-468d). The Act established an 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which was made a permanent independent agency in 

Public Law 94-422, approved September 28,1976 (90 Stat. 1319). The Act also created the Historic 

Preservation Fund. Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of their actions on 

items or sites listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places. As of January 

1989, ninety-one such sites on national wildlife refuges are listed in this Register. 

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. (Refuge 

Administration Act): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge System and authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to permit any use of a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major purposes for 

which the refuge was established. The Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying mission for 

the refuge system; establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public uses 

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

interpretation); establishes a formal process for determining compatibility; established the 

responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and protecting the System; and requires 

a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This Act amended portions of 

the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997: Public Law 105-57, amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee). and provided guidance for 

management and public use of the Refuge System. The Act mandates that the Refuge System be 

consistently directed and managed as a national system of lands and waters devoted to wildlife 

conservation and management. The Act establishes priorities for recreational uses of the refuge 

system. Six wildlife-dependent uses are specifically named in the Act: hunting, fishing, wildlife 
136 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. These activities are to 

be promoted on the refuge system, while all non-wildlife-dependent uses are subject to compatibility 

determinations. A compatible use is one which, in the sound professional judgement of the Refuge 

Manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract from, fulfillment of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Mission or refuge purpose(s). As stated in the Act, “The mission of the system is to 

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

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

States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." The Act also requires 

development of a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge and that management be 

consistent with the plan. When writing a plan for expanded or new refuges, and when making 

management decisions, the Act requires effective coordination with other federal agencies, state fish 

and wildlife or conservation agencies, and refuge neighbors. A refuge must also provide 

opportunities for public involvement when making a compatibility determination. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act (103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401-4412): Public Law 

101-233, enacted December 13, 1989, provides funding and administrative direction for 

implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite Agreement on 

Wetlands between Canada, the United States and Mexico. The Act converts the Pittman-Robertson 

account into a trust fund, with the interest available without appropriation through the year 2006, to 

carry out the programs authorized by the Act, along with an authorization for annual appropriation of 

$15 million plus an amount equal to the fines and forfeitures collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act. Available funds may be expended, upon approval of the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Commission, for payment of not to exceed 50 percent of the United States' share of the cost of 

wetlands conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 100 percent of the cost of 

projects on federal lands). At least 50 percent and no more than 70 percent of the funds received are 

to go to Canada and Mexico each year. 

Refuge Recreation Act (1962): Allows the use of refuges for recreation when such uses are 

compatible with the refuge’s primary purposes and when sufficient funds are available to manage the 

uses." 

Rehabilitation Act (1973): Requires that programmatic and physical accessibility be made available 

in any facility funded by the federal government ensuring that anyone can participate in any program. 

 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1952: 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 of fees for public uses. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act (16 U.S.C. 715s): Section 401 of the Act of June 15,1935, (49 Stat. 

383) provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues derived from the sale of 

products from refuges. Public Law 88-523, approved August 30,1964 (78 Stat. 701), made major 

revisions by requiring that all revenues received from refuge products such as animals, timber and 

minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be deposited in a special Treasury account and net 

receipts distributed to counties for public schools and roads. Public Law 93-509, approved December 

3, 1974 (88 Stat. 1603), required that moneys remaining in the fund after payments be transferred to 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for land acquisition under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. Public Law 95-469, approved October 17, 1978, (92 Stat. 1319) expanded the 

revenue sharing system to include National Fish Hatcheries and Service research stations. It also 
Section B. Appendices 137 

included in the Refuge Revenue Sharing Fund receipts from the sale of salmonid carcasses. 

Payments to counties were established as follows: on acquired land, the greatest amount calculated 

on the basis of 75 cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the appraised value, or 25 percent 

of the net receipts produced from the land: and on land withdrawn from the public-domain, 25 percent 

of net receipts and basic payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601-1607, 90 Stat. 2662). 

This amendment also authorized appropriations to make up any difference between the amount in 

the fund and the amount scheduled for payment in any year. The stipulation that payments be used 

for schools and roads was removed, but counties were required to pass payments along to other 

units of local government within the county which suffer losses in revenues due to the establishment 

of Service areas. 

Wilderness Act of 1954: Public Law 88-577, approved September 3,1964, directed the Secretary of 

the Interior, within 10 years, to review every roadless area of 5,000 or more acres and every roadless 

island (regardless of size) within National Wildlife Refuge and National Park Systems for inclusion in 

the National Wilderness Preservation System. 
138 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 139 

Appendix II. Facilities 

Following is a list of facilities on and adjacent to the refuge and the replacement value of each. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Camp Cornelia

Field Office/Shop Complex $496,275

Fueling Facility 115,100

Equipment Shelters (3) 852006 

Oil/Paint Buildings (2) 67,578

Radio Facility 46,040

Log Shop/Office Building 172,650

Fire Cache 84,800

Fire Shower/Pilot Lounge 256,376

Biological Building 54,468

Log Residence 113,662

Volunteer Trailers 80,000

University of Georgia Trailer 50,000

USFWS Trailer 41,960

Pogo (Hanger, storage 88,015

Suwannee Canal

Visitors Center $619,841

Concession Buildings 578,819

Shelter & Restroom Facilities 187,038

Boathouse 176,549

Fee Station 27,624

Chesser Island 

Chesser Residence $230,200

Homestead Outbuildings (Not Original) 115,100 

Boardwalk Comfort Station 25,868

Boardwalk and Towers 1,250,559
140 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Kingfisher 

Boat House $183,934

Pocket Sub-headquarters

Residences (2) $350,696

Equipment Shelter 84,800

Fueling Facility 57,550

Pump House 57,550

Boathouse 32,405

Radio/Weather Towers 51,603

Shelters 

Maul Hammock $29,926

Cedar Hammock 22, 608

Bluff Lake 27,624

Canal Fork 16,114

Coffee Bay 23,020

Round Top 32,228

Canal Run 20,718

Floyds Cabin 86,325

Monkey Lake 18,508

Big Water – Day Use 16,114

Big Water – Overnight 23,020

Minnies Lake 18,416

Dinner Pond 16,193

Billys Island dock 24,030

Okefenokee Swamp Park

Headquarters Building $500,000

Shop Building 200,000

Serpentarium 200,000

Living Swamp Center 500,000

Swamp Creation Center 500,000

Boat House and Dock 200,000

Boardwalk and Tower 500,000
Section B. Appendices 141 

Okefenokee Swamp Park (Cont’d)

Food Center 25,000

Pioneer Island (Restore Bldgs) 800,000

Stephen C Foster State Park

Office/Concession/Shop $300,000

Museum 250,000

Residences (2) 200,000

Rental Cabins (9) 300,000

Boardwalk 200,000

Obediah's Okefenok

Obediah's House/Kitchen $100,000

Structures/Exhibits 250,000

Boardwalk 140,000
142 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 143 

Appendix III. Comparison Of Vegetation 

Classifications Used At 

Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

VEGETATIVE 

CLASSES 

[Loftin’s 6 and (17 class 

map)] 

HAMILTON’S 

CLASSES

SAF TYPE KEY SPECIES

BROADLEAVED 

HARDWOODS

 (Gum - Maple - Bays) 

 (Gum - Bay - Cypress - 

Shrub) 

 (Loblolly Bay) 

Broad Leaved 

Evergreens 

Broad Leaved 

Deciduous 

 (Black Gum) 

Bay - Cypress 

SAF 104 

 (Sweet Bay-Swamp 

Tupelo-Red Maple) 

SAF 103 

 (Water Tupelo) 

Loblolly Bay (Gordonia lasianthus)

Red Bay (Persea palustris) 

Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana) 

Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)

Red Maple (Acer rubrum)

Pond Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) 

CYPRESS/HARDWOODS

 (Ogeechee - Cypress) 

 (Cypress - gum - shrub) 

Needle Leaved 

Deciduous 

Mixed Cypress 

Cypress - Shrub - 

Prairie 

SAF 100 

 (Pond Cypress - 

mature) 

Pond Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) 

Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)

Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii)

Ogeechee Tupelo (Nyssa ogeechee)

Shrub Species ( See Scrub/shrub) 

WETLAND PINE

 Mixed Wetland Pine 

Needle Leaved 

Evergreen 

 (Slash Pine) 

Mixed Forested Wetland 

 (Pine, Cypress, Bay, 

Scrub- 

 Shrub) 

SAF 104 

 (Sweetbay-Swamp 

Tupelo- Redbay) 

Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii)

Pond Pine (P. serotina) 

Pond Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) 

Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana) 

Loblolly Bay (Gordonia lasianthus)

Red Bay (Persea palustris)

Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica)

Shrub Species (See Scrub/shrub) 

Chain Fern (Woodwardia virginica)

SCRUB/SHRUB

 Young Bay - Shrub 

 Greenbriar - Shrub 

 Shrub 

Scrub/Shrub Wetland 

 (Scrub/Shrub) 

 (Shrub - Pine) 

 (Shrub - Cypress) 

 (Shrub - Bay) 

 (Shrub/Prairie) 

 (Scrub - Pine) 

 (Scrub - Prairie) 

No specific SAF Type 

exists for scrub/shrub. 

However, many wetland 

areas may contain 

dominant stands of young 

or scrub cypress which 

would be classed as SAF 

100. 

Shrub Species 

 Titi (Cyrilla racemiflora) 

 Hurrah Bush (Lyonia lucida)

 Fetterbush (Leucothoe racemosa)

 Virginia Sweetspire (Itea virginica)

 Dahoon Holly (Ilex cassine)

 Greenbriar (Smilax spp.) 

 Waxmyrtle (Myrica cerifera)

 Poor Man’s Soap (Clethera alnifolia) 

Scrub Species (May be young trees) 

 Pond Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) 

 Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)

 Loblolly Bay (Gordonia lasianthus)

 Slash Pine (Pinus elliottii) 

 Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana) 

 Red Maple (Acer rubrum)

PRAIRIE 

 Water Lilly 

 Sedges - Ferns - Water 

lily 

 Aquatic Grasses 

Herbaceous Prairie 

Aquatic Macrophyte 

Prairie 

NA White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata) 

Bladderworts (Utricularia spp.)

Spatterdock (Nuphar lutea)

Sedges (Carex spp.)

Chain Ferns 

Aquatic Grasses (Lacnanthes, Andropogon, 

Panicum spp.)

OPEN WATER 
144 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 145 

Appendix IV. Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge Plant List 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Aceraceae Acer rubrum L. Red Maple 

Agavaceae Yucca aloifolia L. Aleo Yucca, Spanish Bayonet, Spanish Dagger 

Agavaceae Yucca filamentosa L. Adam's Needle 

Agavaceae Yucca gloriosa L. Mound Lily Yucca 

Anacardiaceae Rhus copallinum L. Winged Sumac 

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron radicans (L.) Kuntze Eastern Poison Ivy 

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron vernix (L.) Kuntze Poison Sumac 

Annonaceae Asimina angustifolia Raf. Slimleaf Pawpaw 

Annonaceae Asimina incana (W. Bartram) Wooly Pawpaw; Polecat Bush 

Annonaceae Asimina parviflora (Michx.) Dunal. Smallflower Pawpaw 

Annonaceae Asimina pygmaea (W. Bartram) Dunal Dwarf Pawpaw 

Annonaceae Asimina reticulata Shuttlew.ex Chapm. Netted Pawpaw 

Annonaceae Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal Common Pawpaw 

Apiaceae Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Spadeleaf 

Apiaceae Eryngium aromaticum Baldwin Fragrant Eryngio 

Apiaceae Eryngium prostratum Nutt. Ex DC. Creeping Eryngo 

Apiaceae Eryngium yuccifolium Michx. Button Snakeroot Eryngo, Rattlesnake Master 

Apiaceae Hydrocotyle umbellata L. Many Flower Marsh Pennywort 

Apiaceae Oxypolis filiformis (Walt.) Britt. Water Cowbane 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex ambigua (Michx.) Carolina Holly; Sand Holly 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex cassine L. Dahoon 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex coriacea (Pursh) Chapm Sweet Gallberry, Large Gallberry 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex decidua Walter Possumhaw 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex glabra (L.) A. Gray Bitter Gallberry, Inkberry 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex myrtifolia Walt. Myrtle Holly, Myrtle Dahoon 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex opaca Aiton American Holly, Christmas Holly 

Aquifoliaceae Ilex vomitoria Aiton Yaupon 

Araceae Arisaema dracontium (L.) Schott Green Dragon 

Araceae Orontium aquaticum L. Golden Club, Neverwet 

Araceae Peltandra sagittifolia (Michx.) Morong White Arrow Arum; Spoonflower 

Araceae Peltandra virginica (L.) Schott and Endl. Green Arrow Arum, Arrow Arum, Tuckahoe 

Araliaceae Aralia spinosa L. Devil's Walking Stick, Hercules Club 

Arecaceae Sabal minor (Jacq.) Pers. Dwarf Palmetto 
146 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Arecaceae Sabal palmetto (Walt.) Lodd.ex. Schult & 

Schult. F. 

Cabbage Palm 

Arecaceae Serenoa repens (W. Bartram) Small Saw Palmetto 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias cinerea Walter Carolina Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias humistrata Walter Pinewoods Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias lanceolata Walter Fewflower Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias michauxii Decne. Michaux's Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias pedicellata Walter Savannah Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias perennis Walter Swamp Milkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias tuberosa L. Butterfly Weed,Chipperweed,Pleurisy Root 

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias viridula chapm. Southern Milkweed, Silkweed 

Asclepiadaceae Matelea pubiflora (Decne.) Woodson Trailing Milkvine 

Aspleniaceae Asplenium platyneuron (L.) Britton et al. Ebony Spleenwort 

Asteraceae Acanthospermum australe (Loe fl.) Kuntze Paraguay Starburr 

Asteraceae Baccharis halimifolia L. Silverling, Sea Myrtle, Groundsel Tree 

Asteraceae Balduina angustifolia(Pursh) B.L. Rob. Coastal Plain Honeycomb Head 

Asteraceae Balduina uniflora Nutt. One flower Honeycomb Head 

Asteraceae Berlandiera pumila (Michx.) Nutt Soft Greeneyes 

Asteraceae Bidens mitis (Michx.) Sherff Small Fruit Beggar Ticks 

Asteraceae Bigelowia nudata (Michx.) DC. Pineland Rayless Goldenrod 

Asteraceae Carphephorus corymbosus (Nutt.) Torr.& 

A. Gray 

Coastal Plain Chaffhead 

Asteraceae Carphephorus odoratissiums (J.F. Grnel.) 

H. Hebert 

Vanilla Leaf; Deer Tongue 

Asteraceae Chaptalia tomentosa Vent. Wooly Sunbonnet; Pineland Daisy; Sunbonnet 

Asteraceae Chrysopsis mariana (L.) Elliott Maryland Golden Aster 

Asteraceae Chrysopsis scabrella Torr. and Gray Coastal Plain Golden Aster 

Asteraceae Cirsium discolor (Muhl ex Willd.) Field Thistle 

Asteraceae Cirsium horridulum Michx. Yellow Thistle 

Asteraceae Conoclinium coelestinum L. Blue Mistflower 

Asteraceae Coreopsis basalis (A. Dietr.) S.F. Blake Goldenmane Tickseed 

Asteraceae Elephantopus nudatus A. Gray Smooth Elephants Foot 

Asteraceae Elephantopus tomentosus L. Devil's Grandmother 

Asteraceae Erechtites hieracifolia (L.) Raf.ex DC American Burnweed; Southern Fireweed 

Asteraceae Erigeron philadelphicus L. Philadelphia Fleabane 

Asteraceae Erigeron quercifolius Lam. Oakleaf Fleabane 

Asteraceae Erigeron strigosus Muhl. Ex Willd Prairie Fleabane 

Asteraceae Erigeron vernus (L.) Torr. & A. Gray Early Whitetop Fleabane 
Section B. Appendices 147 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Asteraceae Eupatorium capillifolium (Lam) Dogfennel; Yankee-Weed 

Asteraceae Eupatorium compositifolium Walter Yankeeweed 

Asteraceae Eupatorium mohrii Greene Mohr’s Thoroughwort 

Asteraceae Eupatorium rotundifolium L. Roundleaf Thoroughwort 

Asteraceae Facelis retusa (Lam.) Sch.Bip. Annual Trampweed 

Asteraceae Gaillardia aestivalis (Walt) H. Rock Lanceleaf Blanketflower 

Asteraceae Gamochaeta falcate (Lam.) Cabrera Narrowleaf Purple Everlasting; Codweed 

Asteraceae Gamochaeta pensylvanicum (Willd.) 

Cabrera 

Pennsylvania Everlasting; Pennsylvania 

Codweed 

Asteraceae Gamochaeta purpurea ( L.) Cabrera Spoonleaf Purple Everlasting; Codweed 

Asteraceae Helenium amarum (Raf.) H. Rock Spanish Daisy, Bitterweed 

Asteraceae Helenium flexuosum Raf. Purplehead Sneezeweed 

Asteraceae Helianthus angustifolius L. Narrowleaf Sunflower; Swamp Sunflower 

Asteraceae Heterotheca subaxillaris (Lam.) Britt and 

Rusby 

Camphorweed 

Asteraceae Hieracium gronovii L. Queendevil; Hawkweed 

Asteraceae Iva microcephala Nutt. Piedmont Marshelder 

Asteraceae Krigia virginica (L.) Willd. Virginia Dwarf Dandelion 

Asteraceae Liatris tenuifolia Nutt. Shortleaf Gayfeather 

Asteraceae Lygodesmia aphylla (Nutt.) DC. Rose-Rush 

Asteraceae Marshallia graminifolia (Walt)Sm. Barbara's Buttons 

Asteraceae Marshallia tenuifolia Raf. Grassleaf Barbara's Buttons 

Asteraceae Mikania scandens (L.) Willd. Climbing Hempvine 

Asteraceae Pityopsis graminifolia (Michx.) Nutt. Narrowleaf Silkgrass 

Asteraceae Pluchea foetida (L.) DC. Stinking Camphorweed 

Asteraceae Pluchea rosea R.K. Godfrey Rosy Camphorweed 

Asteraceae Pterocaulon pycnostachyum (Michx.) Ell. Blackroot 

Asteraceae Pyrrhopappus carolinianus (Walt.) DC False Dandelion 

Asteraceae Pyrrhopappus panciflorus (D. Don) DC. None Given 

Asteraceae Oclemena reticulata Pursh Pinebaren Whitetop Aster 

Asteraceae Sericocarpus tortifolius Mich. Dixe Whitetop Aster; Dixie Aster 

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum dumosum L. Rice Button Aster 

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum patens Aiton Late Purple Aster 

Asteraceae Symphyotrichum walteri Alex. Walter's Aster 

Asteraceae Rudbeckia hirta L. Blackeyed Susan 

Asteraceae Rudbeckia mollis Ell. Softhair Cornflower 

Asteraceae Senecio glabellus Poir Butterweed 
148 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Asteraceae Silphium compositum Michx. Kidneyleaf Rosinweed 

Asteraceae Solidago fistulosa Mill. Pinebarren Goldenrod 

Asteraceae Solidago odora var. chapmanii Torr. & A. 

Gray Chapman

Goldenrod 

Asteraceae Solidago odora Aiton var. odora Sweet Goldenrod 

Asteraceae Solidago stricta Aiton Wand Goldenrod 

Asteraceae Soliva sessilis Ruiz and Pavon Field Burrweed 

Asteraceae Sonchus asper (L.) Hill Spiny Sowthistle 

Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus L. Common Sowthistle 

Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale Weher ex F.H. Wigg Common Dandelion 

Asteraceae Vernonia angustifolia Michx. Tall Ironweed 

Asteraceae Youngia japonica (L.) DC. False Hawksbeard 

Betulaceae Alnus serrulata (Ait.) Willd. Hazel Alder, Common Alder 

Betulaceae Betula nigra L. River Birch, Red Birch 

Betulaceae Carpinus caroliniana Walter Musclewood, Blue beech, American Hornbeam 

Bignoniaceae Bignonia capreolata L. Cross vine 

Bignoniaceae Campsis radicans (L.)L Trumpet Creeper, Cowitch 

Blechnaceae Woodwardia areolata (L.) T. Moore Netted Chain Fern 

Blechnaceae Woodwardia virginica (L.) Sm. Virginia Chain Fern 

Brassicaceae Lepidium virginicum L. Virginia Pepperweed, Poor Man's Pepper 

Bromeliaceae Tillandsia bartramii Ell. Bartram's Airplant 

Bromeliaceae Tillandsia recurvata (L.)L. Small Ball Moss 

Bromeliaceae Tillandsia setacea Sw. Southern Needleleaf 

Bromeliaceae Tillandsia usneoides (L.).L Spanish Moss 

Burmanniaceae Burmannia biflora L. Northern Bluethread 

Cabombaceae Brasenia schreberi J.F. Gmel. Watershield 

Cactaceae Opuntia humifusa (Raf.) Raf. Devil’s Tongue, Prickly Pear 

Cactaceae Opuntia pusilla (Haw.) Nutt. Cockspur Prickly Pear 

Cactaceae Opuntia vulgaris Mill. Common Prickly Pear 

Campanulaceae Lobelia cardinalis L. Cardinal Flower 

Campanulaceae Lobelia glandulosa Walt. Glade Lobelia 

Campanulaceae Lobelia paludosa Nutt. White Lobelia 

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia linarioidies (Lam.) A.DC. Tuffybells 

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia marginata (Thunb.) A. DC. Southern Rockbell 

Cannaceae Canna flaccida Salisb. Bandana-of-the-Everglades, Canna 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera japonica Thunb. Japanese Honeysuckle 

Caprifoliaceae Lonicera sempervirens L. Trumpet Honeysuckle, Coral Honeysuckle 
Section B. Appendices 149 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Caprifoliaceae Sambucus nigra L. ssp canadensis (L.)R. 

Bolli 

Elderberry 

Caprifoliaceae Vibumum obovatum Walt. Small-leaf Arrowwood 

Caprifoliaceae Viburnum nudum L. Possumhaw 

Caryophyllaceae Stipulicida setacea Michx. Pineland Scalypink 

Celastraceae Euonymus americana L. Strawberry Bush, Heart;s Bursting-with-Love 

Cistaceae Helianthemum canadense (L.) Michx. Longbranch Frostweed 

Cistaceae Helianthemum carolinianum (Walt.) Michx Carolina Frostweed 

Cistaceae Helianthemum corymbosum Michx. Pinebarren Frostweed 

Cistaceae Lechea Torreyi Leggett ex Britt. Piedmont Pinweed 

Clethraceae Clethra alnifolia L. Coastal sweet pepper bush, Poor Man's Soap 

Clusiaceae Hypericum cistifolium Lam. Roundpod, St. John'swort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum crux-andreae (L.) Crantz St. Peterswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum fasciculatum Lam. Peelbark St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum galioides Lam. Bedstraw St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum gentianoides (L.) B.S.P. Orangegrass, Pineweed 

Clusiaceae Hypericum hypericoides (L.) Crantz St. Andrews Cross 

Clusiaceae Hypericum mutilum L. Dwarf St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum myrtifolium Lam. Myrtleleaf St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum punctatum Lam. Spotted St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Hypericum tetrapetalum Lam. Fourpetal St. Johnswort 

Clusiaceae Triadenum virginicum (L.) Raf. Va. Marsh St. Johnswort 

Commelinaceae Commelina erecta L. Whitemouth Dayflower 

Commelinaceae Callisia graminea (Small) G. Tucker Grassleaf roseling 

Commelinaceae Cuthbertia rosea (Vent.) D.R. Hunt Piedmont Roseling 

Commelinaceae Tradescantia ohiensis Raf. Bluejacke, Ohio Spiderwort 

Convolvulaceae Cuscuta compacta Juss.ex Choisy Compact dodder, Lovevine 

Convolvulaceae Dichondra carolinensis Michx. Carolina Ponysfoot 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea hederacea Jacq. Ivyleaf Morningglory 

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea hederifolia L. Scarlet Creeper 

Convolvulaceae Stylisma patens (Desr.) Myint ssp. patens Coastal Plain Dawnflower 

Cornaceae Cornus asperifolia Michx. Toughleaf Dogwood 

Cornaceae Cornus florida L. Flowering Dogwood 

Cornaceae Cornus foemina P. Mill. Stiff Dogwood 

Cornaceae Nyssa ogeche Bartr. ex Marsh Ogeeche Tupelo, Ogeeche Lime, Ogeeche 

Plum 

Cornaceae Nyssa sylvatica biflora Walt. Swamp Tupelo, Blackgum 
150 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Cornaceae Nyssa sylvatica Marsh. Blackgum,Sourgum 

Cupressaceae Juniperus virginiana L) Eastern Red Cedar 

Cyperaceae Carex debilis Michx. White Edge Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex elliottii Schwein and Torr. Elliott Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex frankii Kunth Frank’s Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex glaucescens Ell. Southern Waxy Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex hyalinolepis Steud. Shoreline Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex joorii Bailey Cypress Swamp Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex muhlenbergii Schkukr Muhlenberg’s Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex striata Michx. Walter's Sedge 

Cyperaceae Carex verrucosa Muhl. Warty Sedge 

Cyperaceae Cladium mariscus (L.) Pohl ssp. 

jamaicense 

Jamica Swamp Sawgrass 

Cyperaceae Cyperus echinatus (L.) A.W. Wood Globe Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus haspan L. Haspan Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus plukenetii Fern. Plukenet Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus polystachyos Rottb. Manyspike Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus pseudovegetus Stewd. Marsh Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus retrorsus Chapm. Pinebarren Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Cyperus surinamensis Rottb. Tropical Flatsedge 

Cyperaceae Dulichium arundinaceum (L.) Britt. Threeway Sedge 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis baldwinii (Tom) Chapm. Baldwin's Spikerush 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis elongata Chapman Slim Spikerush 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis microcarpa Torri Small Fruit Spikerush 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis tuberculosa (Michx.) Conecup Spikerush 

Cyperaceae Eleocharis vivipara Link Viviparous Spikerush 

Cyperaceae Eriophorum virginicum L. Tawmy Cottongrass, Virginia Cottongrass 

Cyperaceae Fuirena breviseta (Coville) Coville Saltmarsh Umbrella Sedge 

Cyperaceae Fuirena scirpoidea Michx. Southern Umbrella Sedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora baldwinii A. Gray Baldwin's Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora cephalantha A. Gray Bunched Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora colorata (L.) Whitetop 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora corniculata (Lam.) Shortbristle Starrush;Horned Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora fascicularis (Michx.) Fascicled Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora filifolia A. Gray Threadleaf Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora inundata (Oakes) Fern. Narrowfruit Horned Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora latifolia (Bald.) Sand Swamp Whitetop 
Section B. Appendices 151 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora megalocarpa A. Gray Sandy Field Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora microcarpa Bald. ex A. 

Gray 

Southern Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora microcephala (Britt.) 

Britt.ex.SM. 

Bunched Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora plumosa Ell. Plumed Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Rhynchospora wrightiana Boeck Wright's Beaksedge 

Cyperaceae Scirpus cyperinus (L.) Kunth Woolgrass 

Cyperaceae Scleria ciliata Michx. Fringed Nutrush 

Cyperaceae Scleria triglomerata Michs. Whip Nutrush 

Cyperaceae Websteria confervoides (Poir.) Algal bulrush 

Cyrillaceae Cliftonia monophylla(Lam.) Britt.ex Sarg. Buckwheat Tree, Black Titi 

Cyrillaceae Cyrilla racemiflora L. Titi (C. parviflora 

Raf.) 

Titi, Swamp Cyrilla 

Droseraceae Drosera brevifolia Pursh Dwarf Sundew 

Droseraceae Drosera capillaris Poir. Pink Sundew 

Droseraceae Drosera filiformis Raf. Dewthreads; Threadleaf; Sundew 

Droseraceae Drosera intermedia Hayne Spoonleaf Sundew 

Ebenaceae Diospyros virginiana L. Common Persimmon 

Ericaceae Befaria racemosa Vent. Tar Flower, Flycatcher 

Ericaceae Gaylussacia dumosa (Andrews) T. & G. Dwarf Huckleberry 

Ericaceae Gaylussacia frondosa (L.) T. & G. ex Torr. Blue Huckleberry 

Ericaceae Kalnia hirsuta Walter.- Wicky Hairy Laurel 

Ericaceae Leucothoe racemosa (L.) A. Gray Swamp Doghobble, Fetterbush 

Ericaceae Lyonia ferruginea (Walter) Nutt. Rusty Staggerbush 

Ericaceae Lyonia fruticosa (Michx.) G.S. Torr. Coastalplain Staggerbush 

Ericaceae Lyonia ligustrina (L.) DC. Maleberry 

Ericaceae Lyonia lucida (Lam.) K. Koch Fetterbush, Hurrah Bush 

Ericaceae Vaccinium fuscatum Ait. Black highbush Blueberry 

Ericaceae Vaccinium myrsinites Lam. Shiny Blueberry 

Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon compressum Lam. Flattened Pipewort, Hatpins 

Eriocaulaceae Eriocaulon decangulare L. Tenangle Pipewort, Hatpins 

Eriocaulaceae Lachnocaulon anceps (Walt.) Morong Whitehead Bogbutton, Hairy Pipewort 

Eriocaulaceae Lachnocaulon minus (Chapm.) Sm. Small’s Bogbutton, Hairy Pipewort 

Eriocaulaceae Syngonanthus flavidulus (Michx.) Ruhland Yellow Hatpins 

Fabaceae Albizia julibrissin Durazz. Silk Tree, Mimosa 

Fabaceae Amorpha fruticosa L. Desert False Indigo 

Fabaceae Amorpha herbacea Walter Clusterspike False Indigo 
152 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Fabaceae Astragalus obcordatus Ell. Florida Milkvetch 

Fabaceae * Baptisia arachnifera Duncan Cobwebby Wild Indigo, Hairy Rattleweed 

Fabaceae Baptisia lanceolata (Walt.) Ell Gopherweed, Wild Indigo, False Indigo 

Fabaceae Chamaecrista fasciculata Michx. Partridge pea; Sleeping Plant 

Fabaceae Centrosema virginianum (L.) Benth Spurred Butterfly Pea 

Fabaceae Cercis canadensis L. Eastern Redbud 

Fabaceae Clitoria mariana L. Atlantic Pigeonwings 

Fabaceae Crotalaria purshii DC. Pursh Pursh’s Rattlebox 

Fabaceae Crotalaria rotundifolia J.F. Gmel. Rabbit bells, Rattlebox 

Fabaceae Crotalaria spectabilis Roth Showy Rattlebox 

Fabaceae Dalea carnea (Michx.) Poir. White Tassels 

Fabaceae Desmodium canescens (L.) DC. Hoary Beggar's Ticks, Hoary Ticktrefoil 

Fabaceae Desmodium lineatum DC. Sand Ticktrefoil 

Fabaceae Desmodium paniculatum (L.) DC Panicled ticktrefoil; Beggar's Lice 

Fabaceae Desmodium tenuifolium Torr.& A. Gray Slimleaf Ticktrefoil 

Fabaceae Desmodium tortuosum (Sw.) DC. Dixie Ticktrefoil 

Fabaceae Galactia elliottii Nutt.-Elliott's Elliot’s Milkpea 

Fabaceae Galactia regularis (L.) Britt.et al Eastern Milkpea 

Fabaceae Galactia volubilis (L.) Britt.-Downy Downey Milkpea (Milkvetch) 

Fabaceae Gleditsia aquatica Marshall Water Locust 

Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos L. Honey Locust 

Fabaceae Indigofera caroliniana Mill. Carolina Indigo 

Fabaceae Lespedeza cuneata (Dum. Gurs.) G. Don Sericea Lespedeza 

Fabaceae Lespedeza hirta (L.) Hornem. Hairy Lespedeza 

Fabaceae Lupinus diffusus Nutt. Skyblue Lupine 

Fabaceae Lupinus perennis L. Sundial Lupine 

Fabaceae Lupinus villosus Willd. Lady Lupine 

Fabaceae Medicago lupulina L. Black Medic, Burclover 

Fabaceae Mimosa microphylla (Dryander) Macbr. Littleleaf Sensitive Brier 

Fabaceae Pediomelum canescens (Michx.) Rydb. Buckroot 

Fabaceae Rhynchosia reniformis (Pursh)DC. Dollarleaf 

Fabaceae Rhynchosia tomentosa mollissima (Elliott) 

T. and G. 

Twining Snoutbean 

Fabaceae Robinia hispida L. Bristly Locust 

Fabaceae Robinia pseudoacacia L. Black Locust 

Fabaceae Sesbania punicea (Cav.) Benth. Rattlebox, Purple Sesbane 

Fabaceae Stylosanthes biflora (L.) Britt.et al. Sidebeak Pencil flower 
Section B. Appendices 153 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Fabaceae Tephrosia chrysophylla Pursh Scurf Hoary Pea 

Fabaceae Tephrosia hispidula (Michx.) Pers. SprawlingHoary Pea 

Fabaceae Tephrosia spicata (Walt.) Torr. & A. Gray Spiked Hoary Pea 

Fabaceae Tephrosia virginiana (L.) Pers. Virginia tephrosia, Goat's Rue, Devil's 

Shoestring 

Fabaceae Trifolium dubium Sibth. Low Hop Clover 

Fabaceae Trifolium incarnatum L. Crimson Clover 

Fabaceae Trifolium pratense L. Red Clover 

Fabaceae Trifolium repens L. White Clover, Dutch Clover 

Fabaceae Vicia acutifolia Ell. Fourleaf Vetch 

Fabaceae Wisteria floribunda (Willd.) DC. Japanese Wisteria 

Fabaceae Wisteria frutescens (L). Poir. American Wistaria (Wisteria) 

Fagaceae Castanea pumila (L.) Mill. Chinquapin 

Fagaceae Quercus alba L. White Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus chapmanii Sarg. Chapman's Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus falcata Michx. Southern Red Oak, Spanish Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus geminata Small Sand Live Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus hemisphaerica W. Bartram ex 

Willd. 

Darlington Oak, Upland Laurel Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus incana W. Bartram Bluejack Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus laevis Walter Turkey Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus laurifolia Michx Swamp Laurel Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus lyrata Walter Overcup Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus margaretta Ashe ex Small Sand Post Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus marilandica Munchh. Black-jack Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus michauxii Nutt. Cow Oak, Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus minima (Sarg.) Small Dwarf Live Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus myrtifolia Willd. Myrtle Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus nigra L. Water Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus phellos L. Willow Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus pumila Walter Running Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus shumardii Buckley Shumard Oak 

Fagaceae Quercus virginiana Mill. Live Oak 

Gentianaceae Bartonia paniculata (Michx.) Muhl. Twining Screwstem 

Gentianaceae Sabatia bartramii Wilbur Bartram's Rosegentian 

Gentianaceae Sabatia brevifolia Raf. Shortleaf Rosegentian 

Gentianaceae Sabatia campanulata (L.) Torr. Slender Rosegentian 
154 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Gentianaceae Sabatia difformis (L.) Druce Lanceleaf Rosegentian 

Gentianaceae Sabatia gentianoides Ell. Pinewoods Rosegentian 

Gentianaceae Sabatia macrophylla Hook. Lanceleaf Rosegentian 

Geraniaceae Geranium carolinianum L. Caarolina Cranesbill 

Grossulariaceae Itea virginica L. Virginia Sweetspire 

Haloragaceae Myriophyllum heterophyllum Michx. Twoleaf Watermilfoil 

Haloragaceae Proserpinaca pectinata Lam. Combleaf Mermaid Weed 

Hamamelidacea Liquidambar styraciflua L. Sweetgum 

Hydrangeaceae Decumaria barbara L. Climbing Hydrangea; Woodvamp 

Iridaceae Iris hexagona Walter. Prairie Iris; Dixie Iris 

Iridaceae Iris virginica L. Virginia Iris 

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium angustifolium Mill. Narrowleaf Blue Eyed Grass 

Iridaceae Sisyrinchium rosulatum E. P. Bick. Annual Blue Eyed Grass 

Juglandaceae Carya glabra(Mill.) Pignut Hickory, Broom Hickory 

Juglandaceae Carya illinoensis (Wangenhi.) K. Koch Pecan 

Juglandaceae Carya alba Nutt. Mockernut Hickory 

Lamiaceae Hyptis alata (Raf.) Shinners Clustered Bushmint; Musky Mint 

Lamiaceae Physostegia purpurea (Walt.) S>F. Blake Eastern False Dragonhead 

Lamiaceae Physostegia virginiana (L.) Benth. Obedient Plant 

Lamiaceae Prunella vulgaris L. Common Selfheal, Healall 

Lamiaceae Pycnanthemum flexuosum (Walt.) Britt.et 

al 

Appalachian Mountain Mint 

Lamiaceae Pycnanthemum nudum Nutt. Coastal Plain Mountain Mint 

Lamiaceae Salvia lyrata L. Lyreleaf Sage 

Lamiaceae Scutellaria integrifolia L. Helmet Skullcap 

Lamiaceae Scutellaria multiglandulosa Kearney Small's Ckullcap 

Lamiaceae Teucrium canadense L. Canada Germander 

Lauraceae Persea borbonia (L.) Spreng. var. 

borbonia

Red Bay 

Lauraceae Persea palustris (Raf.) Sarg. Swamp Bay 

Lauraceae Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees Sassafras 

Lemnaceae Lemna valdiviana Phil. Valdiva Duckweed 

Lentibulariaceae Pinguicula caerulea Walter Blueflower Butterwort 

Lentibulariaceae Pinguicula lutea Walter Yellow Butterwort 

Lentibulariaceae Pinguicula pumila Michx. Small Butterwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia cornuta Michx. Horned Blatterwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia gibba L. Humped Bladderwort 
Section B. Appendices 155 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia inflata Walter Floating Bladderwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia juncea Vahl Southern Bladderwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia purpurea Walter Purple Bladderwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia radiata Small Little Floating Bladderwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia striata Leconte ex. Torr. Striped Bladderwort 

Lentibulariaceae Utricularia subulata L. Zigzag Bladderwort 

Liliaceae Aletris aurea Walt. Golden Colicroot 

Liliaceae Aletris farinosa L. White Colicroot, Colicroot, Stargrass 

Liliaceae Aletris lutea Small Yellow Colicroot 

Liliaceae Aletris obovata Nash Southern Colicroot 

Liliaceae Allium canadense L. Meadow Garlic 

Liliaceae Amianthium muscitoxicum (Walt.) A. Gray Fly Poison 

Liliaceae Chamaelirium luteum (L.) A. Gray Devil Bit, Fairywand 

Liliaceae Lilium catesbaei Walter Pine Lily, Catesby Lily 

Liliaceae Schoenolirion albiflorum (Raf.) R.R. Gates White Sunnybell 

Liliaceae Tofieldia racemosa (Walt.) Britton et al. Coastal False Asphodel 

Liliaceae Zephyranthes atamasca (L.) Herb. Rainlily, Atamasco Lily 

Liliaceae Zigadenus densus (Desr.) Fern. Crow Poison, Osceola's Plume 

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella alopecuroides (L.) Foxtail Clubmoss 

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella appressa (Chapm.) Lloyd 

and Underw. 

Southern Bog Clubmoss 

Lycopodiaceae Lycopodiella caroliniana (L.) Pic. Serm. Slender Clubmoss 

Lythraceae Decodon verticillatus (L.) Ell. Swamp Loosestrife 

Magnoliaceae Magnolia grandiflora L. Southern Magnolia 

Malvaceae Hibiscus aculeatus Walter Comfort Root 

Malvaceae Hibiscus coccineus Walter Scarlet Rosemallow 

Malvaceae Hibiscus moscheutos L. Crimsoneyed Rose Mallow 

Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana (L.) G. Don Carolina Bristlemallow 

Malvaceae Pavonia hastata Cav. Spearleaf Swamp Mallow 

Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia L. Cuban Jute 

Mayacaceae Mayaca fluviatilis Aubl. Stream Bogmoss 

Melastomataceae Rhexia alifanus Walter Savannah Meadowbeauty 

Melastomataceae Rhexia cubensis Griseb. West Indian Meadow Beauty 

Melastomataceae Rhexia lutea Walter Yellow Meadow Beauty 

Melastomataceae Rhexia mariana L. Pale Meadow Beauty 

Melastomataceae Rhexia nuttallii C.W. James Nuttall Meadow Beauty 

Melastomataceae Rhexia petiolata Walt. Fringed Meadow Beauty 
156 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Melastomataceae Rhexia virginica L. Handsome Harry, Virginai Meadow Beauty 

Meliaceae Melia azedarach L. Chinaberry Tree, China Tree, Chinaball Tree 

Menyanthaceae Nymphoides aquatica (J.F. Gmel.) Kontze Big Floatingheart 

Menyanthaceae Nymphoides cordata (Ell.) Fern. Little Floatingheart 

Moraceae Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent. Paper Mulberry 

Moraceae Ficus carica L. Edible Fig 

Myricaceae Morella caroliniensis Raf. Southern Bayberry, Swamp Candleberry 

Myricaceae Morella cerifera L. Wax Myrtle, Southern Bayberry, Candleberry 

Moraceae Morus alba L. White Mulberry 

Moraceae Morus rubra L. Red Mulberry 

Nymphaeaceae Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm. Subsp. Spatterdock, Yellow Pondlilly 

Nymphaeaceae Nymphaea odorata Sol. American White WaterLily, Alligator Bonnet, Star 

Lily 

Oleaceae Chionanthus virginicus L. Fringe Tree, Grand-Sir-Graybeard, Gransy 

Graybeard, Old Man's Beard 

Oleaceae Fraxinus caroliniana Mill. Carolina Ash, Pop Ash, Water Ash 

Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum W.T. Ait. Glossy Privet 

Oleaceae Ligustrum ovalifolium Hassk. California Privet 

Oleaceae Osmanthus americana (L.) Benth.& Hook 

f. ex A.Gray 

Devilwood, Wild Olive 

Orchidaceae Calopogon barbatus (Walt.) Ames Bearded Grass Pink 

Orchidaceae Calopogon tuberosum (L.) Britton et al. TuberousGrass Pink 

Orchidaceae Epidendrum conopseum R.Br. Green Fly Orchid 

Orchidaceae Habenaria nivea (Nutt.) Spreng. Snowy Orchid 

Orchidaceae Habenaria repens Nutt. Water Spider Bog Orchid 

Orchidaceae Malaxis unifolia Michx. Green addersmouth Orchid 

Orchidaceae Platanthera ciliaris (L.) Lindl. Yellow Fringed Orchid 

Orchidaceae Platanthera cristata (Michx.) Lindl. Crested Yellow Orchid 

Orchidaceae Platanthera integra (Nutt.) A. Gray ex.L.C. 

Beck 

Yellow Fringeless Orchid 

Orchidaceae Pogonia divaricata (L.) R.Br. Rosebud Orchid 

Orchidaceae Pogonia ophioglossoides (L.) Ker Gawl. Rose Pogonia 

Orchidaceae Spiranthes lacera (Raf.) raf. var.gracilis 

(Bigelow) Lver.

Northern Slender Ladies Tresses 

Orchidaceae Spiranthes praecox (Walt.) S. Watson Greenvein Ladies Tresses 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculata L. Creeping Woodsorrel 

Oxalidaceae Oxalis violacea L. Violet Woodsorrel 

Passifloraceae Passiflora incarnata L. Purple Passionflower, Apricot Vine 
Section B. Appendices 157 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Passifloraceae Passiflora incarnata L. Maypop; Passion Flower; Apricot Vine 

Pinaceae Pinus clausa (Chapm. Ex Engelm.) Vasey 

ex Sarg. 

Sand Pine 

Pinaceae Pinus elliottii Engelm. Slash Pine 

Pinaceae Pinus glabra Walt. Spruce Pine 

Pinaceae Pinus palustris Mill. Longleaf Pine 

Pinaceae Pinus serotina Michx. Pond Pine 

Pinaceae Pinus taeda L. Loblolly Pine 

Platanaceae Platanus occidentalis L. American Sycamore; American planetree 

Poaceae Agrostis hyemalis (Walt.) B.S.P. Winter Bentgrass 

Poaceae Andropogon capillipes Nash Chalk Bluestem 

Poaceae Andropogon brachystachyus Chapm. Shortspike Bluestem 

Poaceae Andropogon gyrans Chapm. Elliott's Bluestem 

Poaceae Andropogon glomeratus (Walt.) B.S.P. Bushy Bluestem 

Poaceae Andropogon glaucopsis. var. glaucopsis 

(Ell.)Hitchc.

Purple Bluestem 

Poaceae Andropogon virginicus L. Broomsedge; Bluestem 

Poaceae Aristida beyrichiana Trin. And Rupr. Beyrich Threeawn; Wiregrass 

Poaceae Aristida spiciformis Elliott Bottlebrush Treeawn 

Poaceae Arundinaria gigantea (Walt.) Walt. Ex 

Muhl. 

Giant Cane, Switchcane 

Poaceae Axonopus compressus (Sw.) Beauv. Broadleaf Carpetgrass 

Poaceae Axonopus fissifolius (Roddi) Kuhlm. Common Carpetgrass 

Poaceae Axonopus furcatus (Flugge) Hitchc. Big Carpetgrass 

Poaceae Ctenium aromaticum (Walter) A.W. Wood Toothache Grass 

Poaceae Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Bermuda Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium aciculare (Desv. ex 

Poir.)Gould and Clark 

Needleleaf Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium acuminatum (Sw.) Gould 

and Clark 

Tapered Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium commutatum (Schult.) 

Gould 

Variable Panicgrass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium dichotomum (L.) Gould and 

Clark var. dichotomum

Cypress Panicgrass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium dichotomum (L.) Gould and 

Clark var. ensifolium (Bald. Ex Ell) Gould 

& Clark

Cypress Panicgrass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium dichotomum (L.) Gould and 

Clark var. tenue (Muhl.)Gould&Clark

Cypress Panicgrass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium laxiflorum (Lam.) Gould Openflower Rosette Grass 
158 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Poaceae Dichanthelium strigosum (Trin.) Gould and 

Clark var. leucoblepharis 

Roughhair Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium ovale (Ell.) Gould and 

Clark 

Eggleaf Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium sabulorum (Lam.) Gould 

and Clark 

Hemlock Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium scabriusculum (Ell.) Gould 

and Clark 

Wooly Rosette Grass 

Poaceae Dichanthelium scoparium (Lam.) Gould Velvet Panicum 

Poaceae Digitaria ciliaris (Retz. Koeler Southern Crabgrass 

Poaceae Eragrostis elliottii S. Wats. Field Lovegrass 

Poaceae Eremochloa ophiuroides (Munro) Hack. Centipede Grass 

Poaceae Saccarum coarctatum Fern. Compressed Plumegrass 

Poaceae Saccarum giganteus (Walt.) Muhl. Sugarcane Plumegrass 

Poaceae Eustachys petraea (Sw.) Desv. Pinewoods Fingergrass 

Poaceae Gymnopogon ambiguus (Michx.) B.S.P. Bearded Skeletongrass 

Poaceae Leersia hexandra Sw. Southern Cutgrass 

Poaceae Luziola fluitans (Michx.) Terrell and H. 

Robins. 

Southern Watergrass 

Poaceae Muhlenbergia capillaris (Lam.) Trin. Hairawn Muhly 

Poaceae Panicum anceps Michx. Beaked Panicgrass 

Poaceae Panicum dichotomiflorum Michx. Fall Panicgrass 

Poaceae Panicum hemitomon Schultes Maidencane 

Poaceae Panicum hians Elliott. Gaping Panicum 

Poaceae Panicum rigidulum Bosc. Ex Ness. Redtop Panicgrass 

Poaceae Panicum tenerum Beyrich ex. Trin. Bluejoint Panicgrass 

Poaceae Panicum verrucosum Muhl. Warty Panicgrass 

Poaceae Panicum virgatum L. Switchgrass 

Poaceae Paspalum dissectum (L.) L. Mudbank Crowngrass 

Poaceae Paspalum laeve Michx. Field Paspalum 

Poaceae Paspalum notatum Flugge Bahiagrass 

Poaceae Paspalum setaceum Michx. Thin Paspalum 

Poaceae Paspalum urvillei Steud. Vaseygrass 

Poaceae Phyllostachys aurea Carriere ex C. Riviee Yellow Bamboo, Golden Bamboo 

Poaceae Sacciolepis indica (L.) Chase. India Cupscale 

Poaceae Sacciolepis striata(L.) Nash American Cupscale 

Poaceae Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash 

var. scoparium

Little Bluestem 

Poaceae Sorghastrum nutans (L.) Nash Indiangrass 
Section B. Appendices 159 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Poaceae Sorghastrum secondum (Ell.) Nash Lopsided Indiangrass 

Poaceae Sporobolus curtisii (Vasey ex Beal) Small 

ex. Scribn. 

Curtis's Dropseed 

Poaceae Sporobolus indicus (L.) R. Br. Smutgrass 

Poaceae Steinchisma repens L. Torpedograss 

Poaceae Triplasis americana P. Beauv. Perennial Sandgrass 

Poaceae Tripsacum dactyloides (L.) L. Eastern Gamagrass 

Poaceae Vulpia octoflora (Walt.) Rydb. Sixweeks Fescue 

Polygalaceae Polygala brevifolia Nutt. Littleleaf Milkwort 

Polygalaceae Polygala cruciata L. Drumheads 

Polygalaceae Polygala cymosa Walt. Tall Pinebarren Milkwort 

Polygalaceae Polygala grandiflora Walter Showy Milkwort 

Polygalaceae Polygala incarnata L. Procession Flower 

Polygalaceae Polygala luteao L. Orange Milkwort, Red Hot Poker 

Polygalaceae Polygala mariana Mill. Maryland Milkwort 

Polygalaceae Polygala nana (Michx.) DC Candyroot 

Polygalaceae Polygala ramosa Ell. Low Pinebarren Milkroot 

Polygalaceae Polygala setacea Michx. Coastal plain Milkwort 

Polygonaceae Eriogonum tomentosum Michx. Dog Tongue Buckwheat, Dog Tongue 

Polygonaceae Polygonum hydropiperoides Michx. Mild Water-Pepper, Swamp Smartweed, False 

Water-Pepper 

Polygonaceae Polygonum persicaria L. Spotted Lady's Thumb 

Polygonaceae Rumex acetosella L. Common Sheep Sorrel 

Polygonaceae Rumex crispus L. Curly Dock, Yellow Dock 

Polygonaceae Rumex hastatulus Baldwin ex. Ell Swamp Dock, Heartwing Dock, Sourdock 

Polypodiaceae Pleopeltis polypodioides (L.) Watts. Resurrection Fern 

Pontederiaceae Heteranthera reniformis Ruiz & Pavon Kidneyleaf Mudplantain 

Pontederiaceae Pontederia cordata L. Pickerelweed 

Ranunculaceae Clematis crispa L. Swawp Leatherflower 

Rhamnaceae Berchemia scandens (Hill) K. Koch Rattan Vine; Supplejack; Alabama Supplejack 

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus microphyllus Michx. Littleleaf Buckbrush 

Rosaceae Photinia pyrifolia (L.) Pers. Red Chokeberry 

Rosaceae Crataegus aestivalis (Walt.) Torr. A. Gray May Haw, May Hawthorn 

Rosaceae Crataegus marshallii Eqgl. Parsley Hawthorn 

Rosaceae Prunus angustifolia Marshall Chickasaw Plum 

Rosaceae Prunus caroliniana (Mill.) Ait. Carolina Laurelcherry 

Rosaceae Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Peach 
160 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Rosaceae Prunus serotina Ehrh. Black Cherry 

Rosaceae Prunus umbellata Ell. Hog Plum; Flatwoods Plum 

Rosaceae Pyrus communis L. Common Pear 

Rosaceae Rosa laevigata Michx. Cherokee Rose 

Rosaceae Rosa palustris Marshall Swamp Rose 

Rosaceae Rubus cuneifolius Pursh. Sand Blackberry 

Rosaceae Rubus trivialis Michx. Southern Dewberry 

Rubiaceae Cephalanthus occidentalis L. Common Buttonbush 

Rubiaceae Diodia teres Walter Poor Joe; Rough Buttonweed 

Rubiaceae Diodia virginiana L. Virginia Button Weed 

Rubiaceae Galium hispidulum Michx. Coastal Bedstraw 

Rubiaceae Galium pilosum Ait. Hairy Bedstraw 

Rubiaceae Galium tinctorium L. Stiff Marsh Bedstraw 

Rubiaceae Mitchella repens L. Partridgeberry; Twinberry 

Rubiaceae Pinckneya bracteata (W. Bartram) Raf. Maiden's Blushes; Fevertree 

Rutaceae Citrus aurantium L. Sour Orange 

Rutaceae Zanthoxylum clava-herculis L. Toothache Tice; Hercules' Club 

Salicaceae Populus deltoides W. Bartrum ex. 

Marshall 

Eastern Cottonwood 

Salicaceae Populus nigra var. italica Moench Lombardy Poplar, Yellow Poplar 

Salicaceae Salix caroliniana Michx. Carolina Willow 

Salicaceae Salix nigra Marshall Black Willow 

Sapotaceae Sideroxylon alachuense L.C. Anders. Alachua Bully, Silver Buckthorn 

Sapotaceae Sideroxylon lanuginosum Michx. Gum Bully 

Sapotaceae Sideroxylon tenax L. Tough Bully 

Sarraceniaceae Sarracenia flava L.. Yellow Pitcher Plant 

Sarraceniaceae Sarracenia minor Walt. Hooded Pitcher Plant 

Sarraceniaceae Sarracenia psittancina Michx. Parrot Pitcher Plant 

Saururaceae Saururus cernuus L. Lizard's Tail, Water Dragon, Breastweed 

Scrophulariaceae Agalinis fasciculata (Ell.) Raf. Beach False Foxglove 

Scrophulariaceae Agalinis linifolia (Nutt.) Britt. Flaxleaf False Foxglove 

Scrophulariaceae Agalinis purpurea (L.) Pennell Purple False Foxglove 

Scrophulariaceae Agalinis tenuifolia (Vahl.) Raf. Slenderleaf False Foxglove 

Scrophulariaceae Buchnera americana L. American Bluehearts 

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola aurea Pursh Golden Hedge Hyssop 

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola hispida (Benth. Ex Lindl.) Pollard Rough Hedge Hyssop 

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola pilosa Michx. Shaggy Hedge Hyssop 
Section B. Appendices 161 

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Scrophulariaceae Gratiola ramosa Walter Branched Hedge Hyssop 

Scrophulariaceae Nuttallanthus canadensis (L.) Chaz. Canada Toadflax 

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon laevigatus Sol. Eastern Smooth Beard Tongue 

Scrophulariaceae Penstemon multiflorus (Benth.) Chapm. 

Ex Small 

Manyflowered Beard Tongue 

Scrophulariaceae Scoparia dulcis L. Sweetbroom; Licoriceweed 

Scrophulariaceae Seymeria cassioides (G>F. Grnel.) 

S.F.Blake 

Yaupon blacksenna 

Scrophulariaceae Seymeria pectinata Pursh Piedmont blacksenna 

Simaroubaceae Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swigle Tree-of-Heaven 

Smilacaceae Smilax auriculata Walter Earleaf Greenbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax bona-nox L. Bullbrier; Tramp's Trouble;Stretchberry;Saw 

Greenbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax glauca Walter Wild Sarsaparilla;Sawbrier; Cat Greenbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax laurifolia L. Bamboo Vine; Laurel Greenbrier; Blaspheme 

Vine 

Smilacaceae Smilax pumila Walter Sarsparilla Vine, Wooly Greenbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax rotundifolia L. Roundleaf Greenbrier; Catbrier; Horsebrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax smallii Morong Lanceleaf Greennbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax tamnoides L. Bristly Greenbrier; Hogbrier 

Smilacaceae Smilax walteri Pursh. Coral Greenbrier 

Solanaceae Datura stramonium L. Jimson Weed 

Solanaceae Physalis walteri Nutt. Walter’s Ground Cherry 

Solanaceae Solanum carolinense L. Carolina Horsenettle 

Sphagnaceae Sphagnum L. Sphagnum Moss 

Styracaceae Styrax americanus Lam. American Snowbell 

Taxodiaceae Taxodium ascendens nutans (Ait.) Sweet. Pond Cypress 

Taxodiaceae Taxodium distichum (L.) l.C. Rich. 

distichum 

Bald or River Cypress 

Theaceae Gordonia lasianthus (L.) J.Ellis Loblolly Bay 

Thelypteridaceae Thelypteris kunthii (Desv.) C.V. Morton Southern Shield Fern 

Turneraceae Piriqueta citoides (Walter) Urb. Stripeseed 

Typhaceae Typha domingensis Pers. Southern Cattail 

Typhaceae Typha latifolia L. Broadleaf Cattail 

Ulmaceae Planera aquatica J.F. Grnel. Water Elm; Planer Tree 

Ulmaceae Ulmus alata Michx. Winged Elm 

Ulmaceae Ulmus americana L. American Elm 

Verbenaceae Callicarpa americana L. American Beautyberry 
162 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common Name 

Verbenaceae Glandularia pulchella (Sweet) Tronc. Moss Verbena 

Verbenaceae Lantana camara L. Lantana; Shrub Verbena 

Verbenaceae Phyla nodiflora (L.) Greene Turkey Tangle Fogfruit 

Violaceae Viola lanceolata L. Bog While Violet 

Violaceae Viola palmata L. Early Blue Violet 

Violaceae Viola sororia Willd. Common Blue Violet 

Vitaceae Ampelopsis arborea (L.) Koehne Pepper Vine 

Vitaceae Parthenocissus quinquefolia (L.) Planch. Virginia Creeper; Woodvine 

Vitaceae Vitis aestivalis Michx. Summer Grape 

Vitaceae Vitis rotundifolia Michx. Muscadine, Scuppernong 

Woodsiaceae Onoclea sensibilis L. Sensitive Fern 

Xyridaceae Xyris brevifolia Michx. Shortleaf Yelloweyed Grass 

Xyridaceae Xyris caroliniana Walter Carolina Yelloweyed Grass 

Xyridaceae Xyris fimbriata Ell. Fringed Yelloweyed Grass 

Xyridaceae Xyris platylepis Chapm. Tall Yelloweyed Grass 

Xyridaceae Xyris smalliana Nash Small's Yelloweyed Grass 
Section B. Appendices 163 

Appendix V. Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge Wildlife List 

Residence: P=Permanent, M=Migrant or Transient, I/A=Incidental/Accidental 

MAMMALS (Mammalia) 

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Didelphiidae Didelphis virginiana pigna Virginia Opossum P None NO 

Soricidae Barina carolinensis Southern Short-Tailed 

Shrew 

P None NO 

Soricidae Cryptotus parva parva Least Shrew P None NO 

Talpidae Scalopus aquaticus 

australis 

Eastern Mole P None NO 

Talpidae Condylura cristata Starnose Mole P None NO 

Vespertilionidae Myotis austroriparius 

austroriparius 

Southeastern Myotis M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Pipistrellus subflavus 

subflavus 

Eastern Pipistrelle M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Eptesicus fuscus fuscus Big Brown Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Lasiurus borealis borealis Red Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Lasiurus seminolus Seminole Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Lasiurus cinereus 

cinereus 

Hoary Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Lasiurus intermedius 

floridanus 

Northern Yellow Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Nycticeius humeralis Evening Bat M None NO 

Vespertilionidae Plecotus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-Eared 

Bat 

M Threaten

ed 

NO 

Molosidae Tadarida brasiliensis 

cynophala 

Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat M None NO 

Dasypodidae Dasypus novemcinctus 

mexicanus 

Armadillo P None YES 

Leporidae Sylvilgus palustria 

palustris 

Marsh Rabbit P None NO 

Leporidae Sylvilagus floridanus 

mallurus 

Eastern Cottontail P None NO 

Sciuridae Sciurus carolinensis 

carolinensis 

Gray Squirrel P None NO 

Sciuridae Sciurus niger niger Fox Squirrel P None NO 
164 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Sciuridae Glaucomys volans 

querceti 

Southern Flying Squirrel P None NO 

Geomyidae Geomys pinetis pinetis Georgia Pocket Gopher P None NO 

Geomyidae Geomys pinetis 

floridianus 

Southeastern Pocket 

Gopher 

P None NO 

Castoridae Castor canadensis 

carolinensis 

Beaver P None NO 

Cricetidae Oryzomys palustris 

palustris 

Marsh Rice Rat P None NO 

Cricetidae Reithrodontomys humilus 

humilus 

Eastern Harvest Mouse P None NO 

Cricetidae Peromyscus polionotus 

polionotus 

Oldfield Mouse P None NO 

Cricetidae Peromyscus gossypinus Cotton Mouse P None NO 

Cricetidae Peromyscus nuttalli Golden Mouse P None NO 

Cricetidae Signodon hispidus 

hispiedus 

Hispid Cotton Rat P None NO 

Cricetidae Neotoma floridana 

floridana 

Eastern Woodrat P None NO 

Cricetidae Microtus pinetorum 

parvulus 

Woodland Vole P None NO 

Cricetidae Neofiber alleni exoristus Round-Tailed Muskrat P None NO 

Cricetidae Rattus rattus rattus Black Rat P None YES 

Cricetidae Rattus rattus alexandrinus Roof Rat P None YES 

Cricetidae Mus Musculus musculus House Mouse P None YES 

Canidae Urocyon cinereosrgenteus 

floridanus 

Gray Fox P None NO 

Canidae Vulpes fulva fulva Red Fox P None NO 

Ursidae Ursus americanus 

floridianus 

Black Bear P None NO 

Procyonidae Procyon lotor elucus Raccoon P None NO 

Mustelidae Mustela frenata olivacea Long-Tailed Weasel P None NO 

Mustelidae Mustela vison mink Mink P None NO 

Mustelidae Mephitis mephitis 

elongate 

Striped Skunk P None NO 

Mustelidae Lontra canadensis vaga River Otter P None NO 

Felidae Felis concolor coryi Florida Panther P Endange

red 

NO 

Felidae Lynx rufus floridanus Bobcat P None NO 

Suidae Sus scrofa Wild Pig P None YES 

Cervidae Odocoileus virginianus White-Tailed Deer P None NO 
Section B. Appendices 165 

REPTILES (Reptilia) 

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Snakes 

Colubridae Cemophora coccinea 

copei 

Northern Scarlet Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Coluber constrictor 

priapus 

Southern Black Racer P None NO 

Colubridae Diadophis punctatus 

punctatus 

Southern Ring-necked 

Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Drymarchon corais 

couperi 

Indigo Snake P Threatened NO 

Colubridae Elaphe guttata guttata Corn Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Elaphe obsoleta Rat Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Farancia abacura 

abacura 

Eastern Mud Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Farancia 

erytrogramma 

Rainbow Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern Hognose 

Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Lampropeltis getula Eastern Kingsnake P None NO 

Colubridae Lampropeltis 

triangulum elapsoides 

Scarlet Kingsnake P None NO 

Colubridae Masticophis flagellum 

flagellum 

Eastern Coachwhip P None NO 

Colubridae Nerodia cyclopion 

floridana 

Florida Green Water 

Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Nerodia erythrogaster Water Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Nerodia fasciata 

fasciata 

Banded Water Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Nerodia fasciata 

pictiventris 

Florida Water Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Nerodia taxispilota Brown Water Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Opheodrys aestivus Rough Green Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Pituophis 

melanoleucus 

Florida Pine Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Regina alleni Striped Crayfish Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Regina rigida rigida Eastern Glossy Crayfish 

Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Rhadinaea flavilata Pine Woods Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Seminatrix pygaea 

pygaea 

North Florida Black 

Swamp Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Storeria dekayi victa Florida Brown Snake P None NO 
166 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Colubridae Storeria 

occipitomomaculata 

obscura 

Florida Red-bellied 

Snake 

P None NO 

Colubridae Thamnophis sauritus 

sackeni 

Eastern Ribbon Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Thamnophis sirtalis 

sirtalis 

Eastern Garter Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Virginia striatula Rough Earth Snake P None NO 

Colubridae Virginia valeriae 

valeriae 

Eastern Smooth Earth 

Snake 

P None NO 

Elapidae Micrurus fulvius Eastern Coral Snake P None NO 

Viperidae Agkistrodon piscivorus 

conanti 

Florida Cottonmouth P None NO 

Viperidae Crotalus adamanteus Eastern Diamondback 

Rattlesnake 

P None NO 

Viperidae Crotalus horridus 

atricaudatus 

Canebrake Rattlesnake P None NO 

Viperidae Sistrurus miliarius 

barbouri 

Dusky Pigmy 

Rattlesnake 

P None NO 

Turtles 

Chelydridae Chelydra serpentina 

serpentina 

Common Snapping 

Turtle 

P None NO 

Chelydridae Macroclemys 

temmincki 

Alligator Snapping 

Turtle 

P None NO 

Emydidae Chrysemys nelsoni Florida Red-bellied 

Turtle 

P None NO 

Emydidae Deirochelys reticularia 

reticularia 

Eastern Chicken Turtle P None NO 

Emydidae Pseudemys floridana 

floridana 

Florida Cooter P None NO 

Emydidae Trachemys scripta Yellow-bellied Pond 

Slider 

P None NO 

Emydidae Terrapene carolina Eastern Box Turtle P None NO 

Kinosternidae Kinosternon bauri 

palmarum 

Striped Mud Turtle P None NO 

Kinosternidae Kinosternon 

subrubrum subrubrum 

Eastern Mud Turtle P None NO 

Kinosternidae Sternotherus minor 

minor 

Loggerhead Musk 

Turtle 

P None NO 

Kinosternidae Sternotherus odoratus Stinkpot P None NO 

Testudinidae Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise P Threatened NO 

Trionychidae Apalone ferox Florida Softshell P None NO 
Section B. Appendices 167 

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Crocodilians 

Alligatoridae Alligator 

mississippiensis 

American Alligator P NO 

Lizards 

Anguidae Ophisaurus 

compressus 

Island Glass Lizard P None NO 

Anguidae Ophisaurus ventralis Eastern Glass Lizard P None NO 

Iguanidae Anolis carolinensis Green Anole P None NO 

Iguanidae Sceloporus undulatus 

undulatus 

Southern Fence Lizard P None NO 

Scincidae Eumeces egregius Northern Mole Skink P None NO 

Scincidae Eumeces fasciatus Five-lined Skink P None NO 

Scincidae Eumeces inexpectatus Southern Five-lined 

Skink 

P None NO 

Scincidae Eumeces laticeps Broad-headed Skink P None NO 

Scincidae Scincella laterale Ground Skink P None NO 

Teiidae Cnemidophorus 

sexlineatus sexlineatus 

Six-lined Race Runner P None NO 

AMPHIBIANS (Amphibia) 

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Frogs and Toads 

Bufonidae Bufo quercicus Oak Toad P None NO 

Bufonidae Bufo terrestris Southern Toad P None NO 

Hylidae Acris gryllus dorsalis Florida Cricket Frog P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla chrysoscelis Gray Treefrog P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla cinerea cinerea Green Treefrog P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla crucifer 

bartramiana 

Southern Spring Peeper P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla femoralis Pine Woods Treefrog P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla gratiosa Barking Treefrog P None NO 

Hylidae Hyla squirella Squirrel Treefrog P None NO 

Hylidae Pseudocris ocularis Little Grass Frog P None NO 

Hylidae Pseudacris nigrita 

nigrita 

Southern Chorus Frog P None NO 

Hylidae Pseudacris ornata Ornate Chorus Frog P None NO 

Microhylidae Gastrophryne 

carolinensis 

Eastern Narrow-mouthed 

Toad 

P None NO 
168 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name Residence Status Exotic 

Pelobatidae Scaphiopus holbrookii Eastern Spadefoot Toad P None NO 

Ranidae Rana areolata aescpus Gopher Frog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana clamitans 

clamitans 

Bronze Frog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana grylio Pig Frog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana heckscheri River Frog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana sphenocephla Southern Leopard Frog P None NO 

Ranidae Rana virgatipes Carpenter Frog P None NO 

Salamanders 

Ambystomatidae Ambystoma cingulatum Flatwoods Salamander P Threatened NO 

Amphiumidae Amphiuma means Two-toed Amphiuma P None NO 

Plethodontidae Desmognathus 

auriculatus 

Southern Dusky 

Salamander 

P None NO 

Plethodontidae Eurycea quadridigitata Dwarf Salamander P None NO 

Plethodontidae Plethodon grobmani Slimy Salamander P None NO 

Plethodontidae Pseudotrition montanus 

flavissimus 

Gulf Coast Mud 

Salamander 

P None NO 

Salamandridae Notophthalamus 

perstriatus 

Striped Newt P None NO 

Salamandridae Notophthalamus 

viridescens 

louisianensis 

Central Newt P None NO 

Sirenidae Pseudobranchus 

striatus spp. 

Dwarf Siren P None NO 

Sirenidae Siren intermedia 

intermedia 

Eastern Lesser Siren P None NO 

Sirenidae Siren lacertina Greater Siren P None NO 

FISH 

Family Scientific Name Common name Status Exotic 

Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus platyrhincus Florida Gar None 

Amiidae Amia calva Bowfin None 

Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American Eel None 

Esocidae Esox americanus americanus Redfin Pickerel None 

Esocidae Esox niger Chain Pickerel None 

Umbridae Umbra pygnaea Eastern Mudminnow None 

Catostomidae Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker None 
Section B. Appendices 169 

Family Scientific Name Common name Status Exotic 

Catostomidae Minytrema melanops Spotted Chubsucker None 

Ictaluridae Ictalurus natalis Yellow Bullhead None 

Ictaluridae Ictalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead None 

Ictaluridae Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish None 

Ictaluridae Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom None 

Ictaluridae Noturus leptacanthus Speckled Madtom None 

Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch None 

Poeciliidae Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow None 

Poeciliidae Fundulus cingulatus Banded Topminnow None 

Poeciliidae Fundulus lineolatus Lined Topminnow None 

Poeciliidae Fundulus notti Starhead Topminnow None 

Cyprinodontidae Leptolucania ommata Pygmy Killifish None 

Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish None 

Cyprinodontidae Heterandria formosa Least Killifish None 

Atherinidae Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside None 

Centrarchidae Elassoma evergladei Everglades Pygmy Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Elassoma okefenokee Okefenokee Pygmy Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Acantharchus pomotis Mud Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Centrarchus macropterus Flier None 

Centrarchidae Enneacanthus chaetodon Blackbanded Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Enneacanthus gloriosus Bluespotted Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Enneacanthus obesus Banded Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Lepomis gulosus Warmouth None 

Centrarchidae Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill None 

Centrarchidae Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Lepomis punctatus Spotted Sunfish None 

Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass None 

Centrarchidae Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie None 

Percidae Etheostoma barratti Scalyhead Darter None 

Percidae Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter None 

Percidae Percina nigrofasciata Blackbanded Darter None 
170 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

BIRDS (Aves) 

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 season) 

r = rare (seen at intervals of 2 to 5 years) 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Waterfowl

Anatidae 

Chen 

caerulescens Snow Goose accidental occurrence I/A None 

Anatidae 

Branta 

canadensis Canada Goose o o o M None 

Anatidae 

Cygnus 

columbianus Tundra Swan accidental occurrence I/A None 

Anatidae Aix sponsa Wood Duck c c c c P None 

Anatidae Anas strepera Gadwall o o o M None 

Anatidae Anas penelope Eurasian Wigeon accidental occurrence I/A None 

Anatidae Anas americana American Wigeon u u u M None 

Anatidae Anas rubripes 

American Black 

Duck o o o M None 

Anatidae 

Anas 

platyrhynchos Mallard c c c M None 

Anatidae Anas discors Blue-winged Teal u u u o M None 

Anatidae Anas clypeata 

Northern 

Shoveler u u u M None 

Anatidae Anas acuta Northern Pintail u u u M None 

Anatidae Anas crecca 

Green-winged 

Teal c c c M None 

Anatidae Aythya valisineria Canvasback r r r M None 

Anatidae Aythya americana Redhead o o o M None 

Anatidae Aythya collaris 

Ring-necked 

Duck c c c M None 

Anatidae Aythya marila Greater Scaup accidental occurrence I/A None 

Anatidae Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup u u u M None 

Anatidae 

Bucephala 

albeola Bufflehead r r r M None 

Anatidae 

Bucephala 

clangula 

Common 

Goldeneye r r r M None 

Anatidae 

Lophodytes 

cucullatus 

Hooded 

Merganser c r c c M None 

Anatidae 

Mergus 

merganser 

Common 

Merganser accidental occurrence I/A None 
Section B. Appendices 171 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Anatidae Mergus serrator 

Red-breasted 

Merganser r r r M None 

Anatidae 

Oxyura 

jamaicensis 

Ruddy Duck o o o M None 

Gallinaceous Birds 

(Quail, Turkey and Allies) 

Phasianidae 

Meleagris 

gallopavo Wild Turkey c u c u P None 

Phasianidae 

Colinus 

virginianus 

Northern 

Bobwhite c c c c P None 

Loons 

Gaviidae Gavia immer Common Loon r r r M None 

Grebes 

Podicipedidae 

Podilymbus 

podiceps Pied-billed Grebe c r c c M None 

Podicipedidae Podceps auritus Horned Grebe o o o M None 

Pelicans and their Allies 

Pelecanidae 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhyncos 

American White 

Pelican accidental occurrence I/A None 

Pelecanidae 

Pelecanus 

occidentalis Brown Pelican accidental occurrence I/A Endangered 

Phalacrocoracidae 

Phalacrocorax 

auritus 

Double-crested 

cormorant o r o o M None 

Anhingidae Anhinga anhinga Anhinga c c c c P None 

Herons, Egrets and Allies 

Areidae 

Botaurus 

lengtiginosus American Bittern u u u c M None 

Areidae Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern o o r M None 

Areidae Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron c c c c P None 

Areidae Ardea alba Great Egret c c c c P None 

Areidae Egretta thula Snowy Egret u u u o P None 

Areidae Egretta caerulea Little Blue Heron c c c c P None 

Areidae Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron o o o o P None 

Areidae Bubulcus ibis Cattle Egret c c c M None 

Areidae 

Butorides 

virescens Green Heron c c c o P None 

Areidae 

Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

Black-crowned 

Night-Heron c o c c P None 

Areidae 

Nyctanassa 

violacea 

Yellow-crowned 

Night-Heron u u u u P None 
172 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Ibises, Spoonbills, Storks 

Threskiornithidae Eudocimus albus White Ibis c c c c P None 

Threskiornithidae 

Plegadis 

falcinellus Glossy Ibis r r r M None 

Threskiornithidae Platalea ajaja 

Roseate 

Spoonbill accidental occurrence I/A None

Ciconiidae 

Mycteria 

Americana Wood Stork o c c o P Endangered 

Vultures, Hawks and Allies 

Cathartidae Coragyps atratus Black Vulture c c c c P None 

Cathartidae Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture c c c c P None 

Accipitridae Pandion haliaetus Osprey u u r r P None 

Accipitridae 

Elanoides 

forficatus 

Swallow-tailed 

Kite u u u M None 

Accipitridae 

Ictinia 

mississippiensis Mississippi Kite accidental occurrence I/A None 

Accipitridae 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus Bald Eagle o o o P Threatened 

Accipitridae Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier u u u M None 

Accipitridae Accipiter striatus 

Sharp-shinned 

Hawk o o o M None 

Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk o r o o M None 

Accipitridae Buteo lineatus 

Red-shouldered 

Hawk c c c c P None 

Accipitridae Buteo platypterus 

Broad-winged 

Hawk r r M None 

Accipitridae 

Buteo 

jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk u r u u M None 

Accipitridae Buteo lagopus 

Rough-legged 

Hawk accidental occurrence I/A None 

Accipitridae Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle r r r M None 

Falconidae Falco sparverius American Kestrel c o c c P None 

Falconidae 

Falco 

columbarius Merlin r r r M None 

Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon r r r M None 

Rails, Gallinules, Coots and Cranes 

Rallidae 

Coturnicops 

noveboracensis Yellow Rail very rare I/A None 

Rallidae Rallus longirostris Clapper Rail very rare I/A None 

Rallidae Rallus elegans King Rail r r r r M None 

Rallidae Rallus limicola Virginia Rail r r M None 
Section B. Appendices 173 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Rallidae Porzana carolina Sora r r M None 

Rallidae 

Porphyrio 

martinica Purple Gallinule u u u u M None 

Rallidae 

Gallinula 

chloropus 

Common 

Moorhen u u u u M None 

Rallidae Fulica americana American Coot u u u M None 

Aramidae Aramus guarauna Limpkin accidental occurrence I/A None

Gruidae Grus canadensis Sandhill Crane c c c c P None 

Shorebirds 

Charadriidae 

Charadrius 

semipalmatus 

Semipalmated 

Plover accidental occurrence I/A None 

Charadriidae 

Charadrius 

vociferous Killdeer c c c 

M 

None 

Scolopacidae 

Tringa 

melanoleuca 

Greater 

Yellowlegs u u o M None 

Scolopacidae Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs u u o M None 

Scolopacidae Tringa solitaria 

Solitary 

Sandpiper o o M None 

Scolopacidae 

Catoptrophorus 

semipalmatus Willet r r M None 

Scolopacidae Actitis macularius 

Spotted 

Sandpiper u u o M None 

Scolopacidae 

Numenius 

phaeopus Whimbrel accidental occurrence I/A None 

Scolopacidae Calidris alba Sanderling o o o M None 

Scolopacidae Calidris pusilla 

Semipalmated 

Sandpiper o o o M None 

Scolopacidae Calidris mauri 

Western 

Sandpiper r r r M None 

Scolopacidae Calidris alpina Dunlin r r M None 

Scolopacidae 

Limnodromus 

griseus 

Short-billed 

Dowitcher o o o M None 

Scolopacidae 

Gallinago 

gallinago Common Snipe c c c M None 

Scolopacidae Scolopax minor 

American 

Woodcock u r u u M None 

Laridae Larus atricilla Laughing Gull accidental occurrence I/A None

Laridae Larus argentatus Herring Gull r r r M None 

Laridae 

Sterna 

paradisaea Arctic Tern accidental occurrence I/A None 

Laridae Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern accidental occurrence I/A None 

Laridae Chlidonias niger Black Tern r r r M None 
174 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Pigeons, Doves 

Columbidae Columba livia Rock Pigeon accidental occurrence I/A Exotic 

Columbidae 

Zenaida 

macroura Mourning Dove c c c c P None 

Columbidae Columbina 

passerine 

Common Grounddove C C C C P None 

Cuckoos 

Cuculidae 

Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus 

Black-billed 

Cuckoo r r M None 

Cuculidae 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo c c c M None 

Owls 

Tytonidae Tyto alba Barn Owl very rare None 

Strigidae Megascops asio 

Eastern ScreechOwl u u u u P None 

Strigidae Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl u u u u P None 

Strigidae Strix varia Barred Owl c c c c P None 

Goatsuckers 

Caprimulgidae Chordeiles minor 

Common 

Nighthawk c c c c M None 

Caprimulgidae 

Caprimulgus 

carolinensis 

Chuck-will'swidow c c c M None 

Caprimulgidae 

Caprimulgus 

vociferous Whip-poor-will o o r M None 

Swifts, Hummingbirds 

Apodidae 

Chaetura 

pelagica Chimney Swift c c c M None 

Trochilidae 

Archilochus 

colubris 

Ruby-throated 

Hummingbird u u u M None 

Kingfishers 

Alcedinidae Ceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher c u c c P None 

Woodpeckers 

Picidae 

Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus 

Red-headed 

Woodpecker c u c u P None 

Picidae 

Melanerpes 

carolinus 

Red-bellied 

Woodpecker c c c c P None 

Picidae 

Sphyrapicus 

varius 

Yellow-bellied 

Sapsucker c c c M None 

Picidae 

Picoides 

pubescens 

Downy 

Woodpecker c c c c P None 
Section B. Appendices 175 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Picidae Picoides villosus 

Hairy 

Woodpecker c c c c P None 

Picidae Picoides borealis 

Red-cockaded 

Woodpecker u u u u P Endangered 

Picidae Colaptes auratus Northern Flicker c c c c P None 

Picidae 

Dryocopus 

pileatus 

Pileated 

Woodpecker c c c c P None 

Picidae 

Campephilus 

principalis 

Ivory-billed 

Woodpecker Extinct Extinct 

Flycatchers 

Tyrannidae Contopus virens 

Eastern WoodPewee c c c M None 

Tyrannidae 

Empidonax 

virescens 

Acadian 

Flycatcher u u u M None 

Tyrannidae Sayornis phoebe Eastern Phoebe c c c M None 

Tyrannidae 

Pyrocephalus 

rubinus 

Vermilion 

Flycatcher accidental occurrence I/A None 

Tyrannidae 

Myiarchus 

crinitus 

Great Crested 

Flycatcher c c c M None 

Tyrannidae 

Tyrannus 

verticalis Western Kingbird accidental occurrence I/A None 

Tyrannidae 

Tyrannus 

tyrannus Eastern Kingbird c c c M None 

Tyrannidae 

Tyrannus 

dominicensis Gray Kingbird accidental occurrence I/A None

Shrikes 

Laniidae 

Lanius 

ludovicianus 

Loggerhead 

Shrike c c c c M None 

Vireos

Vireonidae Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo c c c u M None 

Vireonidae Vireo flavifrons 

Yellow-throated 

Vireo r r r M None 

Vireonidae Vireo solitarius 

Blue-headed 

Vireo u u u M None 

Vireonidae 

Vireo 

olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo u u u M None 

Jays and Crows 

Corvidae 

Cyanocitta 

cristata Blue Jay c c c c P None 

Corvidae 

Corvus 

brachyrhynchos American Crow u u u u P None 

Corvidae Corvus ossifragus Fish Crow c c c c P None 
176 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Martins and Swallows

Hirundinidae 

Progne 

subis Purple Martin r u c o M None 

Hirundinidae 

Tachycineta 

bicolor Tree Swallow c c c M None 

Hirundinidae Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow c u c M None 

Chickadees and Titmice 

Paridae 

Poecile 

carolinensis 

Carolina 

Chickadee u u u u P None 

Paridae 

Baeolophus 

bicolor Tufted Titmouse c c c c P None 

Nuthatches 

Sittidae Sitta canadensis 

Red-breasted 

Nuthatch r r M None 

Sittidae Sitta carolinensis 

White-breasted 

Nuthatch r r r r M None 

Sittidae Sitta pusilla 

Brown-headed 

Nuthatch c c c c P None 

Creepers 

Certhiidae 

Certhia 

americana Brown Creeper o o o M None 

Wrens 

Troglodytidae 

Thryothorus 

ludovicianus Carolina Wren c c c c P None 

Troglodytidae 

Thryomanes 

bewickii Bewick's Wren r r r M None 

Troglodytidae 

Troglodytes 

aedon House Wren u u u M None 

Troglodytidae 

Troglodytes 

troglodytes Winter Wren u u u M None 

Troglodytidae 

Cistothorus 

platensis Sedge Wren u u u M None 

Troglodytidae 

Cistothorus 

palustris Marsh Wren o o o M None 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

Regulidae Regulus satrapa 

Golden-crowned 

Kinglet u u o M None 

Regulidae 

Regulus 

calendula 

Ruby-crowned 

Kinglet c c c M None 

Sylviidae 

Polioptila 

caerulea 

Blue-gray 

Gnatcatcher u u u o M None 
Section B. Appendices 177 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Bluebirds, Thrushes and Robins 

Turdidae Sialia sialis Eastern Bluebird c c c c M None 

Turdidae 

Catharus 

fuscescens Veery u u M None 

Turdidae Catharus minimus 

Gray-cheeked 

Thrush r r M None 

Turdidae 

Catharus 

ustulatus 

Swainson's 

Thrush r r M None 

Turdidae Catharus guttatus Hermit Thrush u u u M None 

Turdidae 

Hylocichla 

mustelina Wood Thrush u u u M None 

Turdidae 

Turdus 

migratorius American Robin c c c M None 

Thrashers 

Mimidae 

Dumetella 

carolinensis Gray Catbird c c c c P None 

Mimidae Mimus polyglottos 

Northern 

Mockingbird c c c c P None 

Mimidae Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher c c c c P None 

Starlings 

Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European Starling o o o o I/A Exotic 

Pipits

Motacillidae Anthus rubescens American Pipit o o o M None 

Waxwings

Bombycillidae 

Bombycilla 

cedrorum Cedar Waxwing c u c M None 

Warblers 

Parulidae 

Vermivora 

bachmanii 

Bachman's 

Warbler very rare I/A None 

Parulidae 

Vermivora pinus

 

Blue-winged 

Warbler r o M None 

Parulidae 

Vermivora 

chrysoptera 

Golden-winged 

Warbler o o M None 

Parulidae Vermivora celata 

Orange-crowned 

Warbler u u u M None 

Parulidae Parula americana Northern Parula c c c r M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

petechia Yellow Warbler u u M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

pensylvanica 

Chestnut-sided 

Warbler r M None 
178 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

magnolia Magnolia Warbler r u M None 

Parulidae Dendroica tigrina 

Cape May 

Warbler u u M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

caerulescens 

Black-throated 

Blue Warbler u u M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

coronata 

Yellow-rumped 

Warbler c c c M None 

Parulidae Dendroica virens 

Black-throated 

Green Warbler r r M None 

Parulidae Dendroica fusca 

Blackburnian 

Warbler u u M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

dominica 

Yellow-throated 

Warbler c c c c M None 

Parulidae Dendroica pinus Pine Warbler c u c c M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

discolor Prairie Warbler u u o M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

palmarum Palm Warbler c c c M None 

Parulidae Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler u u M None 

Parulidae 

Dendroica 

cerulea Cerulean Warbler r r M None 

Parulidae Mniotilta varia 

Black-and-white 

Warbler u o u o M None 

Parulidae 

Setophaga 

reticilla 

American 

Redstart c r c M None 

Parulidae 

Protonotaria 

citrea 

Prothonotary 

Warbler c c c M None 

Parulidae 

Helmitheros 

vermivorum 

Worm-eating 

Warbler u u r M None 

Parulidae 

Limnothlypis 

swainsonii 

Swainson's 

Warbler r r r M None 

Parulidae 

Seiurus 

aurocapilla Ovenbird u u M None 

Parulidae 

Seiurus 

noveboracensis 

Northern 

Waterthrush r r M None 

Parulidae Seiurus motacilla 

Louisiana 

Waterthrush o r o M None 

Parulidae 

Oporornis 

formosus Kentucky Warbler o o M None 

Parulidae Oporornis agilis 

Connecticut 

Warbler o r M None 

Parulidae Geothlypis trichas 

Common 

Yellowthroat c u c c M None 
Section B. Appendices 179 

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Parulidae Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler u u u M None 

Parulidae 

Wilsonia 

canadensis Canada Warbler r r M None 

Parulidae Icteria virens 

Yellow-breasted 

Chat r r M None 

Tanagers 

Thraupidae Piranga rubra Summer Tanager u u u M None 

Thraupidae Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager r r M None 

Sparrows 

Emberizidae 

Pipilo 

erythrophthalmus Eastern Towhee c c c c M None 

Emberizidae 

Aimophila 

aestivalis 

Bachman's 

Sparrow c c c c M None 

Emberizidae Spizella arborea 

American Tree 

Sparrow accidental occurrence I/A None 

Emberizidae 

Spizella 

passerina Chipping Sparrow u u u M None 

Emberizidae Spizella pusilla Field Sparrow u u u M None 

Emberizidae 

Pooecetes 

gramineus Vesper Sparrow u u u M None 

Emberizidae 

Chondestes 

grammacus Lark Sparrow accidental occurrence I/AM None 

Emberizidae 

Passerculus 

sandwichensis 

Savannah 

Sparrow u u u M None 

Emberizidae 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow o o o M None 

Emberizidae 

Ammodramus 

henslowii 

Henslow's 

Sparrow o o o M None 

Emberizidae 

Ammodramus 

leconteii 

Le Conte's 

Sparrow very rare I/A None 

Emberizidae Passerella iliaca Fox Sparrow u u u M None 

Emberizidae 

Melospiza 

melodia Song Sparrow c c c M None 

Emberizidae 

Melospiza 

georgiana Swamp Sparrow c c c M None 

Emberizidae 

Zonotrichia 

albicollis 

White-throated 

Sparrow c c c M None 

Emberizidae Junco hyemalis Dark-eyed Junco r r M None 

New World Finches

Cardinalidae 

Cardinalis 

cardinalis Northern Cardinal c c c c P None 
180 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Family Scientific Name Common name SP S F W Residence Status 

Cardinalidae 

Pheucticus 

ludovicianus 

Rose-breasted 

Grosbeak r r M None 

Cardinalidae 

Passerina 

caerulea Blue Grosbeak r r r M None 

Cardinalidae Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting u o u M None 

Cardinalidae Passerina ciris Painted Bunting o M None 

Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds and Orioles 

Icteridae 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus Bobolink r r M None 

Icteridae 

Agelaius 

phoeniceus 

Red-winged 

Blackbird c c c c M None 

Icteridae Sturnella magna 

Eastern 

Meadowlark c c c c M None 

Icteridae 

Euphagus 

carolinus Rusty Blackbird u u u M None 

Icteridae 

Euphagus 

cyanocephalus 

Brewer's 

Blackbird o o o M None 

Icteridae 

Quiscalus 

quiscula Common Grackle c c c c M None 

Icteridae Quiscalus major 

Boat-tailed 

Grackle r r r M None 

Icteridae Molothrus ater 

Brown-headed 

Cowbird o o o M None 

Icteridae Icterus spurious Orchard Oriole u u u M None 

Icteridae Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole r r r M None 

Old World Finches 

Fringillidae 

Carpodacus 

purpureus Purple Finch u u u M None 

Fringillidae 

Carpodacus 

mexicanus House Finch very rare I/A None 

Fringillidae Carduelis pinus Pine Siskin r r r M None 

Fringillidae Carduelis tristis 

American 

Goldfinch c c c M None 

Weaver Finches 

Passeridae 

Passer 

domesticus House Sparrow r r r r I/A Exotic 
Section B. Appendices 181 

INSECTS (Arthropods) 

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Crustacea Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyx sp. Aquatic amphipod 

Crustacea Amphipoda Gammaridae Gammarus sp. Aquatic amphipod 

Crustacea Copepoda Argulidae Argulus sp. Fish lice 

Crustacea Cladocera Daphniidae Water fleas 

Crustacea Decopoda Palaemonidae Palaemonetes Palaemonid shrimp 

Crustacea Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea sp. Isopod 

Crustacea Macrura Cambaridae Freshwater crayfish 

Gastropoda Basommatophora Ancylidae 

Freshwater 

pulmonate snail 

Insecta Coleoptera Bostrichidae Wood borer 

Insecta Coleoptera Buprestidae Metallic wood borer 

Insecta Coleoptera Cantharidae Soldier beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Carabidae Ground beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Cerambycidae 

Long-horned wood 

borer 

Insecta Coleoptera Cercopidae Flat beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Chrysomelidae Leaf beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Cicindellidae Tiger beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Cleridae Checkered beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Coccinelidae Lady beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Colydidae Colydiid 

Insecta Coleoptera Curculionidae Weevil 

Insecta Coleoptera Dermestidae Carpet beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Agabetes sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Celina sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Coptotomus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Cybister sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydroporus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hydrovatus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hygrotus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 
182 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Hybius sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Ilybius sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Laccophilus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Laccornis sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Neobidessus sp. 

Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Neoporus sp. Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Matus sp. Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Rhantus sp. Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Dytiscidae Uvarus sp. Predacious diving 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Elateridae Click beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Endomychidae Endomychid 

Insecta Coleoptera Erotylidae Erotylid 

Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae Dineutus sp. Whirligig beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Gyrinidae Gyrinus sp. Whirligig beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Haliplidae Peltodytes sp. Water crawling 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Histeridae Fungus beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Berosus sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Enochrus sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Helocombus sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Hydrobius sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Phaenonotum sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrophilidae Tropisternus sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Hydrochidae Hydrochus sp. Water scavenging 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Lagriidae Lagriid 

Insecta Coleoptera Lampyridae Firefly 
Section B. Appendices 183 

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Coleoptera Lathridiidae Grain beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Meloidae Blister beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Mordellidae Flower beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Mylabridae Pea weevil 

Insecta Coleoptera Nitidulidae Sap beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Noteridae Hydrocanthus sp. Burrowing water 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Noteridae Suphisellus sp. Burrowing water 

beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Ostomidae Cadell 

Insecta Coleoptera Passalidae Horned passalus 

Insecta Coleoptera Scarabaeidae Scarab 

Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae Cyphon sp. Marsh beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Scirtidae Scirtes sp. Marsh beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Scolytidae Bark beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Silphidae Carrion beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Staphylinidae Rove beetle 

Insecta Coleoptera Tenebrionidae Darkling beetle 

Insecta Collembola Entomobryidae Elongate-bodied 

springtail 

Insecta Collembola Poduridae Elongate-bodied 

springtail 

Insecta Collembola Sminthuridae Globular springtail 

Insecta Dermaptera Forficulidae Earwig 

Insecta Diptera Anthomyidae Anthomyid fly 

Insecta Diptera Bibionidae Marsh fly 

Insecta Diptera Calliphoridae Blow fly 

Insecta Diptera Ceratopogonidae Punkies or biting 

midge 

Insecta Diptera Chaoboridae Chaoborus sp. Phantom midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Chironomus sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Cladotanytarus sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Krenopelopia sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Labrudinia sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Natarsia sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Parachironomous sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Paratendipes sp. Midge 

Insecta Diptera Cordyluridae Dung fly 
184 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Diptera Culicidae Aedes sp. Mosquito 

Insecta Diptera Culicidae Coquillettidia sp. Mosquito 

Insecta Diptera Culicidae Culex sp. Mosquito 

Insecta Diptera Culicidae Mansonia sp. Mosquito 

Insecta Diptera Dolichopodidae Long-legged fly 

Insecta Diptera Drosophilidae Fruit fly 

Insecta Diptera Muscidae House fly 

Insecta Diptera Ptychopteridae Phantom crane fly 

Insecta Diptera Sarcophagidae Flesh fly 

Insecta Diptera Syrphidae Eristalis sp. Syrphid fly 

Insecta Diptera Syrphidae Drone fly 

Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Chlorotabanus sp. 

Insecta Diptera Tabanidae Chrysops sp. Horse fly 

Insecta Diptera Tachinidae Parasitic fly 

Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Helius sp. Crane fly 

Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Limnophila sp. Crane fly 

Insecta Diptera Tipulidae Pseudolimnophila sp. Crane fly 

Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Mayfly 

Insecta Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis sp. Small mayfly 

Insecta Hemiptera Aradidae Flat bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Belostomatidae Belostoma sp. Giant water bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Coreidae Squash bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Corixidae Trichocorixa sp. Water boatman 

Insecta Hemiptera Cydinae Burrowing bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Gelastochoridae Toad-shaped bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Aquarius sp. Water strider 

Insecta Hemiptera Gerridae Trepobates sp. Water strider 

Insecta Hemiptera Hydrometridae Hydrometra sp. Water measurer 

Insecta Hemiptera Mesoveliidae Mesovelia sp. Water treader 

Insecta Hemiptera Miridae Leaf bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Naucoridae Pelocoris sp. Creeping water bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Nepidae Ranatra sp. Water scorpion 

Insecta Hemiptera Notonectidae Buenoa sp. Back swimmer 

Insecta Hemiptera Notonectidae Notonecta sp. Back swimmer 

Insecta Hemiptera Pentatomidae Stink bug 

Insecta Hemiptera Pleidae Neoplea sp. Pigmy backswimmer 

Insecta Hemiptera Pleidae Paraplea sp. 
Section B. Appendices 185 

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Hemiptera Reduviidae Assassin bug 

Insecta Homoptera Cercopidae Spittle bug 

Insecta Homoptera Chermidae Jumping plant lice 

Insecta Homoptera Cicadellidae Leaf hopper 

Insecta Homoptera Cicadidae Cicada 

Insecta Homoptera Coccidae Scale insect 

Insecta Homoptera Membracidae Tree hopper 

Insecta Hymenoptera Andrenidae Andrenid bee 

Insecta Hymenoptera Apidae Bee 

Insecta Hymenoptera Bombidae Bumble bee 

Insecta Hymenoptera Braconidae Braconid 

Insecta Hymenoptera Chrysididae Cuckoo wasp 

Insecta Hymenoptera Formicidae Ant 

Insecta Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae Ichneumon 

Insecta Hymenoptera Megachilidae Leafcutting bee 

Insecta Hymenoptera Mutilidae Velvet ant 

Insecta Hymenoptera Scoliidae Scoliid wasp 

Insecta Hymenoptera Sphecidae Sphecoid wasp 

Insecta Hymenoptera Tenthredinidae Common sawfly 

Insecta Hymenoptera Vespidae Vespid wasp 

Insecta Hymenoptera Xylocopidae Xylocopa sp. Large carpenter bee 

Insecta Isoptera Rhinotermitidae Termite 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Crambidia lithosiodes Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Cisthene plumbea Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Cisthene subjecta Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Cisthene packardii Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Hypoprepia miniata Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Hypoprepia fucosa Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Afrida ydatodes Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Utetheisa ornatrix Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Holomelina laeta Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Holomelina rubicundaria Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Apantesis phalerata Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Arctiidae Apantesis vittata Tiger moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Citheroniidae Royal moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Coleophoridae Case bearer 

Insecta Lepidoptera Cosmopterigidae Cosmopterigid moth 
186 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Lepidoptera Cossidae Prionoxystus sp. Carpenter or leopard 

moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Danaidae Danaus plexippus Monarch 

Insecta Lepidoptera Gelechiidae Gelechiid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Semiothisa transitaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Anavitrinella pampinaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Protoboarmia porcelaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Melanolophia candaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Hypagryrtis obtusaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Euchlaena madusaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Euchlaena amoenaria 

astylusaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Nemoria catachloa Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Idaea demissaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Idaea tacturata Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Cyclophora myrtaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Leptostales pannaria Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Geometridae Eupithecia miserulata Geometer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Heliconiidae Agraulis vanillae Gulf fritillary 

Insecta Lepidoptera Heliozelidae Shield bearer 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Urbanus proteus Long-tailed skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Thorybes bathyllus Southern cloudy 

wing 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Epargyreus clarus Silver-spot skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Erynnis martialis Horace’s duskywing 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Erynnis zarucco Zarucco duskywing 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Pyrgus communis Checkered skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Hylephila phyleus Fiery skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Polites vibex Whirlabout 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Polites verna Little glassywing 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Wallengrenia otho otho Southern brokendash 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Wallengrenia otho 

egeremet 

Northern brokendash 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Atalopedes campestris Sachem 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Atyrytone ruricola Dun skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Lerodea eufala Eufala skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Oligoria maculata Twin-spotted skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Panoquina ocola Ocola skipper 
Section B. Appendices 187 

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Poanes zabulon Zabulon skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Ancyloxypha numitor Least skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Nastra l’herminier Swarthy skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Hesperiidae Paones viator Broad-winged 

skipper 

Insecta Lepidoptera Lasiocampidae Tolype notialis Tent caterpillar and 

Lappet moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Limacodidae Euclea strigalis Slug caterpillar 

Insecta Lepidoptera Liparidae Dasychira manto Tussock moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Mimallonidae Cicinnus melsheimeri Sack-bearer moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Zanclognatha theralis Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Bleptina caradrinalis Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Bleptina inferior Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Lascoria ambigualis Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Hypenodes fractilinea Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Dyspyralis sp. Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Schrankia macula Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Abablemma brimleyana Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Pangrapta decoralis Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Metalectra quadrisignata Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Arugisa latiorella Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Anomis erosa Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Epidromia fergusoni Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Cutina sp. Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Mocis latipes Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Mocis marcida Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Argyrostrotis erasa Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Argyrostrotis deleta Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Pseudoplusia includens Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Paectes abrostoloides Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Meganola minuscula 

phylla Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Neoerastria apicosa Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Eumicremma minima Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Charadra deridens Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Acronicta deridens Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Harrisimemna trisignata Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Elaphria nucicolora Noctuid moth 
188 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Cyanthissa percara Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Amolita obliqua Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Leucania latiuscula Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Schinia trifascia Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Noctuidae Schinia sanguinea Noctuid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Notodontidae Peridea angulosa Prominent 

Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Junonia coenia Common buckeye 

Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Limenitus archippus 

floridensis Viceroy 

Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Limenitus archippus 

astyanax Red-spotted purple 

Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Phycoides phaon Phaon crescent 

Insecta Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Phycoides tharos Pearl crescent 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio glaucus Tiger swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio palamedes Palamedes 

swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio polyxenes Black swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio marcellus Zebra swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio cresphontes Giant swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Papilionidae Papilio troilus Spicebush 

swallowtail 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema daira Barred sulphur 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema lisa Little sulphur 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Phoebes sennae Cloudless sulphur 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Colius eurytheme Orange sulphur 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Eurema nicipe Sleepy orange 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pieridae Colius cesonia Dog face 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Eudonia strigalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Munroessa icciusalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Nymphuliella daeckealis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Parapoynx allionealis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Udea rubigalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Ategumia ebulialis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Hymenia perspectalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Diasemiopsis leodoculalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Anageshna primordialis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Glyphodes sibillalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Herpetogramma 

bipunctalis Pyralid moth 
Section B. Appendices 189 

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Syngamia florella Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Argyria lacteella Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Urola nivalis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Herculia infimbrialis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Macalla zelleri Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Tallula atrifascialis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Dioryctria zimmermani Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Dioryctria amatella Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Dioryctria clarioralis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Melitara prodenialis Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Acentria sp. Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Pyralidae Crambus sp. 

Pyralid moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Riodinidae Calephelis virginiensis Little metalmark 

Insecta Lepidoptera Satyridae Hermeuptychia sosybius Carolina satyr 

Insecta Lepidoptera Satyridae Cercyonis pegala Common wood 

nymph 

Insecta Lepidoptera Sesiidae Synanthedon acerni 

tepperi Clear-winged moth 

Insecta Lepidoptera Theclinae Calycopis cecrops Red-banded 

hairstreak 

Insecta Lepidoptera Theclinae Strymon melinus Gray hairstreak 

Insecta Lepidoptera Theclinae Atlides halesus Great purple 

hairstreak 

Insecta Lepidoptera Tortricidae Tortricid moth 

Insecta Neuroptera Chrysopidae Lacewing 

Insecta Neuroptera Corydalidae Chauliodes sp. Dobson fly 

Insecta Neuroptera Corydalidae Fish fly 

Insecta Neuroptera Hemerobiidae Hemerobiid 

Insecta Neuroptera Myrmeleontidae Ant lion 

Insecta Neuroptera Sialidae Sialis sp. Alder fly 

Insecta Neuroptera Sisyridae Sisyra sp. Spongilla fly 

Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Aeshna sp. Darner 

Insecta Odonata Aeshnidae Coryphaeschna sp. Pilot darner 

Insecta Odonata Agrionidae Black prince 

damselfly 

Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Enallagma sp. Narrow-winged 

damselfly 
190 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Class Order Family Scientific Name Common name 

Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Ischnura sp. Narrow-winged 

damselfly 

Insecta Odonata Coenagrionidae Nahalennia sp. Narrow-winged 

damselfly 

Insecta Odonata Corduliidae Epitheca sp. Baskettail 

Insecta Odonata Lestidae Lestes sp. Amber-winged 

damselfly 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Ladona sp. Common skimmer 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Celithemis sp. Small pennant 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Erythemis sp. Pondhawk 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Libellula sp. King skimmer 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Pachydiplax sp Blue dasher 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Perithemis sp. Amberwing 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Sympetrum sp. Meadowfly 

Insecta Odonata Libellulidae Tramea sp. Dancing glider 

Insecta Orthoptera Acrididae Short-horned 

grasshopper 

Insecta Orthoptera Blattidae Cockroach 

Insecta Orthoptera Gryllidae Cricket 

Insecta Orthoptera Gryllotalpidae Mole cricket 

Insecta Orthoptera Phasmatidae Walking stick 

Insecta Orthoptera Tettigoniidae Long-horned 

grasshopper 

Insecta Plecoptera Perlidae Common stonefly 

Insecta Plecoptera Taeniopterygidae Winter stonefly 

Insecta Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Oxyethira sp. Caddisfly 

Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Long-horned 

caddisfly 

Insecta Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. Caddisfly 

Insecta Trichoptera Limnephelidae Northern caddisfly 

Insecta Trichoptera Polycentropodidae Polycentropus sp. Caddisfly 

Insecta Trichoptera Psychomyiidae Pseudolimnophila sp. caddisfly 
Section B. Appendices 191 

Appendix VI. Wildlife and Land Cover 

Associations 

Below is a list of wildlife associated with the major habitats of the Okefenokee Refuge. The bird 

species with an * are those that have been identified by Partners in Flight as high-priority species. 

UPLAND FOREST 

Black Bear White-tailed Deer 

Wild Pig Fox Squirrel 

Southern Flying Squirrel Gray Fox 

Bobcat Gopher Tortoise 

Box Turtle Gopher Frog 

Striped Newt Flatwoods Salamander 

Indigo Snake Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake 

Canebrake Rattlesnake *Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

Red-headed Woodpecker Red-bellied Woodpecker 

Yellow-bellied Woodpecker Pileated Woodpecker 

Northern “Yellow-shafted” Flicker *Bachman’s Sparrow 

American Kestrel Brown-headed Nuthatch 

*Northern Bobwhite Chuck-will’s Widow 

Common Nighthawk Pine Warbler 

Turkey *Northern Parula 

Hooded Warbler *Yellow-throated Warbler 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo *Prairie Warbler 

Summer Tanager Common Ground Dove 

Gray Catbird Orchard Oriole 

BROADLEAFED HARDWOODS 

Black Bear White-tailed Deer 

Bobcat Northern Parula 

*Yellow-throated Warbler Eastern Wood Pewee 

Cedar Waxwings Warblers 
192 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

WETLAND PINE 

Wood Duck *Red-cockaded Woodpecker 

American Kestrel *Brown-headed Nuthatch 

*Northern Bobwhite Chuck-will’s Widow 

*Swallow-tailed Kite Prothonotary Warbler 

Pine Warbler Acadian Flycatcher 

*Wood Stork *White Ibis 

Great Egret Black-crowned Night-heron 

Little Blue Heron Great Blue Heron 

Hooded Merganser Osprey 

CYPRESS 

Black Bear den sites Pileated Woodpecker 

Prothonotary Warbler *Yellow-throated Warbler 

Great Egret *White Ibis 

*Swallow-tailed Kite Wood Duck 

Bald Eagle *Wood Stork 

Osprey 

SCRUB/SHRUB 

Black Bear Bobcat 

Alligators Tree Frogs 

 

Eastern Towhee Palm Warbler 

White-eyed vireo Common Yellowthroat 

*Northern Parula Tufted Titmouse 

Cedar Waxwings 
Section B. Appendices 193 

OPEN MARSH (PRAIRIE) 

Black Bear White-tailed Deer 

Bobcat Alligator 

Frogs Turtles 

Salamanders Siren 

 Warmouth 

Pickerel Flier 

Okefenokee Pygmy Sunfish Bluegill 

Largemouth Bass Black Crappie 

 *Sandhill Crane 

(Florida and Greater) Loggerhead Shrike 

Eastern Kingbird Eastern Meadowlark 

Bald Eagle *Wood Stork 

*White Ibis Black-crowned Night-heron 

Little Blue Heron Great Egret 

Great Blue Heron Green-backed Heron 

Red-shouldered Hawk Cooper’s Hawk 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Northern Harrier 

Barred Owl Black Vulture 

Turkey Vulture Common Yellowthroat 

Tree Swallow *King Rail 

American Bittern Least Bittern 

Purple Gallinule Wood Duck 

Blue-winged Teal Ring-necked Duck 

Hooded Merganse 
194 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 195 

Appendix VII. Cultural History Of The 

Okefenokee Swamp Area 

According to archeological evidence the swamp was uninhabited until about 2500 BC. Prior to this 

time, the basin was probably too dry (Trowell, 1989). Evidence indicates that small bands of Native 

American cultures occupied campsites throughout the swamp from this time through the eighteenth 

century. Several cultures existed during this period, identified by the types of pottery sherds they left 

behind. The following was taken from the detailed descriptions of Native American cultures living 

around the Okefenokee by Chris Trowell in “Indians of the Okefenokee” (1998). 

2000 BC to 1000 BC: Fiber Tempered Pottery Period - As sea level increased to its present level 

and "ponds" began to form in the Okefenokee basin, plants and animals began to invade these new 

wetland areas. Natives from surrounding areas of the coastal plain established seasonal camps 

around the shores of the Okefenokee and the islands within the swamp. These natives reinforced 

their pottery by mixing fibers of grass, moss, or leaves into clay before forming and firing the vessels. 

1000 BC to 500 AD: Deptford and Swift Creek Culture - These natives also seasonally occupied the 

lush hammocks scattered through and around the swamp. This culture is identified by the designs 

stamped in their pottery with wooden paddles. 

500 AD to 1000 AD: Weeden Island Culture - At this time, mound-builders from northwest Florida 

and southwest Georgia settled in the Okefenokee. The villages of these people were built around 

one or more burial mounds. These settlements were located in evergreen hammocks of live oak, 

magnolia and holly trees that had been used by earlier natives. Hunting and collecting continued as 

a way-of-life, but the village replaced the temporary camp. Weeden Island villages were quite 

numerous and several of them had a population of several hundred people. Their lives were directed 

by ruling leaders. Important leaders were buried in the sand burial mounds. Weeden Island pottery 

is decorated with incised and punctuated designs. 

Toward the end of the Weeden Island Period, cord marked pottery, distinctive of coastal natives, began to 

appear, indicating trade with the coastal natives or settlement by natives of the Cord Marked Culture. 

1000 AD to 1200 AD: Cord Marked Cultures - Sometime around 1000 AD, small numbers of natives 

using cord marked pottery occupied some of the hammock sites on the islands and the swamp 

perimeter. Some, probably most, of these settlers or campers were associated with the Savannah 

Culture. (At least one small village site is known to be Savannah.) A few natives associated with the 

Alachua Culture from north-central Florida and others associated with the Ocmulgee Cord Marked 

Culture from south-central Georgia occupied or visited some to the sites during this time. 

1200 AD to 1700 AD: Miscellaneous Cultures - Near the end of the Weeden Island Period or Cord 

Marked Culture, small artifact densities suggest that native populations declined sharply. Following 

the Savannah Period, it appears that a few small bands of natives of the Lamar Culture camped, 

probably seasonally, in some of the previously occupied hammocks. Some of the St. Johns pottery 

found on Floyds Island, Chesser Island and several other sites may be associated with the Timucuanspeaking natives that occupied an area of northern Florida and southern Georgia during the Spanish 

period, 1560 to 1700. Spanish documents indicate the presence of a Spanish mission near the 
196 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

eastern edge of the Okefenokee serving fugitive Timucuan Indians. These documents also report 

infantry missions to attempt to capture and relocate fugitive Indians from the mission and other 

locations within the swamp (Worth 1992; Worth 1993; Trowell 1994). The decline of native 

populations during the Spanish Period was caused by diseases accidentally introduced by the 

Spanish, social disorder accompanying Spanish attempt to conscript labor, and a barbarous 

slaughter of Timucuan and Apalachee natives at Spanish missions by Col. James Moore in 1702-

1704, leading South Carolinian militia and Creek warriors. By the time the swamp was occupied by 

the Seminoles, the early natives had disappeared. 

1750 to 1840: The Seminoles were actually remnants of other native tribes including Creeks, 

Yuchees, Hitchitis and other tribal remnants who took refuge in the swamp following skirmishes with 

European settlers and military. 

 

The Seminoles settled in a few areas of the Okefenokee between 1750 and 1840, but little 

archaeological evidence has been found. These people used the swamp as a refuge. During the 

1830's, most of the Indians in Georgia moved to Oklahoma, but some fled into the swamps of south 

Georgia and Florida. The Dade's Massacre in Florida in December 1835 spread violence throughout 

the area until 1842. 

Continued skirmishes between the Seminole Indians and the settlers led to the establishment of 

several forts around the perimeter of the swamp to protect the settlers. Two forts were built within the 

swamp, one on “The Pocket”, another on Billys Island. Campaigns by federal and state militia were 

conducted to eradicate or move the Seminoles from the area. Several forts remained manned and 

troops continued to patrol the rim of the swamp until 1842. By 1850 "the age of the Indian” in the 

Swamp had passed. Only Indian stories, mounds, scattered ceramic and stone artifacts, and several 

names on the map remained" (Trowell 1998). 

Native American occupation had some effect on Okefenokee habitats. Fire was used as a hunting tool. 

Huckleberry, blueberry and chinkapin productivity was enhanced by regular burning of islands. Villages, 

garden sites and other activity areas may have created permanent relict openings. Some of the openings 

in the swamp may be related to accidentally or intentionally set fires by native Americans (Trowell 1989). 

1850 - 1900: Pioneer families moved in as Native Americans began to disappear, generally settling on 

isolated farmsteads. A few lived in large, comfortable houses and owned large herds of cattle and hogs. 

Most lived in rustic cabins. The majority of the settlers lived in the tradition of the Native Americans, using 

fire for hunting and habitat management. "Their frequent burning of the wire-grass pine woods was 

probably their greatest legacy. Fire-adapted species of plants, and the creatures that lived in these open 

woods, became even more dominant. Not only did they burn the upland woods that encircle the swamp, 

but they burned the islands. This increased visibility for hunting, invigorated the growth of grass for deer, 

and improved the huckleberry yield. Hunters often set fires on the islands when they left after a hunting 

trip. Some of the lakes are probably the result of accidentally or intentionally-set fires on tree-houses, 

especially the prairie lakes near the eastern rim" (Trowell and Fussell 1998). 

The Okefenokee area was mapped in the early 1800s as part of Wayne County for disposal in land 

lotteries. Settlement of the area occurred very slowly because of the apparent worthlessness of the 

land, difficulty of transportation, periodic outbreaks of Indian or outlaw attacks, and the difficulty of 

protecting the settlements. Most of the original settlers had large families skilled in swamp living. 

They were highly mobile and usually squatted for a few years on government or unclaimed land and 

then moved on to a more attractive homestead site (Allen 1854; Trowell 1984; Hemperly 1982). 
Section B. Appendices 197 

The first community settled in the Okefenokee area was Traders Hill, established on the banks of the 

St. Marys River in 1755. In 1811, Fort Alert was established at Traders Hill to protect the settlers 

from the Seminole Indians. The federal troops left in 1820, but another fort, Fort Henderson was 

established at Traders Hill in 1838. It was occupied until 1842. By 1845, Traders Hill had become a 

busy river port town and for many years was the Charlton County seat. By 1910, Folkston replaced 

Traders Hill as the county seat and the area's commercial center. 

In 1857, railroads began to penetrate the swamp area, and a new settlement, Waycross, was located 

at an important trail crossing. By 1881, Waycross was the junction for five railways and by 1890 had 

a population of 3,000. By the turn of the century, railways circled the swamp, helping to build other 

cities and villages including Folkston, Fargo, Homerville and others (Hurst 1974). 

Up to this point, Native Americans and European settlers were essentially part of the environment, 

changing only slightly the events that took place naturally. During the late 1800s industrial operations 

began to take place that forever changed the face of the Okefenokee. 
198 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 199 

Appendix VIII. Cultural Resource Sites

The following list contains the Master List site number, general geographic area, and recommended 

management actions for each known cultural resource located within the boundaries of the 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. This list indicates the presence of cultural resources within a 

potential prescribed fire, wildfire, of fire use area. If the operations area contains cultural resources, 

additional information regarding the exact nature and location of the site must be requested from the 

Refuge Manager or his representative. Detailed site information and location is not available for 

public distribution.

Suggested initial management action for each listed site is indicated by the number in parenthesis. 

Suggested initial management actions are as follows: 

1. Avoid the site. 

2. The site should not be disturbed until archaeological subsurface tests have been conducted. 

3. Consult an archaeologist prior to disturbance, e.g. earth moving activity. 

4. Consult an archaeologist prior to disturbance if possible; extensive and deep earthmoving 

activities should be avoided until after consultation. 

5. Monitor earth disturbance following the action; record presence of artifacts if discovered 

(especially in firebreaks). 

6. Prescribed fire prescriptions for burns in this area should include avoidance of endangering 

historic structures by fire. 

7. Site is destroyed, paved over, or removed by excavation; no preservation action necessary. 

8. Structure and site should be photographed prior to alteration or replacement. 

Upland Management Compartments 

Area Site # (Mgt. Actions)

C1-1 86 (3, 6) 

C1-2 85 (1), 87 (3) 

C2-1 None 

C2-2 None 

C2-3 None 

C2-4 38 (4) 

C2-5 91 (3) 

C3-1 18 (4), 30 (3) 

C3-2 

C3-3 None 

C3-4 None 

C3-5 None 
200 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Area Site # (Mgt. Actions)

C3-6 None 

C3-7 None 

C4-1 15 (1) 

C4-2 1 (3), 8 (4), 63 (3), 64 (3), 65 (4) 

C4-3 None 

C4-4 None 

C5-1 None 

C5-2 None 

C5-3 None 

C5-4 None 

C5-5 None 

C6-1 None 

C6-2 None 

C6-3 None 

C7-1 None 

C7-2 None 

C7-3 None 

C7-4 None 

C7-5 None 

C7-6 None 

C7-7 None 

C8-1 67 (5), 94 (4) 

C8-2 None 

C8-3 None 

C8-4 20 (3), 21 (4) 

C8-5 66 (5) 

C8-6 6 (1), 13 (7), 14 (7), 19 (2), 22 (3), 81 (4), 

Unsurveyed—7 sites 

C8 Unsurveyed—34 sites 

C9-1 None 

C9-2 None 
Section B. Appendices 201 

Area Site # (Mgt. Actions)

C9-3 None 

C10-1 68 (3), 69 (4), 70 (4), 73 (4) 

C10-2 None 

C11-1 42 (2), 43 (3), 72 (4), 75 (4), 76 (4), 77 (4) 

C11-2 None 

C11-3 None 

C11-4 None 

C12-1 None 

C13-1 24 (5) 

C13-2 79 (5), 80 (5) 

C13-3 78 (5) 

C13-4 None 

C14-1 None 

C15-1 None 

C15-2 None 

C15-3 None 

C15-4 None 

C15-5 None 

C16-1 16 (3), 45 (5), 82 (5), 83 (5), 84 (5) 

C16-2 None 

C16-3 None 

C16-4 None 
202 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Swamp Interior 

Area Site # (Mgt. Actions)

Billys Island 3 (2), 5 (1), 10(2), 25 (5), 26 (3), 27 (1), 28 

(5), 29 (7) 

Blackjack Island 46 (5), 52 (1) 

Boatlanding Island None 

Bugaboo Island 53 (1), 54 (1), 55 (3), 56 (3), 60 (3) 

Cravens Hammock 51 (1) 

Cravens Island 31 (1), 32 (1) 

Dog Fennel Group None 

Ellicotts Mound Group None 

Floyds Island 2 (2), 7 (1), 12 (3), 36 (5), 89 (3) 

Fowls Roost Group None 

Hickory Hammock 9 (2), 37 (5) 

Hilliard Island 48 (5) 

Honey Island 49 (5) 

Minnies Island 17 (1) 

Mixons Hammock 11 (1), 23 (2), 39 (4), 40 (4), Unsurveyed—

15 sites 

Mitchell Island 50 (5) 

Number One Island 93 (3) 

Pine Island None 

Roasting Ear Island None 
Section B. Appendices 203 

Area Site # (Mgt. Actions)

Rowells Island None 

Mitchell Island 50 (5) 

Number One Island 93 (3) 

Strange Island 44 (4) 

Swamps Edge Break 

(NE) 

None 

Swamps Edge Break 

(SE) 

None 

Swamps Edge Break 

(SW) 

None 

Swamps Edge Break 

(NW) 

47 (5) 

Suwannee Canal 33 (3), 41 (3), 55 (3), 56 (3), 57 (3), 58 (3), 

92 (3) 

Blue Trail 34 (3), 35 (3) 

Red Trail 88 (8) 

Green Trail 90 (3) 

Yellow Trail 94 (8) 
204 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 205 

Appendix IX. Public Scoping 

FACTSHEET 

QUESTIONS ON VALUES AND VISION OF 

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES 

SCOPING COMMENTS 

FACT SHEET 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

What’s it all about?

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires each National Wildlife 

Refuge to prepare a comprehensive plan by the year 2012. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) began the development of the plan in 2001. It is estimated that the process will take two to 

three years to complete. The plan will address the management of plant species, wildlife and fish 

populations, endangered species, forests, fire, wetlands, cultural resources, contaminants, public 

use, education, research, land acquisition, and partnerships. 

Purpose of the Plan

Provide a clear statement of direction and continuity for management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

Ensure that the refuge’s management actions are consistent with the mandates of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

Ensure that the planned public use of refuge programs and facilities provides maximum benefit to the 

users without negatively impacting the wildlife resources and habitat that support those uses. 

Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, the public, and government officials with an understanding of 

refuge management actions on and around the refuge. 

Ensure that the management of the refuge considers federal, state, and county plans. 

Provide the basis for the development of budget requests on the refuge’s operational, maintenance, 

and capitol improvement needs; and land acquisition. 

Who will be developing the plan?

The plan will be coordinated and written by the staff at Okefenokee NWR. A planning team will 

consist of refuge staff, other federal, state and local agency staff and private individuals that have the 

necessary technical expertise. Throughout the process, the public will have the opportunity to 

express their thoughts and suggestions. 
206 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Background

Okefenokee NWR is one of over 500 refuges within the National Wildlife Refuge System. This 

system is a network of U.S. lands and waters managed specifically for wildlife and is administered by 

the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 states the Refuge system 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”. 

Okefenokee NWR was established by Executive Order in 1937 to preserve the 438,000 acre 

Okefenokee Swamp and provide “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” Presently, the refuge encompasses 401,880 acres. The Okefenokee Swamp being one of 

the world’s largest intact freshwater ecosystems was designated a Wetland of International 

Importance by the United Nations under the Ramsar Convention of 1971. In 1974, to further ensure 

the protection of this unique ecosystem, the interior 353,981 acres of the refuge were designated a 

National Wilderness Area. The National Register of Historic Landmarks provided additional national 

status for the protection of the swamp in 1976. The National Recreation Trail Act, administered by 

the National Park Service, ensured that the refuge canoe trails were maintained for the public for at 

least ten years after June 8, 1981. 

Current mission of the refuge: To manage the Okefenokee NWR as an integral component of the 

greater Okefenokee Ecosystem by restoring and maintaining native fauna and flora and associated 

natural processes, and by providing educational and compatible recreational opportunities. 

Current Refuge Goals (not in priority order): 

To maintain the wilderness quality in accordance with the Wilderness Act and the Clean Air Act. 

To maintain the dynamic mosaic of wetland habitat types. 

To restore and maintain fire-dependent communities. 

To provide optimum habitat and protection for endangered and threatened species. 

To promote public involvement through environmental education, fish and wildlife-oriented recreation, 

and off-refuge presentations in order to develop an appreciation and greater awareness of the 

Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

To protect visitors and natural and cultural resources through appropriate law enforcement. 

To support ecosystem-based partnerships and research. 

To provide adequate staff, facilities, and equipment in a healthful work environment to support refuge 

goals and objectives. 

Want to get involved? 

Okefenokee NWR is an important component of the ecosystem. It cannot fulfill the National Wildlife 

Refuge System mission without coordination with other refuges, federal, state and local agencies, 

and private stakeholders. Public involvement is an integral part of the planning process and will be 

incorporated through scoping meetings, document review, and public hearings.

Public Meetings: Prior to developing the draft plan, the Service will be holding public workshops to 

allow interested citizens the opportunity to express their thoughts and suggestions about future 

management of the Okefenokee NWR. Presentations will be made on current management and the 

planning process. The presentations will be followed by informal discussions on issues, comments, 

and possible solutions. Public notices in local papers, notification through mailings, and postings on 

the refuge’s website (http://okefenokee.fws.gov) will inform the public of workshop schedules. 
Section B. Appendices 207 

Written Comments: Written comments are welcome. The refuge has prepared brief descriptions of 

the issues being considered in the CCP to stimulate discussion. These descriptions will be 

distributed at public events where interested parties may be present, at public workshops, and upon 

request. Comments may be written directly on these descriptions or submitted in letter format. 

Document Review: As draft plans are released to the public, a review period will be designated to 

allow the public to again submit their comments. 

Public Hearing: Just prior to the completion of all documents, a public hearing will allow for formal 

comments to be presented. 

Mailing List: In order to place your name and address on our mailing list we must have your written 

permission. Federal government mailing lists must be released to the public upon request. 

Public Use Opportunities

Wildlife Observation Environmental Education 

Wildlife Interpretation Fishing 

Wildlife Photography Hunting 

Habitat Types

Longleaf Pine Scrub/Shrub 

Broadleafed Hardwoods Cypress/Hardwoods 

Prairie (Marsh) Hardwood Hammocks 

Wetland Pine Open Water 

Issues to be Addressed

Wetland Management Cultural Resources Land Acquisition 

Forestry Management Contaminants Partnerships 

Fire Management Public Use 

Wilderness Education 

Wildlife/Fisheries Populations Research 
208 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

QUESTIONS ON VALUES AND VISION OF 

OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Your answers to these questions will help us better understand public views and provide guidance for 

the plan. 

1. What do you value most about Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge?

(Please check all that apply.) 

□ open protected space □ hunting opportunities 

□ native fauna and flora □ fishing opportunities 

□ scenic quality □ boating opportunities 

□ wilderness qualities □ camping opportunities 

□ hiking trails/boardwalk □ historic and cultural sites 

□ photographic opportunities □ other (please specify) 

□ wildlife observation opportunities 

□ interpretive/educational opportunities 

2. What do you want the future to hold for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

(Please check all that apply.) 

□ little or no change from today □ stricter enforcement of regulations 

□ more public use and access □ more resource management efforts 

□ less public use and access □ less resource management efforts 

□ more recreational opportunities □ more canoeing opportunities 

□ less recreational opportunities □ less canoeing opportunities 

□ improved habitat for _____________ □ other (please specify) 
Section B. Appendices 209 

3. What are your major concerns about Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

(Please check all that apply.) 

□ human disturbance □ plant succession 

□

incompatible development on neighboring 

lands □ changes in wildlife/fish populations 

□ Contaminants □

increased/decreased public use and 

access 

□ natural disasters □ loss of traditional uses 

□ Wildfires □ other (please specify) 

□ prescribed fires 

4. Please include any additional comments you wish to make on your values and vision of 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

5. How frequently do you visit Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge?

□ more than 12 times a year 

□ 6 to 12 times a year 

□ 2 to 6 times a year 

□ once per year 

□ once every 5 years 

□ less frequently 

6. Which entrances have you visited and approximate number of times per year? 

Suwannee Canal Recreation Area (East entrance) ____________________________________ 

Stephen Foster State Park (West entrance) ___________________________________________ 

Swamp Park (North entrance) _____________________________________________________ 

7. When do you visit the refuge?

□ Spring (March-May) 

□ Summer (June-August) 

□ Fall (September-November) 

□ Winter (December-February) 

□ During Special Events 
210 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

8. What do you do at the refuge? 

(Check all that apply.) 

□ Canoe □ Camp 

□ Motorboat □ Visit interpretive centers 

□ Observe fauna and flora □ Picnic 

□ Fish □ Photography 

□ Hunt □ Other (please specify) 

□ Walk boardwalk/trails 

9. Do you own property that shares a common boundary with the refuge? Yes___ No ___ 

10. Do you hunt on land adjacent to the refuge? Yes___ No___ 

11. Did you attend one of the public meetings? Yes ___ No ___ 

12. In what town do you reside? ____________________ State? ____________ 

The Issues 

The following issues will be discussed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Each issue is briefly 

described on supplement pages with a question to stimulate discussion. Please obtain those pages 

that interest you the most and let us know your thoughts and suggestions by mailing them to the 

refuge. If you have a concern that is not listed, please write it down so it can be fully considered. 

If you need further clarification on the refuge’s management practices and policies, please feel free to 

contact us. The refuge staff would be glad to talk with you. 

■ Wetland Management ■ Contaminants 

■ Forest Management ■ Public Use 

■ Fire Management ■ Education 

■ Wilderness ■ Research 

■ Wildlife/Fish Populations ■ Acquisition 

■ Cultural Resources ■ Partnerships 
Section B. Appendices 211 

MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRES 

Wetland Management 

The Okefenokee Swamp is the headwaters of the famous Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers. Ninety one 

percent of the refuge is wetlands consisting of a mosaic of vegetation communities. Rainfall contributes 

80% of the water within the swamp. The other 20% comes from runoff and groundwater. Eighty 

percent of the water leaving the swamp leaves via evapotranspiration. The remaining 20% leaves via 

flow to the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers. Thus, water levels depend largely on weather patterns. 

Water flows through a series of shallow basins separated by naturally occurring ridges or “natural 

dams.” These “natural dams” stair-step down in elevation from the northeast corner of the swamp to 

the Suwannee River. The refuge staff has no means of controlling water levels. It is a free-flowing 

system. Water levels are monitored to determine accessibility, wildlife distribution, and fire behavior 

during prescribed burns and wildfires. Water quality is also being monitored within the swamp. 

What makes the Okefenokee Swamp valuable to you?

□ As a place for wildlife and plant observation. □ As a research area. 

□ As a wild and natural place. □ As an educational facility. 

□ As a place for recreation opportunities. □ As a filter of contaminants. 

□ As a water storage basin. □ As a barrier for managing wildfires. 

□ Other (Please specify) 

Are there improvements that can be made, recognizing that the character of the Wilderness 

must be preserved?

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366

Forest Management

Although upland forests comprise only nine percent of the refuge’s land, it is the most intensively 

managed habitat on the refuge. Thirty-three thousand acres of upland forests are scattered around the 

perimeter of the swamp and on Wilderness designated islands within the interior of the swamp. Once 

dominated by fire-dependent longleaf pine communities, changes in fire regime, timber harvesting, 

stand conversion, clearing and settlement of the area altered the landscape. The primary management 

objective on these refuge lands is the restoration, maintenance, and protection of longleaf pine 

communities. This diverse habitat supports a vast association of wildlife species including the redcockaded woodpecker, Bachman’s sparrow, gopher tortoise, indigo snake, flatwoods salamander, 

gopher frog, and Sherman’s fox squirrel. Selective timber harvesting, natural regeneration, planting of 

longleaf pine, and prescribed burning are the management tools used. Because of Wilderness 

guidelines and logistics, fire is the primary tool used on islands in the Wilderness. 
212 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

What aspects of our forest management are most important to you? 

□ Native wildlife and plants 

□ Timber harvesting/Selective thinning 

□ Restoration of longleaf pine 

□ Prescribed burning 

□ Wildfire control 

□ Preservation of Wilderness 

□ Endangered species 

Please explain further your answers to the above question if you feel that it is necessary:

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366 

 

Fire Management 

The Okefenokee Swamp is located within the second highest lightning-prone area in the nation. 

Lightning caused wildfires have shaped the natural landscape. Native plants and wildlife have 

adapted to frequent fires. Disruption of the naturally occurring fire regime has resulted in major 

changes in upland and wetland habitats in the Okefenokee Ecosystem. Although fire is essential for 

the restoration and management of the Okefenokee upland and wetland communities, remaining 

habitats and adjoining private property must be protected from uncontrolled, destructive wildfire. 

Even if all wildfires were allowed to burn, the landscape has become so fragmented that there would 

not be enough natural fire to replace the natural fire regime. 

Dormant and growing season prescribed fires are used to reduce the hazard of existing fuels and 

restore longleaf pine habitat and its associated grass understory. Along with adjacent landowners, 

the refuge is developing a fuels management zone around the perimeter of the swamp to allow more 

natural control of fire within the swamp. There is not currently a plan to use wildfire for resource 

management purposes within the swamp. However, it is recognized that fires which cannot be quickly 

controlled with helicopter water drops can most safely and efficiently be controlled by preparing fuel 

breaks at the edge of the swamp where fire could escape to the uplands. 

Are any of the following of interest to you? 

(Please check all that apply.) 

□ Prescribed burning on refuge forested uplands. 

□ Prescribed burning within wetlands. 

□ Prescribed burning on private timberlands adjacent to the refuge. 

□ Fire prevention and suppression. 
Section B. Appendices 213 

□ Wildfire within the swamp. 

□ Wildfire moving out of the swamp. 

□ Smoke 

□ Impacts of fire on native plants and wildlife. 

□ Soil disturbance from fire lines. 

□ Swamp’s Edge Break (Fire break on the edge of the swamp). 

□ Perimeter Road (Access road and second fire break around the swamp). 

□ Fuel Reduction Zone (Area between the Swamps Edge Break and Perimeter Road where fuels 

are kept low to lessen the intensity of fire moving between the swamp and timberlands.) 

□ Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners (A team of landowners working together to 

manage, protect, and promote forest resources in and around the Okefenokee Swamp.) 

□ Other (Please specify.) 

Please explain further your answers to the above questions if you feel that it is necessary: 

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, 

Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366

Wilderness Management

In 1974, to further ensure the protection of this unique ecosystem, the interior 353,080 acres of the 

refuge were designated a National Wilderness Area. Approximately 120 miles of trails are maintained 

for boat travel. Approximately 50 miles of this trail system is dedicated for non-motorized boat travel 

only. To facilitate wilderness access, the trails are cut annually with a trail-cutter. Eight overnight 

stops (four on platforms and four on land) are established along with four day-use shelters (three 

platforms and one on land). 

Management restrictions apply to the Wilderness Area. Through the evaluation of minimum tool 

requirements in Wilderness areas and the management guidelines for the endangered red-cockaded 

woodpecker, the refuge staff has developed Standard Operating Procedures to address airboat, 

helicopter, and gas-powered weed-eater use. Airboats are used for rescue, maintenance of trails and 

shelters, and wildlife surveys. Off-trail use of airboats requires prior documentation and evaluation of 

the purpose. Helicopters land on remote Wilderness islands for red-cockaded woodpecker 

monitoring and fire management. To minimize time and disturbance to the woodpeckers and other 

wildlife on the islands, gas-powered weed eaters are used to prepare critical red-cockaded 

woodpecker trees for prescribed burns. Helicopters are also used to conduct aerial wildlife surveys 

and prescribed burns. Motor boats are used by refuge staff on “canoe only” trails for maintenance 

and rescue purposes. 

We have decided not to install artificial cavities in the Wilderness for red-cockaded woodpecker 

management since suitable unused cavities exist and it is one area in the southeast where RCW 

clusters have not been manipulated. As conditions change, this will continue to be discussed. 
214 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Research projects are evaluated as to their impacts on the Wilderness area. 

Are any of the following of interest to you in regard to Wilderness designation? (Please check 

all that apply.) 

□ Airboat use □ Public Use facilities 

□ Motorboat use □ Wildlife surveys 

□ Helicopter use □ Prescribed burning and wildlife surveillance 

□ Use of minimum tools □ Other (Please specify) 

□ Wilderness ethics □

□ Endangered species management 

Please provide suggestions on how we can improve the management of the refuge while 

preserving Wilderness qualities. 

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366 

Wildlife/Fish Populations 

The refuge was created for the purpose of providing a sanctuary and breeding ground for migratory 

birds, endangered and threatened species, and other wildlife. This involves restoring, maintaining, 

and monitoring the native habitat communities that these species depend on. Incidental sightings 

and standardized surveys provide long-term data sets as well as identify trends in populations. The 

red-cockaded woodpecker is the primary focus of habitat management efforts. Monthly surveys of 

passerine, raptor, waterfowl, marsh and wading birds are conducted. Neotropical migrants, eagles, 

sandhill cranes, colonial nesters, osprey, alligators, fish, and black bears are surveyed annually. 

Short-term detailed studies are generally conducted by outside institutions under contract with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Are you concerned about the refuge’s management and/or monitoring for any of the following 

wildlife? (Please check all those that are of concern.) 

□ Neglect of important species. Which species:_________________________ 

□ Threatened and Endangered Species □ Amphibians 

□ Red-cockaded woodpeckers □ Reptiles 

□ Colonial birds □ Alligators 

□ Wood duck □ Fisheries 

□ Osprey □ Black bear 

□ Waterfowl □ Deer 

□ Songbirds □ Small game species 

□ Raptors □ Other (Please specify) 

□ Sandhill cranes 
Section B. Appendices 215 

Please explain further your answer to the above question: 

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366

Contaminants 

Pathways leading to the Okefenokee NWR via air, water, and animal have been explored for 

potential contamination. Current threats include: 

• The increased use of fertilizers and pesticides on adjacent timber lands to increase the timber 

yield by shortening the rotation cycle. 

• The influence of paper mills and chemical plants within the airshed. 

• The use of gas-powered motorboats by the public and refuge staff to travel into the Okefenokee 

Swamp. 

• The future impact of DuPont mining sand derivatives along the east side of the refuge having the 

potential to release contaminants from the disturbed soils. 

Surface water and dry and wet deposition from the atmosphere are the primary contaminant 

pathways to the Okefenokee Swamp. Long-term atmospheric monitoring (including both wet and dry 

deposition) exists on the refuge to preserve the quality (including visual quality) of the Class I 

Airshed. This site also serves as a regional reference. 

In 1998, Okefenokee’s monitoring site measured high levels of mercury in rainfall, rating fifth from the 

highest out of 30 sites. The state of Georgia has issued a fish consumption advisory for the 

Okefenokee Swamp and the Suwannee River due to elevated mercury levels. Elevated levels of 

mercury have been found throughout the food chain. 

What contaminant issues concern you the most in relation to the health of the Okefenokee 

Ecosystem? (Please check all that are of concern.) 

□ Fertilizers/Nutrients □ Mercury 

□ Pesticides □ Lead 

□ Industry (Paper mills, chemical plants, etc.) □ Visibility Impairment due to smog 

□ Motor boats □ Contaminants within the food chain 

□ Noise Pollution □ Increased development 

□ Light Pollution □ Mining 

Please explain further your answer to the above question: 
216 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366

Public Use 

The refuge provides educational and compatible recreational opportunities. There are three major 

entrances to the refuge (East, West, and Swamp Park) and two unstaffed entrances (Kingfisher 

Landing and the Sill). The policy of the refuge with regard to public use is to provide high quality 

rather than high quantity experiences to the visitors. Actual access by the public is limited to less 

than 10% of the total refuge acreage. Over 400,000 people visit Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge each year. Visitation varies with the seasons of the year, weather patterns, days of the week, 

and in the past, the availability of gasoline supplies. The peak visitor seasons are March through July 

and October through November. 

A wilderness canoe trail system was organized in 1972. Visitors venturing into the swamp are 

restricted to the main trail arteries. Approximately 120 miles of trails are maintained. Approximately 

50 miles of this trail system is dedicated for non-motorized boat travel only. 

Are you concerned with any of the following in relation to public use opportunities:

(Please check all that are of concern.) 

□ Recreation Use Fees □ Access 

□ Visitor Centers (East and West entrances) □ Day Canoeing and boating 

□ Services provided on-site □ Overnight Canoe Trips 

□ Environmental Education on and off-refuge □ Fishing 

□ Observation Towers □ Wildlife Observation 

□ Cultural Interpretation/Exhibits □ Photography 

□ Walking Trails □ Hunting 

□ Picnic Areas □ Biking 

□ Group Facilities □ Camping 

□ Special Events □ Concessionaires 

□ Public tours □ Okefenokee Swamp Park interpretation 

□ Stephen C. Foster State Park facilities and interpretation 

Please explain what concerns you have on the items checked above: 
Section B. Appendices 217 

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366

Education 

Educating people about the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and its resources is accomplished 

through various formats. Locally, the recently renovated visitor center at the swamp’s east entrance 

acts as the first introduction to the majority of the visiting public. Interpretive trails also provide 

information on the area’s key fauna/flora and the refuge’s management. On-site special events try to 

draw families, groups, and tourists in from the regional area. The refuge’s partnership with Zoo Atlanta 

provides an opportunity to address state-wide audiences. National and international audiences are 

reached through newspaper and magazine articles, television broadcasts, and the Internet. 

Refuge staff educate teachers to be Okefenokee guides for their students through environmental 

education workshops. In addition, staff has hosted several programs for the statewide GSAMS 

(Georgia Statewide Academic and Medical System) program, bringing interactive environmental 

education programs to elementary and secondary students statewide. 

Besides refuge staff, staff at Okefenokee Adventures and private guides are presented with refuge 

materials to encourage interpretation of the surrounding landscape. Stephen C. Foster State Park, 

Fargo, GA and privately operated Okefenokee Swamp Park, Waycross, GA have educational 

facilities and interpreters also. 

If the proposed Okefenokee Educational and Research Center is established in Folkston, GA, 

additional educational opportunities will be available. 

What educational opportunities are important to you?

(Please check all that are important to you.) 

□ Visitor Centers and Displays □ Off-site education 

□ Interpretive Signs along trails □ Student education 

□ Guided Tours □ Teacher education 

□ Newspaper/Magazine articles □ GSAMS 

□ Television Programs □ Educational and Research Center 

□ Special Events Presentations □ Other (please specify) 

□ Internet 

Please explain what concerns you have on the items checked above: 
218 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366 

Research 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge has attracted a large number of researchers through the past 

century. Some have studied it in depth while others come to compare it with other research sites. 

The refuge staff realizes the importance of research as a basis for effective decision making. Refuge 

management staff monitor long-term trends but seek outside assistance to examine specific aspects 

of this dynamic system. The refuge staff evaluates the benefits of proposed research along with the 

legal mandate of determining the compatibility of all research with refuge objectives and other 

activities being conducted on the refuge. Conducting research in a Wilderness area is important; 

however, if the nature and purpose of the research is such that it can be done in a non-Wilderness 

area, a Wilderness area should not be used. Special Use Permits are issued to researchers as an 

agreement between the researcher and the refuge, outlining conduct, methods approved, and 

submission of results. 

Recently, outside interest groups have proposed to establish an educational and research center in 

nearby Folkston, GA. This facility would promote expanded research efforts within the refuge and 

surrounding landscape. 

What concerns do you have related to research that is conducted on the refuge? (Please check 

all that you are concerned with.) 

□ Too many researchers 

□ Long-term monitoring 

□ Specific short-term research 

□ Special Use Permit process 

□ Proposed Educational and Research Center 

Please explain what concerns you have on the items checked above:

What is the top priority research need for Okefenokee Ecosystem in your opinion?

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366
Section B. Appendices 219 

Cultural Resources 

“For centuries, the Okefenokee Swamp was for many people a great common — a public land filled 

with food and fur and space for those in need. Some fled to it for refuge from hostile neighbors. 

Indians used the Swamp as a hunting ground. Pioneer settlers grazed cattle and hogs in the 

Okefenokee and the surrounding pine lands throughout the 19th century. They managed the open 

long-leaf pine forest with fire, promoting food for game and livestock and enhancing the growth of 

huckleberries and gallberries. 

Lumber and naval stores industries reached the Swamp as early as the 1850's. Entrepreneurs, 

employing new dredging and logging technology, launched an effort to drain the Okefenokee during 

the 1890's, but the effort failed. 

Nevertheless, the steam-powered sawmills, steamboats, steam dredges, steam-powered logging 

skidders, and steam railroad locomotives were powerful engines of economic and social 

transformation on the Okefenokee Swamp frontier in South Georgia in the late 19th century. Between 

1880 and 1930, the modern world poured in. New jobs, new goods, new ideas and new people 

arrived. The area was stripped of its trees and traditions.” (Exploring the Okefenokee; Railroads of 

the Okefenokee Realm, C.T. Trowell and L. Fussell, Research Paper No. 6, December 1995) 

What remain are native American mounds and artifacts, old homestead sites, turpentine scars and 

pots, relict trees, pilings and trails from tramlines, pieces of steam powered vehicles, and rails. With 

each ground breaking in previously undisturbed areas, the refuge is obligated to conduct a cultural 

resource survey. Collection of items is not permitted with the understanding that their placement is 

just as important as the item itself. 

Currently, the only buildings on the National Historic Register are Floyds Island Hunt Cabin and 

Hopkins Cabin within the Camp Cornelia complex. 

Are there other areas or buildings that should be considered for additional protection? (Please specify.)

What concerns do you have related to the protection of cultural resources?

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366 

Partnerships 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge thrives on its many partnerships. The refuge is a member of the 

Suwannee Basin Interagency Alliance to promote communication and coordinate management efforts 

within the Basin. The Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners has brought industrial and 

private forest managers, federal and state agencies, and other private landowners together to 

facilitate communication and cooperation in dealing with forest resource issues. A Tri-Agency 

Agreement serves as a vehicle to allow for mutual assistance among the Refuge, Osceola National 

Forest, and Cumberland Island National Seashore. To promote better understanding, appreciation, 
220 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

and conservation of Okefenokee NWR, the Okefenokee Wildlife League, a non-profit cooperating 

association, was formed. A partnership with Zoo Atlanta was one of the first Zoo-Refuge partnerships 

that occurred nationally. Partnerships on a smaller scale are just as important where equipment and 

knowledge is shared to accomplish projects that benefit both parties. Through partnerships, the 

ecosystem can be looked at as a whole and off-refuge issues affecting the swamp can be addressed. 

What types of partnerships and joint projects would you like to see the refuge get involved with?

Acquisition 

Acquisition of additional lands has not been a high priority for Okefenokee NWR. Land trades are 

occasionally considered for purposes of facilitating management. Lands increasing the potential for 

greater numbers of red-cockaded woodpeckers on the refuge would be considered strongly if there 

were willing sellers. 

Do you have any concerns related to the expansion of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge if 

suitable land was available?

(Please explain your answer.) 

Please write your ideas and suggestions on this page, fold in half with the pre-addressed return 

mailer on the outside, and tape together. Put on the proper postage and drop in the mail before 

November 30, 2001. Thank you for your help; we really appreciate it. If you have any questions or 

would like more information about this project, please call us. 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, Folkston, GA 31537 912/496-7366 
Section B. Appendices 221 

COMMENTS DURING SCOPING 

Presentations 

Fish-a-rama 

Buck-a-rama – Atlanta, GA 

Buck-a-rama – Perry, GA 

Pelican Island Celebration 

Elder Hostel 

East side Hunt Clubs 

Okefenokee Wildlife League 

Folkston Kiwanis Club 

Charlton County Chamber of Commerce 

Folkston City Council 

Clinch County Commissioners 

Charlton County Commissioners 

Waycross Tourism Bureau 

Waycross Chamber of Commerce 

Waycross Downtown Development Authority 

Ware County Commissioners 

Waycross City Council 

Waycross College 

Waycross Rotary Club 

Waycross Exchange Club 

Douglas Kiwanis Club 

Stephen C. Foster State Park staff 

Okefenokee Swamp Park Board of Directors 

Wilderness Training (Camp Weed) 

Four Rivers, Two States, One Basin – A Research Symposium 

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS 

Homerville, GA - September 18, 2001 10 people

St George, GA - September 20, 2001 5 people

Fargo, GA - September 25, 2001 6 people

Waycross, GA - September 27, 2001 9 people

Folkston, GA - October 4, 2001 10 people

Summary of Public Comments Prior to the Writing of the CCP 

Public Comment Period: July 15, 2001 - December 1, 2001 

25 General Questionnaires completed 

22 Letters/Phone calls received 
222 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Summary of General Questionnaire

1. What do you value most about Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

N=23 Percentage 

Open protected space 18 78% 

Native fauna and flora 19 82% 

Scenic quality 17 74% 

Wilderness qualities 17 74% 

Hiking trails/boardwalk 13 57% 

Photographic opportunities 13 57% 

Wildlife observation opportunities 20 87% 

Interpretive/educational opportunities 13 57% 

Hunting opportunities 9 39% 

Fishing opportunities 12 52% 

Boating opportunities 12 52% 

Camping opportunities 16 70% 

Historic and cultural sites 11 48% 

Other 4 17% 

Other: 

a. Eastern Treasure c. Natural 

b. National d. Public Access 
Section B. Appendices 223 

2. What do you want the future to hold for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

N=23 Percentage 

Little or no change 11 48% 

More public use and access 5 22% 

Controlled public use and access 1 4% 

Less public use and access 1 4% 

More recreational opportunities 7 30% 

Less recreational opportunities 1 4% 

More fish and wildlife 13 57% 

Stricter enforcement of regulations 8 35% 

More resource management efforts 7 30% 

Less resource management efforts 1 4% 

More canoeing opportunities 10 43% 

Less canoeing opportunities 0 0% 

Other 3 13% 

Other: 

 a. More education 

 b. More visiting hours 

 c. Don’t burn too much 
224 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

3. What are your major concerns about Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Human disturbance 19 83% 

Incompatible development on neighboring lands 15 65% 

Contaminants 17 74% 

Natural disasters 2 9% 

Wildfires 7 30% 

Prescribed fires 2 9% 

Plant succession 6 26% 

Changes in wildlife/fish populations 9 39% 

Increased public use and access 8 35% 

Loss of traditional uses 11 48% 

Other 3 13% 

Other: 

 a: Awareness 

 b. DuPont 

 c. Foot trails, canoe trails 

4. Please include any additional comments you wish to make on your values and vision of 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

5. How frequently do you visit Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

More than 12 times a year 3 13% 

6 to12 times a year 0 0% 

2 to 6 times a year 7 30% 

Once a year 5 22% 

Once every 5 years 2 9% 

Less frequently 6 26% 
Section B. Appendices 225 

6. Which entrances have you visited and approximate number of times? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Suwannee Canal Recreation Area (East entrance) 12 52% 

Stephen Foster State Park (West entrance) 15 65% 

Swamp Park (North entrance) 8 35% 

7. When do you visit the refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Spring (March - May) 15 65% 

Summer (June - August ) 9 39% 

Fall (September - November) 8 35% 

Winter (December - February) 8 35% 

During Special Events 0 0% 

8. What do you do at the refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Canoe 11 48% 

Motorboat 8 35% 

Observe fauna and flora 15 65% 

Fish 9 39% 

Hunt 1 4% 

Walk boardwalk/trails 16 70% 

Camp 10 43% 

Visit interpretive centers 12 52% 

Picnic centers 5 22% 

Photography 15 65% 

Other 4 17% 

Other: 

 a. Educational programs 

 b. Volunteer 

 c. Teach groups 

 d. Peace/tranquility 
226 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

9. Do you own property that shares a common boundary with the refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Yes 1 4% 

No 22 96% 

10. Do you hunt on land adjacent to the refuge? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Yes 2 9% 

No 21 91% 

11. Did you attend one of the public meetings? 

N = 23 Percentage 

Yes 2 9% 

No 21 91% 

12. In what town do you reside? State? 

State N = 25 Percentage 

Georgia 20 80% 

Alabama 2 8% 

Florida 1 4% 

Tennessee 1 4% 

North Carolina 1 4% 
Section B. Appendices 227 

Forest Management 

N = 7 Percentage 

Native wildlife and plants 6 86% 

Timber harvesting/selective thinning 3 43% 

Restoration of longleaf pine 6 86% 

Prescribed burning 6 86% 

Wildfire control 4 57% 

Preservation of wilderness 4 57% 

Endangered species 3 43% 

Comments: 

 a. Education campaign on fire and LLP 

 b. Harvesting meeting goals? 

 c. Emphasize 

 d. Most beautiful area 

Fire Management 

N = 7 Percentage 

Prescribed burning on refuge forested uplands 5 71% 

Prescribed burning within wetlands 5 71% 

Prescribed burns on private timberlands adjacent to refuge. 3 43% 

Fire prevention and suppression 3 43% 

Wildfire within the swamp 3 43% 

Wildfire moving out of the swamp 3 43% 

Smoke 3 43% 

Impacts of fire on native plants and wildlife 3 43% 

Soil disturbance from fire lanes 3 43% 

Swamps Edge Break (Fire break on the edge of the swamp) 5 71% 

Perimeter Road (Access road and second fire break around swamp) 2 29% 

Fuel Reduction Zone (Area between the Swamps Edge Break and 

Perimeter Road where fuels are kept low to lessen the intensity of fire 

moving between the swamp and timberlands.) 

0 0% 
228 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

N = 7 Percentage 

Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners (A team of landowners 

working together to manage, protect, and promote forest resources in 

and around the Okefenokee Swamp.) 

2 29% 

Other 3 43% 

Other: 

 a: Wildfires due to insufficient Rx burning 

 b. Rx burning looks bad 

 c. Support natural fires 

Wildlife/Fish Populations 

N = 8 Percentage 

Threatened and endangered species 5 63% 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers 3 38% 

Colonial birds 3 38% 

Wood duck 4 50% 

Osprey 4 50% 

Waterfowl 3 38% 

Songbirds 4 50% 

Raptors 4 50% 

Sandhill cranes 3 38% 

Amphibians 3 38% 

Reptiles 3 38% 

Alligators 3 38% 

Fisheries 4 50% 

Black bears 3 38% 

Deer 3 38% 

Small game species 3 38% 

Other: 5 63% 

Other: 

 a: Refuge staff should know species concerns. 

 b: Some over managed: private profiteering. 

 c: Natural populations in natural settings 

 d: Fisheries biologist needed 

 e: Gopher tortoise and wild cats 
Section B. Appendices 229 

Contaminants 

What contaminant issues concern you the most in relation to the health of the Okefenokee 

Ecosystem? 

N =8 Percentage 

Fertilizers/Nutrients 6 75% 

Pesticides 5 63% 

Industry (paper mills, chemical plants, etc.) 5 63% 

Motorboats 5 63% 

Noise Pollution 4 50% 

Light pollution 3 38% 

Mercury 4 50% 

Lead 4 50% 

Visibility impairment due to smog 2 25% 

Contaminants within the food chain 5 63% 

Increased development 4 50% 

Mining 6 75% 

 

Comments: 

 a. Use sound scientific evidence. 

 b. Anything harmful, smoke 

 c. Eliminate the use of internal combustion engines 

 d. Mining seems likely to be a problem 

 e. All harm-vs benefit (i.e. motorboats and access) 

 f. 4-stroke outboard motors 

Wetland Management 

What makes the Okefenokee Swamp valuable to you? 

N = 7 Percentage 

As a place for wildlife and plant observation 7 100% 

As a wild and natural place 7 100% 

As a place for recreation opportunities 6 86% 

As a water storage basin 6 86% 

As a research area 5 71% 
230 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

As an educational facility 6 86% 

As a filter of contaminants 5 71% 

As a barrier for managing wildfires 4 57% 

Other 3 43% 

Other: 

 a. Water storage 

 b. Current management good 

 c: Keep open water trails 

Wildlife Management 

Are any of the following of interest to you in regard to wilderness designation? 

Airboat use 2 29% 

Motorboat use 3 43% 

Helicopter use 2 29% 

Use of minimum tools 3 43% 

Wilderness ethics 4 57% 

Endangered species management 4 57% 

Public use facilities 3 43% 

Wildlife surveys 4 57% 

Prescribed burning and wildfire surveillance 3 43% 

Other 6 86% 

Other: 

 a: RCW survive w/out help? Preserve RCW in LLP 

 b: No motorboats/helicopters. Don’t overdue airboat 

 c: Use most efficient tool - SOP good 

 d: More and longer foot trails 

 e: Open middle fork to motors 

 f: Publication needed 
Section B. Appendices 231 

Public Use 

Are you concerned with any of the following in relation to public use opportunities? 

N = 9 Percentage 

Recreation use fees 3 33% 

Visitor Centers (East and West entrances) 2 22% 

Services provided on-site 2 22% 

Environmental education on and off site 3 33% 

Observation towers 4 44% 

Cultural interpretation/Exhibits 3 33% 

Walking trails 4 44% 

Picnic areas 1 11% 

Group facilities 0 0% 

Access 3 33% 

Day canoeing and boating 5 55% 

Overnight canoe trips 4 44% 

Fishing 3 33% 

Wildlife Observation 5 55% 

Photography 4 44% 

Hunting 0 0% 

Biking 2 22% 

Camping 4 44% 

Special events 3 33% 

Concessionaires 3 33% 

Public tours 0 0% 

Stephen C. Foster State Park facilities and interpretation 3 33% 

Okefenokee Swamp Park interpretation 3 33% 

Comments: 

 a: Love boardwalk/tower, need one on west 

 b: Excess of use 

 c: 10% total for public use is good; keep facilities on edge 

 d: No more concessions; access 

 e: Current level good 

 f: More trails; fee mini 

 g: Wish no motorboats, balance OK 

 h: T-Plus Notes 
232 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Education 

What educational opportunities are important to you? 

N = 9 Percentage 

Visitor Centers and displays 5 55% 

Interpretive signs along trails 5 55% 

Guided tours 2 22% 

Newspaper/magazine articles 3 33% 

Television programs 3 33% 

Special Events presentations 4 44% 

Internet 1 11% 

Off-site education 3 33% 

Student education 2 22% 

Teacher education 2 22% 

GSAMS 1 11% 

Educational and research center 4 44% 

Other 8 88% 

Other: 

 a: Promote as International attraction 

 b: Over ed brings undesirable elements 

 c: Planning good; Remote methods good 

 d: Educating public on ecosystems 

 e: VC worth the $ 

 f: Outreach (Atlanta); Volunteer for education 

 g: Conflict w/more PU and solitude/wilderness 

 h: One comprehensive book 
Section B. Appendices 233 

What concerns do you have related to research that is conducted on the refuge? 

N = 8 Percentage 

Too many researchers 0 0% 

Long-term monitoring 2 25% 

Specific short-term research 4 50% 

Special Use Permit process 1 13% 

Proposed Educational and Research Center 5 63% 

Comments: 

 a: Ed center great, remove markers, PU capacity 

 b: Observe as is, time and nature prevail 

 c: Research acceptable deeper in swamp 

 d: Center decent idea 

 e: More if no harm, positive for resources 

 f: Need understanding to manage; human impact; fire; con 

 g: Species recovery and surrounding area 

 h: Impacts of surrounding land use practices 

Partnerships 

What type of partnerships and joint projects would you like to see the refuge get involved with? 

Comments: 

 a: Positive interest 

 b: GA Wildlife Federation 

 c: Better/stronger partnerships/meaningful work for Vol’s 

 d: The Nature Conservancy 

 e: Look at small Oke oriented businesses as partners 

Acquisition 

Do you have any concerns relates to the expansion of Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge if 

suitable land was available? 

Comments: 

 a: Ecological beneficial; buffer area 

 b: Is buying an option? 

 c: Anxious about Dupont 

 d: Go forward before too late 

 e: Support adjacent land acquisition 

 
234 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Cultural Resources 

Are there other area or buildings that should be considered for additional protection? 

Comments 

 a: Treat like the natural resources 

 b: Leave as is 

 c: Good condition OK otherwise no 

 d: Keep good reminder of the past 

 e: Honey is hunting shanty 

 f: Zen philosophy: Let Go 

 g: CCC camp 

Comments Received Via Letter (includes FAX) and Phone 

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

No Comment

31 Letter Sept 

27, 

2001 

Tallahassee, FL • Florida’s Department of Community Affairs 

Hunting

26 Phone Sept 

4, 

2001 

Jacksonville, FL • Continue hunting on refuge. 

• Include an archery hunt on Billys Island. 

40 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Ashville, NC • Have special hunts to control the wild boars. 

Eradicate them. 

43 Phone Oct 

16, 

2001 

Jacksonville, FL • Glad to have hunting on “The Pocket” 

again. 

• Likes to camp at Stephen Foster State 

Park. 

• Consider an archery season in November. 

With the current West Nile Virus scare, 

hesitant to camp out during warmer 

weather. 

Wilderness

27 Letter Oct13, 

2001 

Grangeville, ID • No motorized activity including helicopters 

on islands. 

• Re-evaluate need for day-use shelters. Use 

tents. 

• Fire is a natural thing and should not be 

extinguished. Reduce fuels near structures. 

• No predator control. 
Section B. Appendices 235 

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

28 Letter Oct 

10,200

1 

Boulder, CO • No motorboats on trails in Wilderness. 

• Use non-motorized watercraft for 

maintenance of boat trails and accessing 

other resources. 

• Re-evaluate need for day-use shelters. 

• Use canoe and rowboat for wildlife surveys. 

No helicopters. 

• Let burn and establish fuel breaks along the 

refuge boundary rather than use helicopters 

for prescribed burns and water drops. 

• No predator control. 

• Research carried out in wilderness utilizes 

compatible methods, unless incompatible 

methods are absolutely necessary to assure 

T&E survival. 

• Comply with “minimum requirements” and 

“minimum tool analysis” prior to approval of 

mechanized use. 

29 Letter Oct 

13, 

2001 

Minneapolis, MN • Same as #28 

30 Letter Oct 

30, 

2001 

Wilderness 

Watch, Policy 

Dir, Missoula, 

MT 

• Same as #28. 

• Protection of wilderness character be 

formally recognized in the CCP as one of 

the refuge’s primary purposes. 

• Remove day-use shelters or provide a 

written minimum requirement analysis that 

documents their necessity for protecting the 

wilderness area. 

• Prohibit commercial enterprises in 

Wilderness. 

• Habitat manipulation allowed if critical to the 

recovery of a T&E species. 

• Management-ignited prescribed burns are 

an intentional manipulation of wilderness 

and should not be allowed in the 

Okefenokee Wilderness. It may be used if 

necessary for the recovery or survival of a 

T&E species. 

• Natural processes should prevail. 
236 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

33 Letter Nov 1, 

2001 

GA Chapter Of 

Wilderness 

Watch 

• Scientific research outside the wilderness if 

possible. 

• No predator control. 

• Let natural fires burn. 

• Trail maintenance, wildlife surveys and 

other management activities conduct by 

canoe, not airboat or helicopters. 

34 Letter Nov 1, 

2001 

El Cerrito, CA • First six comments in Letter #28. 

• Include the following from the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s draft policy in the CCP: 

“We strongly influence public education and 

wilderness ethic formation by the way we 

conduct our business in the wilderness. We 

must always be aware of the message our 

activities convey about appropriate 

wilderness behavior, norms, and attitudes.” 

(610 FW 4.10) 

35 Letter Oct 

22, 

2001 

Bellaire, TX • Same as letter #28 

• People can walk to RCW clusters to 

conduct monitoring, like they do in Texas. 

• Oppose use of gas powered weed eaters in 

RCW areas. 

40 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Ashville, NC • Fewer motorboats on canoe trails. 

• Oppose the conversion of the Orange trail 

between 12-15 mile markers to a motorboat 

trail. 

45 Letter Dec 

3,2001 

Wilderness 

Society, Atlanta, 

GA 

• SOP’s have very little discussion on 

“minimum requirements” and “minimum tool 

requirements”. 

• Large number and intrusiveness of nonconforming activities. 

• Public has not had the opportunity for 

review and comment on these activities. 

• Consider hand tools or another device 

instead of weed-eaters. 

• Look at options other than helicopters to 

reach islands. 

• Motorboats should no longer be used within 

the wilderness for maintenance of “canoe 

only” trails. 

• Use non-motorized watercraft for 

maintenance of trails and other resources. 

• Adopt the Carhart model for minimum 
Section B. Appendices 237 

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

requirement analysis. 

• No controlled burns should be done within 

the Wilderness except for the recovery or 

survival of a T&E species. 

• Increase educational program on 

wilderness. 

• Daily visitors within the Wilderness should 

be limited. - Study the number of daily 

visitors that should be allowed within the 

wilderness and establish measures to keep 

the level to reasonable numbers. 

• There should be few motorized boat trails 

within the wilderness except those used for 

RCW management. 

Land Conservation

32 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Sierra Club, 

Middletown, DE 

• Purchase or establish conservation 

easements on areas identified in the 

DuPont No-Mining Agreement. The 7500 

acres along the Suwannee Canal Rd and 

swamp fingers on the east edge should be 

permanently protected. 

• Provide mechanisms to acquire land 

outside the Perimeter Rd. 

41 Letter Nov 

24, 

2001 

Augusta, GA • Make acquiring upland land your high 

priority. 

• Fish and Wildlife Service should purchase 

land or conservation easements of areas 

identified in the DuPont No-Mining 

Agreement. 

• Link the Okefenokee habitat with the 

Pinhook Swamp and Osceola National 

Forest. 

• Link with the corridor along the Suwannee 

River. 
238 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

44 Letter Nov 

27, 

2001 

Arlington, VA • Purchase or establish conservation 

easements on areas identified in the 

DuPont No-Mining Agreement. The 7500 

acres along the Suwannee Canal Rd and 

swamp fingers on the east edge should be 

permanently protected. 

• Link the Okefenokee habitat with the 

Pinhook Swamp and Osceola National 

Forest. 

• Link with the corridor along the Suwannee 

River. 

Land Management

32 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Sierra Club, 

Middletown, DE 

• Management partnerships should be 

encouraged to protect wildlife on adjacent 

private lands. 

• Educate the public on Fire program with 

neighbors (GOAL). 

• Include funding needs for the restoration of 

the “sill area”. 

• Work with neighboring communities and 

counties to protect the entire watershed. 

Sprawl development should not be allowed. 

38 Letter Oct 

19, 

2001 

Georgia 

Canoeing 

Association, Inc 

• Supports current mission statement. 

• Supports planned removal of the Suwannee 

Sill. 

• Promotes natural fire cycle to prolong the 

swamp’s wetlands. 

• Support no-mining option in DuPont 

agreement. 

40 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Ashville, NC • Concerned about fertilizers/nutrients, and 

pesticides used outside the refuge causing 

water contamination within the refuge. 

• Water contamination from 2-stroke engines. 

• Elevated levels of mercury and lead a 

concern for public health and the health of 

the ecosystem. 

• Increased development in north Florida may 

put constraints on management of fires. 

• May mining of titanium dioxide never happen. 

Take steps to prevent it in the future. 

• Protect waters/soils from further degradation 

in pH and contaminants which work their 

way into the food chain to the detriment of 

the fish and wildlife populations. 
Section B. Appendices 239 

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

• Eradicate all invasive exogenous species. 

• Continue to restore the longleaf 

pine/wiregrass ecosystem and other native 

habitats. 

41 Letter Nov 

24, 

2001 

Augusta, GA • Encourage partnerships with adjacent 

landowners for management of wildlife on 

private lands. 

• Continue restoration of longleaf pine habitat 

in upland areas and develop demonstration 

project for visitors to see restoration of 

endangered species habitat. 

• Protect and restore wetlands in neighboring 

uplands areas surrounding the refuge. 

• Protect refuge from development in the 

watershed and in particular storm water run 

off and septic tanks. 

42 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Athens, GA • Concern: Ecological damage associated 

with anthropogenic perturbations of the 

surficial aquifer. 

• Oke staff needs to take an aggressively 

active role in determining the fate 

of/restoring the regional groundwater 

resources (Floridan aquifer system). 

• Include provisions for staff to formally 

oppose activities proposed exterior to the 

refuge boundaries that will result in 

additional groundwater alternations within 

the refuge. 

• Contact the director of USGS and the 

Governors of GA and FL to request 

information on historic groundwater 

withdrawals to address the best approach 

for restoring the groundwater resources that 

historically supported the Okefenokee 

Swamp but have been diverted by man for 

off-site use. 

44 Letter Nov 

27, 

2001 

Arlington, VA • Make conservation of a greater land area 

within the watershed a priority by protecting 

through purchase or partnerships. 

• Protect the watershed from encroaching 

development. 

• Restore habitat for endangered species and 

publicize these efforts. 

• Continue your natural fire cycle program 
240 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

and education. 

• Seek fund to restore the Sill area. 

45 Letter Dec 

3,2001 

Wilderness 

Society, Atlanta, 

GA 

• Monitor water quality on a regular basis to 

compare levels of contamination. 

• Educate adjacent landowners about the 

possible effects of agricultural practices on 

the water quality. 

Public Use

32 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Sierra Club, 

Middletown, DE 

• Prepare properly for visitation to the area - 

bathroom space and upgrades to the 

concession area. 

36 Letter Oct 2, 

2001 

Orchard Lake, 

MI 

• Need more outreach programs and take the 

opportunity to give impromptu lectures and 

tours when situations arise. 

• There is a lack of a public presence of 

refuge personnel within the refuge. 

• Adopt zero tolerance for law enforcement. 

• Give volunteers magnetic signs for their 

personal vehicles to give them credibility 

and deter wildlife harassment. 

• Interpretive signs needed. (Possibly in 

stairwell of the tower.) 

• Okefenokee lacking in interpretative tools. 

• Construct a new overnight cabin at Big 

Water for use by motor boat visitors only. 

• Create a Chesser Island Hiking Trail from 

cabin site across from the Homestead to 

Francis Harper’s vacation cabin. 

• Create new swamp boardwalks from 

Suwannee Canal to Bugaboo Island, and to 

Cypress head in Grand Prairie. 

• Build a 10-12 ft observation platform just off 

the boardwalk at the prairie area before 

getting to the tower. 

37 Letter Sep 

20, 

2001 

Charlton County 

Family 

Connection, 

Folkston, GA 

• Great activities, events, cooperation with 

educators and children’s groups at the 

refuge. 

• Still a lack of appreciation for the natural 

resources in the surrounding area by the 

local community. More outreach is needed. 
Section B. Appendices 241 

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

38 Letter Oct 

19, 

2001 

Georgia 

Canoeing 

Association, Inc 

• Supports gradual addition of overnight 

canoe-only trails to enable more to 

experience the Okefenokee. 

39 Letter Sep 4, 

2001 

Swamp Park, 

Waycross, GA 

• All three entrances need to promote 

visitation. 

• Lobby for advertising dollars. 

• Establish a driving tour around the swamp 

so all 3 entrances/counties will benefit. 

• Provide shuttle service package to all 3 

entrances during peak times. 

• Routinely cut all trails with goal of entrance to 

entrance boat tours during peak water levels. 

• Make fire reports less destructive to the 

tourist business. 

40 Letter Nov 

29, 

2001 

Ashville, NC • Expand the education of adults and school 

children. 

• Education and Research Center is timely. 

• Separate canoeists from motor boat users. 

Consider opening old airboat trail. 

• Phase in 4-stroke engines to minimize 

pollution. 

• Okefenokee Adventures doing well in 

providing quality items and using 4-stroke 

engines. 

• Increased development in north Florida will 

put a burden on resources by visitors. 

• Okefenokee provides humans a place to 

relieve the stresses and cares of our hectic 

lives. 

41 Letter Nov 

24, 

2001 

Augusta, GA • Bathroom facilities are needed on the 

eastern side of the refuge with bathroom 

spaces. 

25 Letter Dec 

03, 

2001 

Okefenokee 

Pastimes, 

Folkston, GA 

• Entice visitors to stay longer in the area. 

• Twenty percent entrance fee is too high to 

go to a private business (concession). All 

Duck Stamp money should go to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

• First contact at the refuge should be by a 

refuge staff or uniformed Fish and Wildlife 

Service volunteer. The private business 

may promote their business over refuge 

opportunities. 
242 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

Number 

Contact 

Type Date Location Comments 

• VC is hard to see. VC should be the focus 

and starting point for the public. 

• Commercial fee collection process should 

be re-examined. The concession (as a 

competing business) should not be 

responsible for collecting and enforcing 

commercial fees on their competitors for 

sales of the same services. 

• The $25 fee makes it impossible to rent a 

boat to our guests that do not have a means 

to transport it. 

• More and longer walking trails with more 

substantial interpretive materials are 

needed. 

• Establish a bike trail from the entrance all 

the way to the boardwalk. 

• Bring back “Sandhill Crane Awareness 

Day”. “Wings over the Swamp” sounds like 

a military air show. 

• Have Friends Group eventually take over 

the concession. Create more trails for 

paddlers and loop trails. Create a loop trail 

in Mizell prairie back to the Orange trail. 

• The minority cultures (Black and Native 

American) should be given more of a 

presence than they currently have. 

43 Phone Oct 

16, 

2001 

Jacksonville, FL • Cut trail into Blackjack Lake again. 

Comments Received During Public Workshops 

Homerville, GA September 18, 2001 10 people

• Any species needing special protection or emphasis? 

• Concern with bass fishery and acid deposition. 

• What, if any, land acquisition/wilderness increase is planned? 

• Long range plan for Suwannee River Sill? 

• Feasibility of public access to Suwannee River and parking lot location? 

• Plans for facilities/public use within the swamp? 

• Plans for hunting on the refuge? 

• Proposed routes for long-distance hiking trails? Overnight routes? 

• Air quality measuring? 

• How does industry submit paperwork? 

• When are we going to get rid of outboard motors in the swamp? 
Section B. Appendices 243 

• Public takes this national refuge for granted. 

• Would like to see turkey hunting on “The Pocket”. 

• Status of the bear population and close encounters with the public. 

St George, GA September 20, 2001 5 people

• Status of the Sill in the CCP. 

• What is the optimal amount of public use? 

• Current annual visitation? 

• Why is visitation going down? Discuss trends, fires, drought, fuel prices. 

• Is cultural resources inventory included in plan? Interpret and educate. 

• Is there a site on West Side comparable to Chesser Island Homestead? 

• Impacts on visitation from new amphitheater and 4-laning of Hwy 40. 

• Alternate means of transporting visitors to various refuge entrances, based on historical or 

interpretive themes. 

• Concern with trophy hunting. 

• St. Marys has lots of garbage that should be dealt with. 

• Where is wilderness vs non? 

• What is a fire-dependent community? 

• How may acres burned on the St George fire? How was the fire started? 

• Why do you prescribe burn? 

• What is the periodic prescribed burn ratios? 

• Do animals get caught in the fire? 

• What happens if a fire gets out of control? 

• Do the trees burned by the fire get logged? 

• Why is there less than 438K acres in refuge? 

• When does the 15-year period begin? 

• What is land acquisition priority? 

• Has refuge land been logged? 

• What types of trees would be logged in relation to horse drawn logging operations? 

• Describe ecosystem based partnerships and research... 

• Hoping OERC will bring long-term research - maybe use private lands for research that may 

involve habitat damage. Hope there is place for refuge staff on OERC board. 

• Research on how to eliminate palmetto and gallberry. 

• What is the relationship with wilderness groups? 

• How many RCW clusters and where? Any in slash pine areas. 

• Do we have partnerships along the south side to connect the refuge with Osceola NF? 

• How does Oke rank in RCW compared with other RCW areas? 

• Have we altered management in last few years-Fish and Wildlife Service, Landowners, Forest 

Service? 

• Do we need artificial inserts to kickstart a colony? 

Fargo, GA September 25, 2001 6 people 

• Has there been a written management plan before? 

• How will the CCP change day-to-day management after it is written? 

• Are there any proposed changes to management plan by the refuge? 

• Swamp boundary vs refuge boundary? 

• Are there plans to add more wilderness? What is not included? 
244 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge

• Are there areas that can be included in wilderness? 

• Are there plans for federal ownership of area south of Eddy Tower (Pinhook) (either Forest 

Service or Fish and Wildlife Service)? 

• What endangered species exist on the refuge? 

• Concern with water flows. 

• Status of the sill: Good to re-connect river and swamp. 

• What is the status of water quality in regard to Fisheries in comparison to Suwannee River, St. 

Marys and Alapaha Rivers? 

• Is tanic acid related to burning? 

• Discussion on pH levels in the swamp and the Suwannee River, the sources of pH, fisheries 

studies, effects of droughts, and the changing fish composition. 

• Do you test pH throughout the swamp? 

• How many monitoring stations in the swamp and where are they? 

• When does pH effect non-game species? 

• Does high water effect non-game species? 

• What is the pH of rain? 

• Do shiners respond to low pH? 

• Which areas have warmouth been found? 

• Will bluegills come from the Swamp? 

• Bluegill would be the species that would be used to stock with. 

• Are there any indications of small game fish? 

• Are prey fish plentiful for wading birds? 

• Questions about Toledo property and DuPont’s mining proposal status. 

• Why has visitation dropped since 1996? Compare with other similar sites nationwide? 

• Is recreation addressed in the CCP? 

• Increase visibility in St Simons, Jekyll Island, Jacksonville, Savannah, Amelia Island, 

Tallahassee, St Augustine, Atlanta, Macon, Tifton, Valdosta. 

• Need no negative media coverage in regards to fires, droughts, etc. 

• Is there a limitation on numbers of visitors? Is there discussions on limiting numbers? 

• Are there plans to open additional trails? 

• Current and future hunting opportunities. 

Waycross, GA September 27, 2001 9 people

• Keep it wild and natural. 

• Refuge staff is watching over it with care. 

• Remember what refuge was for. 

• Work towards restoring longleaf pine communities. 

• Work with neighbors to enhance RCW habitat. 

• What can be done about the hazards of fire - smoke, escape, changing winds, protecting 

human interests. 

• Current management practices surrounding the swamp and the draining of forest lands. 

• Plans for long term water management such as the Sill area? 

• Is mercury monitored in downstream release (Sill)? 

• What is the status of the DuPont issue? 

• Do not allow mining of titanium near or on the refuge. 

• Who will own DuPont land if issue is resolved? 

• Protect it from outside influences - DuPont, mercury, development 
Section B. Appendices 245 

• How can we protect swamp perimeter as rural populations increase? 

• Are density control/zoning options feasible? 

• Conservation easements? 

• Do not allow 4-wheelers, etc., to tear up trails. Start controls now. 

• Do not allow the construction of a highway from US 1 to Homerville. 

• Do we foresee long-term changes with outboard motor size? Restrictions cause limitations in 

accessibility. 

Folkston, GA October 4, 2001 10 people 

• Are other federal agencies involved in the plan? 

• Will local communities have the opportunity to comment on the plan before implementation? 

• What is the timeline for implementation of the CCP? Funds for implementation? 

• How are we promoting wiregrass? 

• Are we doing thinning in timber stands and with what? 

• Pine thinning is good for habitat and forest health. 

• Is longleaf pine being planted along the perimeter of the swamp on private lands? 

• Are we improving longleaf pine stands through burning? 

• Are we conducting prescribed fires similar to operations off-refuge? 

• What is the public response to the fire program? 

• Demonstration site on prescribed burning on the wildlife drive is effective for the visitors. 

• Prescribed burning has been good for wildlife habitat and the reduction of hazardous fuels. 

• How are fires within the swamp (lightning) handled? 

• Discussion on RCW and habitat needs. 

• What happens to the woodpeckers you re-locate? 

• Are they re-located within the refuge? 

• How do you get a count of the woodpeckers? 

• How many migratory birds come to the swamp? 

• What are the results of the black bear study? 

• Will the CCP address water quality effects from neighbors? Are we alerted to spraying? 

• What is the source of mercury in the swamp/air? 

• Are we seeing the effects of acid rain? 

• Mercury fish advisory in the swamp-based on consumption frequency, common in blackwater 

systems of the area. 

• Describe the wilderness area on the map. 

• Will the impact/use of mechanized equipment in wilderness area be addressed in CCP? 

• Describe future land acquisition plans. 

• What is the status of acquisition south of the swamp (Rayonier)? Will it be addressed in the 

CCP? 

• What is the status of DuPont mining on the border of the refuge? 

• Characterize current partnerships/working relationships, i.e. habitat management and 

watersheds. 

• Advantages of GOAL 

• Current water levels and accessibility of the shelters. 

• Concern about staffing; management vs. workers. 

• The use of AmeriCorps and volunteers to accomplish projects. 
246 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge
Section B. Appendices 247 

Appendix X. Public Review Comments and 

Service Responses 

COMMENTS ON THE REFUGE’S DRAFT CCP AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

This section summarizes the 17 public comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Public comments were accepted in writing from August 1 to September 16, 2005, and at public 

forums held on August 23, 25, and 30, 2005. 

Public Forums 

During the August 1 – September 16, 2005, public review period, the refuge hosted three public 

forums: August 23 in Waycross, Georgia at the Regional Development Center, August 25 in 

Folkston, Georgia at the Okefenokee Education and Research Center, and August 30 in Fargo, 

Georgia at the Charter School. Each forum began at 6:30 with a half hour open house where 

individuals could discuss issues with the refuge staff. From 7:00 to approximately 7:30, an overview 

of the comprehensive conservation planning process, the alternatives, and the proposed action was 

presented and questions were answered by refuge staff. This was followed by a formal comment 

period where individuals could stand and present official verbal comments. A court reporter was on 

hand to record these comments. Of the three sessions, only one individual chose to make a 

comment during the Waycross session. Seven individuals attended the Waycross forum, 17 attended 

the Folkston forum, and 17 attended the Fargo forum. 

Comment Media 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: 1 verbal (given at the public forums); 5 email messages; 10 written letters; 

and 1 completed comment sheet. 

Geographic Origin of Respondents 

The geographic origins of the individual respondents included 12 from Georgia; 2 from Florida; 1 from 

North Carolina; 1 from New Jersey; and 1 from Minnesota . 
248 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Affiliations of Respondents 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of respondents. 

Name of Respondent Affiliation 

Martin Bell Okefenokee Swamp Park 

Waycross, Georgia 

L. Futch/M. Jacobs Georgia State Clearinghouse 

Southeast Georgia Regional Development 

Center, Atlanta, Georgia 

Collis Brown Georgia State Clearinghouse 

Environmental Protection Division/Flood Plain 

Management 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Wesley Abler Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Fitzgerald, Georgia 

Jo and Steve Knight Okefenokee Pastimes 

Folkston, Georgia 

Sally B. Mann Department of Environmental Protection 

Tallahassee, Florida 

Jim Barrett The Langdale Company and GOAL 

Wayne Kilmark Ware County Planning and Codes Waycross, 

Georgia 

Jerry McCollum Georgia Wildlife Federation 

Covington, Georgia 

Summary of Concerns and the Service’s Responses 

Four individuals made comments in support of the plan. These four individuals were affiliated with 

Ware County Planning and Codes, Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, and Georgia Wildlife Federation. Also, the National Wildlife 

Federation agreed with the choice of Integrated Landscape Management for managing the 

Okefenokee Refuge, as well as the use of prescribed burning on the refuge. 

The Georgia State Clearinghouse reviewed the draft document and found it “to be consistent with 

those state or regional goals, policies, plans, fiscal resources, criteria for developments of regional 

impact, environmental impacts, federal executive orders, acts and/or rules and regulations with which 

this organization is concerned.” 

In addition, the Florida State Clearinghouse’s review determined that the proposed activities within 

the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment are consistent with 

the Florida Coastal Management Program. 
Section B. Appendices 249 

Comments in reference to grammar, word “smithing,” and information corrections were considered 

and the document changed if the refuge team found it appropriate. The public comments related to 

management strategies are categorized and summarized below followed by a response from the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Wildlife Management 

Comment: Research the impact alligators have on the closure of prairies and changes in the 

landscape. 

To capture this potential impact on the landscape of the Okefenokee Refuge, we have added a 

strategy to Wildlife Management Objective 3 (Strategy 3.8.). 

Comment: More information on the past sightings of the ivory-billed woodpecker and the potential 

habitat that may exist on the refuge today should be included. 

With the recent discovery of ivory-billed woodpeckers on refuges in Arkansas and a past presence of 

this species in the Okefenokee Refuge, a strategy for surveying appropriate habitat was added along 

with additional information to the narrative. 

Comment: Do not discontinue bald eagle count. 

In response to this comment, additional information was added to the presentation on fauna 

discussing the refuge’s past bald eagle survey efforts. Considering the cost of an aerial survey, time 

commitment, lack of observations and contribution to the national picture, the refuge elected to 

maintain its original strategy but continue to record all bald eagle sightings throughout the year for the 

refuge files. 

Comment: Survey osprey nests by helicopter during the non-nesting period. 

The refuge decided to maintain the original strategy of surveying osprey nests because the purpose 

is to determine reproduction effort and the current distribution of osprey nests in relation to 

environmental conditions. Adult birds and eggs/young would not be present at these sites during 

non-nesting periods. 

Comment: The wildlife management goal should include strategies for potential panther 

reintroduction. 

The refuge was unaware at the time of writing the draft plan and the environmental assessment that a 

recently completed study rated Okefenokee Refuge one of the top three locations suitable for the 

reintroduction of Florida panthers based on suitable amount of acreage for dispersal and expansion 

and the amount of roadless area. As the researchers mentioned, the decision to reintroduce 

panthers into an area will be heavily weighted by sociological factors rather than biological findings. 

This corrected information will be included in the narrative. Wildlife Management Strategy 1.11 

covers the evaluation of potential reintroductions of threatened and endangered species, which 

includes the Florida panther. In addition, a strategy has been included to examine closely the Draft 

Panther Recovery Plan (Wildlife Management Strategy 1.17). 
250 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Resource Protection 

Comment: No new roads should be built on the refuge. 

There are no plans to create new roads on the refuge. 

Comment: Logging, drilling, grazing, and mining should be banned from the refuge. 

Drilling, grazing, and mining are not authorized uses of the refuge and would require a NEPA 

evaluation, positive compatibility determination, and an amendment to this comprehensive 

conservation plan before any of these uses could be authorized. Logging, as a means of improving 

habitat conditions for native species, is an authorized use. In the early 1900s, logging changed the 

landscape. Fast growing species replaced the native longleaf pine stands that covered the 

southeast. The refuge’s goal is to restore the native plant communities gradually in order to continue 

to provide adequate habitat for the native wildlife species. As the native plant communities are 

restored and begin to age, less direct management will be necessary. 

Comment: Prescribed burning should not be allowed due to the resulting particulates that are 

released into the atmosphere. Support prescribed burning when the water table is high to reduce fuel 

load and lessen chances of wildfires. 

Prescribed burning is a necessary management tool that is used to simulate natural fire cycles. The 

importance of fire to the conservation of the Okefenokee landscape is described in the Refuge 

Environment section, Historical/Ecological Role of Natural Events in the comprehensive conservation 

plan. In addition, the use of prescribed fire reduces fuel loads, not to lessen the chances of wildfires, 

but as a means to reduce the chances that certain natural resources may be compromised when a 

large natural fire sweeps across the landscape. For these reasons, the refuge supports the use of 

prescribed fire and is not able to honor the recommendation to stop the use of fire. To help in 

minimizing the impacts of smoke to local highways and communities, transport winds are considered 

prior to a prescribed burn. 

Comment: There is a need to hire a field botanist to inventory the refuge flora. 

The refuge recognizes the need for a field botanist periodically. The optimal staffing chart does not 

specifically identify a botanist but rather identifies biological technicians and term biologists. These 

positions were intended to be filled with technicians as well as specialists, such as a field botanist, as 

resources become available and the need escalates. Volunteer botanists have assisted the refuge in 

compiling the current plant list in Appendix IV in the comprehensive conservation plan. It is compiled 

from various sources within the refuge files. It serves as a base that can be expanded upon. 

Comment: Investigate archaeological and historic sites on the refuge, especially within isolated 

areas. Another high priority for identification and investigation of sites should be on the newly 

acquired land along the eastern boundary. These sites may be most vulnerable. 

This recommendation is adequately captured in Resource Protection Strategy 5.1 that deals with the 

creation of a catalog of the archaeological sites on the refuge. This effort will be expanded to include 

those sites on newly acquired lands. 

Comment: A comprehensive description of the structure and function of the pond cypress forests is 

included in the publications by William Schlesinger. 
Section B. Appendices 251 

Reference to Schlesinger’s work on the cypress forests of the Okefenokee Swamp has been 

incorporated into the descriptions of the vegetation cover types. 

Comment: The “pre-European settlement” term is confusing. This time period may be better 

identified by the term “pre-logging” or “pre-industrial” environment. 

This comment caused refuge staff to review the use of the term “pre-European settlement” in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Although “pre-European settlement” is recognizable as a time 

when people started settling in the area and manipulating the landscape in small patches, the Refuge 

Manual (601FW3) provides policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health and 

defines the term “historic condition” as the composition, structure, and functioning of ecosystems 

resulting from natural processes that were present prior to substantial human-related changes to the 

landscape. To be consistant with Service policy, “pre-European settlement” was replaced with 

“historic condition” in the goals, objectives, and strategies of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Comment: Agreement with the breaching of the Suwannee River Sill to re-establish a more natural 

hydroperiod in the swamp and to restore the river floodplain of the Suwannee River. 

This management action was identified in Resource Strategy 2.11 as a result of the Environmental 

Assessment on the Future Management of the Sill, which was completed in 1998, and followed by a 

U.S. Geological Survey study. 

Wilderness Values 

No comments. 

Public Services 

Comment: Develop a multifaceted educational program for adult refuge users, including off-refuge 

via Internet. 

Public Services Strategy 6.15 has been added to include an educational program for adult users of 

the refuge. 

Comment: Include Braille on interpretive signs and more handicap accessible trails in the Refuge 

Trail System. 

Public Services Strategy 5.6 encourages the development of accessible trails at all entrances. 

Evaluating the feasibility of including Braille on interpretive signs has been included in Public Services 

Strategy 7.3. 

Comment: Hunting and trapping should be banned on the refuge. 

We could not honor this recommendation because hunting is one of the six priority uses that the 

refuge system supports. The refuge provides a hunt area open to the public in a landscape 

dominated by private hunt clubs. Trapping is not currently allowed or proposed. 
252 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment: Supports safe archery opportunities on “The Pocket” and Billys Island. Expand 

opportunities to extend through regular state firearms season when the weather is colder and dryer. 

Also, hunting opportunities around Christmas would allow college students a chance to hunt. 

Public Services Objective 3 commits the refuge to evaluating individualized hunting opportunities and 

expand them where appropriate. The expansion of the archery season through the state’s firearms 

season and including other areas of the refuge will be evaluated as this objective is addressed in the 

future. 

Comment: Cut a boat trail to Bugaboo Island so the public could see this island and learn about its 

history. 

A trail historically existed to Bugaboo Island from the Suwannee Canal; however, this trail was not 

designated on the Wilderness Map as an existing trail to be maintained through the establishing 

Wilderness Legislation. Report Number 93-872 stated that certain relocations or modest additions 

may be desirable and necessary but the Committee “does not favor any major expansion of the trail 

system beyond the approximately 120 miles now in existence.” The island was accessed by refuge 

staff via this trail in the 1980s on occasion. Scrub/shrub dominates the habitat between the island 

and the canal making it difficult to maintain on a regular basis. Also, low water levels add to the 

difficulty in using this trail consistently. When the water is high, the island is generally wet. Because 

of these reasons, the refuge staff has decided to not re-establish this trail for public access. 

Comment: As exhibits are improved or revised within the visitor center, bring back the old type of 

displays on the flora and fauna of the swamp. 

There are no strategies listed in this comprehensive conservation plan that address new exhibits for 

the Visitor Center. New exhibits were installed in 2000. Generally, exhibits are in place for 

approximately 20 years prior to any major revisions. As this issue is brought to the forefront, whether 

it be replacing one exhibit or all of them, the types of exhibits to replace the current ones will be 

discussed. 

Comment: Increase “events” pertaining to life in the swamp using the Chesser Island Homestead. 

We believe this recommendation is adequately captured in Public Services Strategy 7.9. The 

Okefenokee Festival highlights this culture. This site is often included in tours of the refuge and 

interpretation is given during the peak visitation times. Public services will strive to include cultural 

interpretation as part of our overall goal of increasing public awareness and understanding of the 

refuge’s unique natural and cultural values. 

Comment: Shift priorities to support an increase in public use (eco-tourism) and financially promote 

the Okefenokee swamp as a nature-based educational attraction. 

We agree with the intent of this comment that the refuge should work closely with regional and local 

communities, businesses, and civic and conservation organizations to promote eco-tourism as 

captured in Public Services Strategy 1.14 and Partnership Strategy 8.1. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies in the comprehensive conservation plan reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the purpose and vision of Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge. The refuge plans to form close partnerships to ensure that all wildlife-dependent 

recreation and environmental education opportunities are presented to the public. 

 
Section B. Appendices 253 

Comment: Emphasize the visitor center on the newly revised tear sheet rather than the concession. 

A visitor’s first point of contact should be with the national wildlife refuge. 

The refuge staff agrees that the first point of contact should be at the refuge’s visitor center. With 

renovations and new construction, the presence of the visitor center is being emphasized. The 

symbols and locations on the current tear sheet map will be changed in future printings. 

Comment: Consider cutting the Cooter Lake day-use trail twice a year. 

Although trail maintenance is allowed within the Okefenokee Wilderness Area through the wilderness 

legislation, how this is accomplished was not designated within the document. The refuge will 

continue to use the trail cutter to accomplish this task; however, the number of times it enters the 

wilderness in a year will be closely monitored. In most years, the trail cutter will circulate through the 

trails once prior to the peak visitor use period of March and April. As management looks closer at the 

use of the trail cutter in association with water levels and vegetation problems, changes in the trail 

cutter schedule may be warranted. Other means of trail maintenance, such as weekly passes with a 

motorboat, may prove appropriate for the maintenance of trails like Cooter Lake. 

Comment: Consider designating a dock with cleats near the boat launching area where members of 

the public can load and unload their private boats more safely. Also, designate a sandy and/or 

grassy launching area for private individuals to launch their canoes/kayaks. 

Although a public access dock and canoe/kayak launching area are not mentioned in any of the 

strategies, they can be considered under Public Use Strategy 5.1, where access points will be 

evaluated for additional facilities and improvements. This suggestion will be considered especially as 

renovations to the concession and boat launching areas are made. 

Comment: The canoe trails will be open much less after the Suwannee River Sill has been breached 

compared to the mid 1990s. Please put a relatively high financial priority to maintaining the sill/canoe 

trails in such a way that the number of open trail days will exceed 90 percent of the days in the mid-1990s. 

An environmental assessment evaluated the future management of the Suwannee River Sill in 1998. 

Loftin (1998) documented the influence of the Suwannee River Sill on water levels to be within only 1 

percent of the swamp during drought conditions. The only canoe trail within this “zone of influence” 

immediately adjacent to the sill is the Brown Trail that accesses Cravens Hammock. Accessibility of 

the other trails is governed by the distribution and amount of rain throughout the year. Trail 

maintenance can improve access when there is sufficient water by removing vegetation within the 

trail, but it cannot make a trail accessible when there is inadequate water. In our professional 

judgment, accessibility of the trail system will fluctuate from year-to-year but on the average it will 

remain consistent with past years. 

 

Comment: Create a boardwalk system that stretches from the east side of the Okefenokee Swamp to 

the Stephen C. Foster State Park on the west side of the swamp, or create an extension to the 

currently existing boardwalk system throughout the eastern side of the Okefenokee that would allow 

visitors an overnight experience. 

The current boardwalk is located just outside the designated wilderness area. A boardwalk of this size 

and nature as proposed in this comment would be inconsistent with the intent of the Wilderness Act 

since it would cross the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. This 15-mile boardwalk, if built, would require 

significant maintenance and funds. It would also require protection as management tries to allow 
254 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

natural processes, such as fire, to influence the swamp landscape. For these reasons, management 

cannot honor this recommendation. Other opportunities to experience the swamp that would not have 

such an impact on the Wilderness will be evaluated through the Public Services strategies. 

Partnerships 

Comment: Do not form partnerships with local landowners and interested groups who are mostly 

profiteers trying to use national lands without paying a fee. 

Okefenokee Refuge has been nationally recognized both from within the Service and by outside 

organizations for the exemplary partnerships formed in the last decade. As demands increase from a 

growing public, partnerships are critical to the management of the refuge as a part of a larger 

landscape and/or ecosystem. Alternative 4, as discussed in the environmental assessment, treats 

the refuge as an island where the refuge staff concentrates on those resources present on refuge 

lands. Each partnership undertaken under the preferred alternative is evaluated to ensure there is a 

benefit to the refuge or that there are no significant negative consequences. 

Comment: Encourage landowners to extend protection of ephemeral wetlands through the zones of 

influence. 

We believe Resource Protection Strategy 3.7 adequately captures this comment because it 

encourages the protection of ephemeral wetlands as part of the native upland and wetland 

communities off the refuge. In addition, Wildlife Management Objective 4 has several strategies 

related to the protection of ephemeral wetlands and their inhabitants. 

Comment: Develop formal cooperative partnerships at the corridor level to accommodate the 

existence and dispersal of wildlife with large habitat requirements. 

We believe Wildlife Management Objective 7 addresses the need for cooperative management for 

black bears. If other large mammals, such as the Florida panther, are re-introduced into the 

Okefenokee landscape, federal, state and private landowners will be involved as well. 

Administration 

Comment: A refuge is a place of peace, not a killing ground. 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, clearly recognizes and establishes wildlife-dependent recreation as 

a priority public use. Hunting on refuges is encouraged as long as it is compatible with refuge 

purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

Comment: The use of all 2-stroke vehicles should be banned from the refuge. 

The refuge and concessions have moved away from the use of 2-stroke engines and equipment. 

The refuge evaluates the need and the appropriate methods to accomplish refuge management 

activities within the wilderness area through the Minimum Requirement Decision Guide. The public, 

however, may still use 2-stroke outboard motors. 

Comment: The optimal staffing chart is unlikely to be realized. 
Section B. Appendices 255 

The comprehensive conservation plan will guide the refuge through the next 15 years. It is a “road 

map” that will guide the hiring process and direct changes in the organization of the refuge staff as 

positions are filled. The staffing chart demonstrates careful consideration for how the staff would 

work most efficiently and contribute to the long-term goals of the refuge system. 

Comment: There seems to be repetitive listings within the staffing chart such as Administrative Clerks. 

The formatting of the optimal staffing chart in the draft plan obscured the organization within 

programs making it appear to have duplication of positions. This has been corrected in this plan. 

Comment: Administration and public use should be located in the same area and everyone should 

serve one hour per week in the visitor center. 

Staff communication between programs is a well-recognized problem, often times associated with the 

distance between offices. Each facility had special requirements at the time of construction placing 

them at their current locations. As facilities expand to accommodate additional staff, the best 

placement for efficient interactions will be considered. 

On a large refuge, such as Okefenokee, greater staff numbers in various disciplines are needed to 

best manage the resources. There is a division of labor with sufficient overlap, which allows the staff 

to work efficiently; therefore, management is unable to honor the recommendation of all staff 

committing one hour to the visitor center per week. The most efficient visitor center staffing is 

presented in the optimal staffing chart. 

Comment: Promote the Folkston entrance so Swamp Park is not the prominent entrance. 

We recognize the importance of all refuge entrances as centers of eco-tourism and environmental 

education through Public Services Strategy 1.14. In support of this recommendation, the plan focuses 

primarily on the refuge and the opportunities that can be promoted at each entrance. Emphasis is 

placed on the Folkston entrance because the refuge has its headquarters located here along with the 

greatest number of staff, and the greatest number of public services opportunities and facilities. 

Comment: Provide new housing for volunteers, work campers, visitors, etc., by purchasing the old 

Gowen Estate on 121. 

Public Services Strategy 3.3 recognizes the need to develop plans for housing a growing number of 

volunteers, interns, and researchers. Off-refuge sites will be evaluated as they become available for 

consideration. 

Comment: Refuge facilities should be constructed in a sustainable manner, utililizing environmentally 

friendly materials and products in order to minimize any unforeseen impact on wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Administration Strategy 3.7 has been added to encourage the use of environmentally friendly 

construction material and site planning. 

Comment: Use native grasses and shrubbery on the developed refuge upland areas and in turf 

management. 

Resource Protection Strategy 4.6 has been added to encourage the use of native plants in the 

landscape surrounding refuge facilities and in developed upland areas. 
256 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Comment: Encourage law enforcement officers to be courteous to the public. 

Through Administration Objective 5, greater emphasis is placed on the presence of law enforcement 

to educate, assist, and provide information to the public. All employees of the refuge are expected to 

be courteous. 

Comment: How does a Friends Group relate to the current Okefenokee Wildlife League? 

Okefenokee Wildlife League (OWL) is currently a cooperating association as well as a Friends Group. 

There is an opportunity and a need to expand refuge support to other communities around the refuge. 

The organization of a Friends Group that encompasses all the communities is mentioned in 

Administration Strategy 7.2. 

Comment: Purchase or establish conservation easements on the land within the acquisition 

boundary to provide protection from increasing area development. 

Resource Protection Objective 3 contains numerous strategies that address acquisition, partnerships, 

incentives, and easements to conserve the natural resources associated with the health of the 

wetlands and native upland communities of the area. 
Section B. Appendices 257 

Appendix XI. Wilderness Review

I. INTRODUCTION 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy (Sec 602, also Sec 610 of Refuge Manual) requires wilderness 

reviews to be completed as part of the comprehensive conservation planning process. A wilderness 

review is the process used to determine if National Wildlife Refuge System lands and waters should be 

recommended to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of three 

phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at the refuge to identify 

lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness. All areas meeting the criteria are 

classified as wilderness study areas. If such areas are identified, the review moves on to the study phase. 

During the study phase, wilderness study areas are further analyzed for all values (ecological, 

recreational, and cultural), resources (wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, and soils), and uses 

(management and public). The findings of the study determine whether or not the areas merit 

recommendation from the Service to the Secretary for inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

If it is determined during the inventory that no areas qualify as wilderness study areas or if the Service 

concludes from the study that no areas should be recommended as wilderness, a brief report is 

prepared that documents the unsuitability of the lands and waters for wilderness study or 

recommendation. The report is submitted to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Previous Wilderness Review At Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

In 1967, a wilderness study review was conducted for the refuge, which at that time measured 

368,950 acres. The study was completed with substantial public involvement. In 1971, 353,981 

acres were proposed for wilderness designation. In 1974, Congress designated this area as the 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area. 

Five large areas were excluded from the proposed wilderness area and are described below (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1967) 

1) “A 2,800-acre swamp area within the refuge in the vicinity of Camp Cornelia. This area, at the 

east entrance to the swamp, will be required for additional administrative, interpretive, and visitor-use 

facilities to adequately care for the volume of visitors expected in the future.” 

2) “An 8,400-acre swamp area within the refuge at the west entrance into the swamp. This area 

encompasses the facilities of the Stephen Foster State Park, the Suwannee River sill, and the 

intervening area affected by these existing developments. It will also provide space for additional 

administrative, interpretive, and visitor-use facilities needed at this entrance in the future.” 

3) “A 6,500-acre swamp area, just north of the refuge, which is owned by the State of Georgia as 

part of the Waycross State Forest. A portion of this state-owned area is under a long-term lease to 

the Okefenokee Association, Inc., which operates the Okefenokee Swamp Park, the north entrance 

to the swamp.” 
258 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

4) “Refuge management units comprising about 9,800 acres of uplands above the swamp line. 

These units will continue to be managed for wildlife and timber products as they have been since the 

refuge was established. They include Cowhouse Island near the Swamp Park, ““The Pocket”,” which 

contains the paved access road into Stephen Foster Park, the upland area at Camp Cornelia 

extending out to State Highway 23, Chesser Island, Soldier Camp Island, and other units along the 

edge of the refuge.” 

5) A 3,678-acre area, not specifically mentioned in the 1967 report, lies along the south edge of the 

refuge in the State of Florida. 

Since 1967, additional lands that are contiguous with the wilderness area have been acquired. 

These lands are evaluated below for inclusion into the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. 

II. WILDERNESS INVENTORY 

Potential Lands 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is surrounded by commercial timberlands accessed through a 

network of roads. Therefore, this review will focus on refuge wetlands that have been acquired since 

the review in 1974, and are contiguous with the 353,981 acres of the Okefenokee Refuge that were 

designated as Okefenokee Wilderness Area. Also, this review will examine the potential of the refuge 

lands in Florida. The seven areas are described below. 

Area A is 1,870 acres located on the northeast edge of the swamp. Boat Landing Island lies within 

this block. A third of this island is already within the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. An unimproved 

1⁄4-mile dirt road leads from private property onto Boat House Island. This road is generally not 

passable since it is normally covered with water from the increased flows from nearby Gum Slough. 

The island currently has a slash/pond pine stand ranging to 80 years old. The wetlands are natural 

except for the apron of influence from the Gum Slough inlet that carries water from Green Swamp into 

the Okefenokee Swamp. The refuge canoe trail system passes through this area but there is no 

current access from the swamp’s edge. Prior to it becoming part of the refuge, there was access 

from Boat Landing Island to the water trails. 

The only users of this area are those using the refuge’s watercraft trails. Through the refuge’s 

reservation system for overnight canoe trips, solitude is provided along the watercraft trails. Due to 

limited suitable camping areas within the wetlands of the Okefenokee Refuge and to minimize 

impacts of public use, primitive and unconfined recreation is not emphasized. There are no additional 

supplemental values in this area beyond what the Okefenokee Wilderness already protects. 

Area B is 416 acres of wetlands on the northeast edge of the swamp. Gum Slough enters into the 

Okefenokee Swamp at the north end of this property. An old tramline penetrating the swamp a short 

ways is shown on the topographical map. No current public use occurs on this property with low 

potential for opportunities related to solitude or primitive recreation. There are no additional values in 

this area beyond what the Okefenokee Wilderness already protects. 

Area C is 879 acres of wetlands and 20 acres of uplands. It includes the main entrance into the northeast 

portion of the swamp. Several canoe trips originate from Kingfisher Landing. The Kings Canal was 

excavated prior to refuge ownership. No other trails penetrate the remainder of the wetlands. No 

additional values beyond what the Okefenokee Wilderness already protects occur in this area. 
Section B. Appendices 259 

Area D is 3,342 acres on the east side of the swamp and includes Indian and Duck Islands. These 

two islands are refuge managed forestlands. There is a road onto each of these islands. The rest of 

the area is primarily bay-cypress-shrub habitat. Historically, a boat trail accessed Duck Island where 

visitors would camp. Currently, the trail within the wilderness is overgrown. There are no trails 

present in this area and there are no unique supplemental values. 

Area E is 3,678 acres and was excluded from the wilderness designation in 1974. The reason for 

exclusion was not specified in the 1967 Wilderness proposal. For this reason, it is examined here for 

inclusion. 

Natural conditions without roads still persist on this piece of property. Upland Management 

compartment 6 forms the east boundary of this area. State forest and National Forest Service lands 

border it on the south edge. It is mostly covered with cypress, gum, bay, and shrubs with small 

patches of open marsh. There are no trails present and there are no unique supplemental values. 

Area F is 7,039 acres on the southwest side of the swamp. Historical tram lines penetrated this 

portion of the swamp and removed the timber. However, since that time, it has not been 

manipulated. Cypress Creek exits the swamp in this area and drains a portion of the swamp to the 

Suwannee River. Flows fluctuate based on the height of the river. The vegetation consists of 

primarily loblolly bay, cypress, gum, and shrubs, similar to other areas of the swamp. There are no 

channels except for Cypress Creek. 

Area G is 1,766 acres on the west side of the swamp. Sweetwater Creek exits the swamp at this 

location and flows into the Suwannee River. There is no prominent channel providing access into the 

area. This piece of wetland is a finger surrounded by managed timberlands. It is about 1-mile wide 

from north to south. The vegetation is mostly bay-shrub habitat. There are no unique values. 

Conclusion 

Only Area F meets the minimum 5,000-acres; however, all seven areas listed above are contiguous 

with the 353,981-acre Okefenokee Wilderness Area. Therefore, the minimum acreage of 5,000 is not 

critical for excluding a piece of land from wilderness designation. 

Naturalness is found in all seven areas. However, the wetlands in all the areas are being managed 

similar to the other wetlands already included in the Okefenokee Wilderness Area because of their 

limited access and the recognition that these portions of the Okefenokee Swamp are part of the 

whole wetland complex and cannot be isolated. 

Opportunities for solitude exist within Area A as a portion of the trail system of the refuge passes 

through a corner of this property. Area C provides access to the current trail system. In the other five 

areas, the potential for solitude and/or primitive recreation is low due to limited access. However, 

providing opportunities for solitude or primitive recreation is not essential if the land is already 

contiguous to designated wilderness land. 

No unique ecological, geological, or scenic values exist on these seven areas except that they all lie 

on the edge of the swamp. However, these edge areas may be the most influenced by outside 

threats, including hydrologic alterations, contaminants, and development. 

Historically, the impacts of the peat and sphagnum moss industry is evident in Area C. No other 

historical sites are known in the other areas. 
260 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Summary of inventory area of the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge 

Unit 

Size 

(All contiguous 

with Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area) 

Naturalness 

Solitude or Primitive 

RecreationOpportunit

ies 

Supplemental

Values 

A 1,870 acres One unimproved road. 

Influenced by improved 

water inlet (Gum 

Slough) 

Includes portions of the 

watercraft trail system. 

No other management 

currently. 

Same as 

Okefenokee 

Wilderness 

Area. 

B 416 acres Influenced by improved 

water inlet (Gum 

Slough) 

Low potential. No new values. 

C 879 acres Kings Canal present 

and main entrance into 

the northeast portion of 

the refuge. 

Wilderness Canoe Trips 

originate from here. No 

new opportunities. 

No new values. 

D 3,342 acres Old boat trail and camp 

site. Two managed 

islands. 

It is unlikely the old boat 

trail originating from this 

area could be reclaimed. 

No new values. 

E 

Florida 

Acreage - 

Excluded in 

1974

3,678 acres No roads or trails lead 

into this area. Upland 

management 

compartment 6 borders 

the west boundary. 

No current use. Access 

limited. 

No new values. 

F 7,039 acres No roads or trails No current use. 

Access limited. 

No new values. 

G 1,766 acres No roads or trails. No current use. 

Access limited. 

No new values. 

In conclusion, it is recognized through this inventory that all seven areas meet the minimum criteria 

for naturalness but none of the seven areas stand out as significant wilderness areas on their own. 

However, their contribution to the Okefenokee Wilderness Area needs to be evaluated through the 

Wilderness Study evaluation. 

III. WILDERNESS STUDY 

Quality Of Wilderness Characteristics 

The proposed Wilderness Study Areas include all seven areas as described above excluding all 

managed uplands. This includes Duck and Indian Islands in Area D and those lands associated with 

compartment 6 in Area E. Boat Landing Island in Area A would remain with the Wilderness Study 

Area since it is not actively managed as part of a compartment and a portion of it is already under 

wilderness designation. 

The wilderness characteristics of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area flow into these adjacent areas. Along 

with most of the Okefenokee Swamp, these areas were logged in the early 1900s. The imprint of man’s 

work today is substantially unnoticed. The current management and the proposed management of the 
Section B. Appendices 261 

wetlands as described in the comprehensive conservation plan supports the natural characteristics of 

these areas. Natural processes govern the landscape within the interior of the swamp and continue 

outward as much as possible considering the interests of landowners whose lands border the refuge. 

The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, as administrator of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area, has 

developed a trail system that supports opportunities for wildlife observation, fishing, solitude, and 

challenges. A network of trails and platforms protects against excessive disturbance to the vegetation, 

soil, and wildlife. Unconfined access is limited by the thick growth of vegetation and the need to disturb 

the vegetation and soil to reach desired locations. Recreational opportunities within the wilderness are 

accessed from Suwannee Canal Recreation Area, Stephen C. Foster State Park, and Kingfisher 

Landing. Kingfisher Landing is in Wilderness Study Area C. In addition, portions of the trail system 

pass through Wilderness Study Area A. These portions are designated as a canoe only trail and are 

proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan to be maintained as if they were in wilderness. 

Besides Wilderness Study Areas A and C, none of the rest have the potential of providing enhanced 

access into the existing wilderness area or excellent wilderness opportunities on their own. 

Wildlife values associated with the wilderness study areas are in relation to their importance to 

migratory birds seeking cover along the edge of the swamp, wildlife escaping from disturbances on 

the uplands, and animals moving between the swamp and the uplands in search of food and cover. 

Gum Slough in Area B also provides a suitable location for white ibis, egrets, and herons to nest. 

Other Resource Values 

As mentioned in the inventory phase, these wilderness study areas lie within an ecologically 

significant zone. Both Wilderness Study Areas F and G have surface water outflows – Cypress 

Creek and Sweetwater Creek. Areas A and B may be man-influenced the most by the presence of 

Gum Slough that drains the privately owned Green Swamp. As a result, this area could be 

susceptible to increased water flows and contaminants. Areas A, B, C, and D all have seepages and 

small drainages flowing into them from the uplands along Trail Ridge. These flows into the swamp 

can be disturbed from activities on the edge of the swamp. They also may be pathways for 

contaminants entering the swamp. Designating these areas as wilderness would not prevent the 

impacts from adjacent property; however, it may limit the environmental monitoring that could be 

done that may signal hazards to the health of the entire swamp. 

These wilderness study areas lying on the edge of the swamp also serve as buffer zones between 

the uplands and the interior of the swamp. These areas lie within action zones depending on the 

event and conditions. Resource interests change along the swamp’s edge and change again along 

land-ownership lines. Management decisions become more critical as more development occurs 

around the refuge. 

Public Use 

In 1974, when the Okefenokee Wilderness Area was designated, visitation was estimated at 280,000. 

This number was approximately 100,000 visits more than in 1967, when the wilderness proposal was 

written. Today, visitation to the refuge has increased to almost 400,000. The area around Suwannee 

Canal Recreation Area and Stephen C. Foster State Park was excluded from the wilderness 

designation to accommodate the future increase in visitation. Since that time, Kingfisher Landing in 

Wilderness Study Area C has provided an additional entrance into the swamp. 
262 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

In addition, there is an increased interest in environmental education, especially with the 

establishment of the Okefenokee Education and Research Center in Folkston by the Georgia Wildlife 

Federation. Accommodating students with high-quality field experiences and a knowledge about 

wilderness without an impact to the wilderness will be strived for on the refuge. Although Wilderness 

Study Area C is the only one that is currently accessible by the public, the other areas are important 

to consider for future outdoor classroom activities. 

Management As Wilderness 

Managing the wetlands of the seven wilderness study areas is currently being done in accordance 

with the wilderness standards. Areas B, D, E, F, and G are inaccessible by the general public and 

only penetrated by the refuge staff if there is a need such as search and rescue or research. There 

are no access trails established. The only access into Areas A and C is along the established trails, 

which are part of the refuge’s trail network. Because there are no signs along the trail in Area A 

indicating that you are leaving or entering wilderness, the majority of these users probably believe 

they are within the Okefenokee Wilderness Area the entire trail. 

The management of wildland fire around the edge of the swamp, as stated in the comprehensive 

conservation plan, is similar whether the land is designated wilderness or not. The Fire Use Plan 

identifies fire management units where different management strategies can be considered when fire 

is present. Although natural processes, such as fire, cannot run their entire course as would be 

desirable if there was an isolated island of wilderness, management decisions for the benefit of the 

resources, as well as private property interests, can be weighed through the designation of fire 

management units. 

Although the wilderness study areas are currently being managed along with the Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area, designating these areas as wilderness restricts the options for using the areas for 

environmental education groups and researchers in the future. Certain mechanical equipment may 

be prohibited and construction of facilities, such as simple platforms along the edge, may not be 

allowed. Eliminating these areas from future public use concentrates visitors and students at the few 

entrances and eventually visitors beyond a certain number may be denied access. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service does not recommend the addition of any of the wilderness study areas 

presented above for the following reasons: 

1) The addition of the above study areas to the Okefenokee Wilderness Area would not add 

significantly to the protection of the areas or the wilderness area as a whole. The wilderness 

values of naturalness and untrammeled by man will be protected under the management 

presented in the comprehensive conservation plan. The refuge is committed to maintaining the 

health of the swamp and not just the area under wilderness designation. 

2) The Fish and Wildlife Service fully recognizes the consequences of managing the refuge as an 

isolated unit rather than a piece of a larger ecosystem. The comprehensive conservation plan 

emphasizes partnerships, networking, and landscape management. This is especially critical in 

the management of fire where different landowners have different objectives. To reach maximum 

benefit from fire within the greatest area of the wilderness, zones around the swamp must be 

identified where man may have to intervene to protect the interests of the neighboring landowner. 

Portions of these zones may or may not be in the designated wilderness but would be treated as a 
Section B. Appendices 263 

unit. Therefore, designating these wilderness study areas as wilderness does not alter the fire 

management strategies as stated in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

3) Public use and the demands for environmental education are increasing at the refuge. Currently, 

87 percent of the refuge is designated as wilderness with limited accessibility. Designating the 

study areas as wilderness would not enhance the current public use opportunities within the 

wilderness. They would not be readily usable by the general public, which would limit options for 

distributing the visitor use in the future. On the other hand, by not including this 5 percent of 

refuge land into the wilderness, these areas would serve the wilderness by providing students and 

researchers an area outside the wilderness to conduct activities while promoting the health of the 

wilderness. Wilderness values could be incorporated into the education programs. 

4) More specifically, Wilderness Study Area C – Kingfisher Landing – has been established as an 

entrance and facilities may be expanded at this location to promote more use of the area. It also 

has potential for interpretation of the peat and sphagnum moss industry and its impact to the 

swamp. 

5) Wilderness Study Area G is a finger projecting out from the swamp and is 1 mile or less from 

north to south. This configuration lends itself to more influences from outside activities. 
264 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Lands for potential inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System 
Section B. Appendices 265 

Appendix XII. Decisions and Approvals 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

 Wildlife Observation and Photography 

 Environmental Education and Interpretation 

 Hunting 

 Fishing 

 Resource Research Studies 

 Camping 

 Commercial Guiding 

 Commercial Video/Cinematography/Photography 

 Commercial Timber Harvesting 

 Suwannee Canal Recreation Area Concession 
266 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM 

Originating Person: M. Skippy Reeves 

Telephone Number: 912-496-7366 E-Mail: skippy_reeves@fws.gov 

Date: May 15, 2004 

PROJECT NAME: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge’s Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

I. Service Program: Refuges 

II. State/Agency: Georgia/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action: Implement the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge by adopting the proposed alternative. This plan directs 

the management of the refuge for the next 15 years. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat: 

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: 

Wood storks and American alligators use the wetland habitats of the swamp. 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers, flatwoods salamanders, gopher tortoises and indigo snakes are 

all residents of the native longleaf pine forest. The refuge is striving to restore this important 

habitat on the uplands. All these species are present except the flatwoods salamander. The 

refuge is within its historical range. 

B. Complete the following table: 

 SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Wood stork Endangered 

American Alligator Threatened 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered 

Flatwoods salamander Threatened 

Gopher tortoise Threatened 

Eastern indigo snake Threatened 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species 
Section B. Appendices 267 

VI. Location (attach map): 

A. Ecoregion Name: 

North Florida Ecosystem 

B. County and State: 

Charlton, Clinch, Ware Counties, Georgia, and Baker County, Florida 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

N 30o

 44.300 W 82o 07.600 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town: 

Refuge headquarters is approximately 11 miles southwest of Folkston, Georgia 

E. Species/habitat occurrence: 

Wood storks use the open wetland habitats of the Okefenokee Refuge for roosting and foraging. No 

nesting colony has been found since 1977. 

The refuge’s American alligator population is estimated at 9,000–12,000 individuals. This number 

fluctuates depending on water level conditions. They are found throughout the wetlands. 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers occupy the suitable upland pine habitat on the refuge. Due to the 

fragmentation of the landscape, natural and man-caused, four sub-populations exist on the refuge. 

The majority of the active clusters are on interior wilderness islands. 

Flatwoods salamanders are historical residents of the upland pine forest but have not been found in 

recent years on the refuge. 

Gopher tortoises and eastern indigo snakes are residents of the upland longleaf pine habitat found on 

the refuge. They are most abundant at the east entrance of the refuge. 
268 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

VII. Determination of Effects: 

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

additional pages as needed): 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT 

Wood stork 

American Alligator 

Natural processes govern the wetlands and thus, the use patterns 

of the wood stork and alligator. The plan strives to protect the 

wetlands from outside threats by keeping abreast of new 

developments and demands on the ground water. Public use 

patterns should not impact these species any further than the 

current use. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Upland management on the refuge continues to move toward an 

old-growth longleaf pine habitat where appropriate. Habitat for the 

red-cockaded woodpecker will be enhanced. In addition, 

agreements with surrounding landowners will be pursued to 

enhance movement of the red-cockaded woodpecker, increase 

foraging habitat, and possibly expand the populations. 

Flatwoods salamander Management of the longleaf pine habitat and the associated 

ephemeral ponds will enhance the habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander. Surveys to identify occurrence of this species will be 

established. 

Gopher tortoise The management of the longleaf pine forest through prescribed fire 

will enhance the habitat for the gopher tortoise and all the 

associated species. Soil disturbances from management 

operations could destroy a burrow. 

Indigo snake The management of the longleaf pine forest through prescribed fire 

will enhance the habitat for the indigo snake. Protecting the 

burrows of the gopher tortoise will assist in protecting the indigo 

snake. Surveys will identify the current status of this species. 
Section B. Appendices 269 

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

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT 

 ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS 

Wood storks and 

American alligator 

Increased surveys of aquatic parameters may increase detection of impacts 

to the system from outside sources. This would protect the habitat for both 

the wood stork and the alligator. Understanding the distribution and use 

patterns of these animals may help in protecting these species from impacts.

Red-cockaded 

woodpecker 

Prescribed fire will continue to be used on all uplands to maintain suitable 

habitat conditions. Timber management will enhance the habitat outside the 

wilderness area. Surveys will monitor the population status to document 

changes in management or those caused by natural events. 

Flatwoods salamander Protection of ephemeral pools will enhance the habitat for this species. 

Gopher tortoise and 

indigo snake 

Burrows of gopher tortoises will be flagged when any management action 

requiring soil disturbance takes place. 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

 DETERMINATION1 SPECIES/ 

 CRITICAL HABITAT NE NE NA AA 

RESPONSE1

REQUESTED 

Wood stork X 

American alligator X 

Red-cockaded woodpecker X 

Flatwood salamander X 

Gopher tortoise X 

Indigo snake X 

1

DETERMINATION/RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively 

impacted, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. 

Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be beneficial effects to 

these resources. Response Requested is a “Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely impact any 

listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for listed species is 

“Formal Consultation.” Response Requested for proposed or candidate species is “Conference.” 
270 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 271 

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Introduction 

Under the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Service may not permit 

a use on a national wildlife refuge unless these uses are first determined to be compatible uses. A 

description of each use presented in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and the 

anticipated biological impacts to the resources are addressed in this Compatibility Determination. 

Refuge Name: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Uses: 

These compatibility determinations apply to: 1) wildlife observation and photography; 2) 

environmental education and interpretation; 3) recreation hunting; 4) recreation fishing; 5) 

independent research studies; 6) overnight camping; 7) commercial guiding; 8) commercial 

video/cinematography/photography; 9) commercial timber harvesting; and 10) Suwannee Canal 

Recreation Area Concession. 

Date Established by Executive Order: March 30, 1937 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority: Executive Order 7593 

Refuge Purpose: The executive order establishing Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in 1937 

stated the purpose of the refuge as “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other 

wildlife.” 

For lands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 715-715r), as amended, the 

purpose of the acquisition is: “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management 

purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d). 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-577) purposes are to secure an enduring resource of 

wilderness, to protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas within the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, and to administer this wilderness system for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in a way that will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. 

Mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System: 

As set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is: “...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

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

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

of Americans.” 

Refuge Goals:

1) Promote and provide optimum habitat and protection for endangered and threatened species 

and conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and ecological function of native flora and fauna 

on and off refuge lands. 
272 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

2) Restore, maintain, protect, and promote native habitats and healthy natural systems to imitate 

historic distribution, frequency, and quality on and off the refuge, and preserve the associated 

cultural sites and wilderness qualities. 

3) Restore, preserve, and protect the primeval character and natural processes of the Okefenokee 

Wilderness, leaving it untrammeled by man while providing recreational solitude, education, 

scientific study, conservation ethics, and scenic vistas. 

4) Provide and enhance fully accessible opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education, and interpretation when compatible to promote public 

appreciation, understanding, and action on behalf of the Okefenokee Ecosystem while 

maintaining the wilderness resource of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. 

5) Promote communication, cooperation, and partnerships between local, state, and federal 

agencies, land managers, and private citizens within the “zones of influence” to conserve the 

integrity of the pathways associated with resource protection, wildlife populations, and public 

services. 

6) Provide adequate staff, partners, volunteers, and others with the facilities and equipment to 

support the goals and objectives of the refuge in a safe manner while maintaining sensitivity to 

wilderness ethics and the “zones of influence.” 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area Legislation 

Public Law 93-429 dated October 1, 1974 designated about 343,850 acres in the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness. This Act stated “(1) the use of powered watercraft, propelled 

by motors of ten or less horsepower, will be permitted, (2) watercraft trails including approximately 

one hundred twenty miles as delineated on such map will be maintained. Access to watercraft trails 

in the wilderness area will be provided from the Suwannee River Sill, Steven Foster State Park, 

Kings Landing, and Suwannee Recreation Area (Camp Cornelia).” In addition, the Act states that 

“Fishing shall be permitted in the waters of the Okefenokee Wilderness, in accordance with applicable 

State and Federal regulations, except that the Secretary of the Interior may designate zones and 

establish periods when no fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, fish 

and wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment.” 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided they are 

compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. This compatibility determination 

applies to personal photography only. Commercial photography or videography, is covered under a 

separate compatibility determination.. 

Wildlife observation and photography can occur throughout the refuge in locations where the public is 

allowed. A wildlife drive, boardwalk, two towers, boat basin, and hiking trails provide observation 

opportunities at the east entrance (Suwannee Canal Recreation Area). Stephen C. Foster State 

Park , the west entrance, provides a boardwalk, boat basin and hiking trails to promote wildlife 

observation and photography. In addition, each entrance provides access to the interior of the refuge 

via boat. This allows the public to experience different wetland habitats and catch a glimpse of the 

fauna. There are no photography blinds currently on the refuge with one purposed at an existing 

wildlife observation point. 
Section B. Appendices 273 

The refuge’s CCP promotes wildlife observation and photography and proposes to increase 

opportunities. The greatest number of visitors, estimated at approximately 306,000 in 2004, come to 

view wildlife. Visitation numbers fluctuate depending on accessibility. Over the past 15 years, overall 

visitation numbers ranged from 242,372 in 2000 to 423,157 in 1990. Carrying capacity of the refuge 

is estimated at 800,000. This number depends on how the visitation is managed. Although more 

development is occurring in the area around Folkston and more environmental education groups may 

use the refuge through the programs offered by the Okefenokee Education and Research Center, 

visitation is not expected to reach 600,000 over the next 15 years. 

Established hiking and watercraft trails allow visitors access to areas while minimizing disturbance to 

the flora and fauna of the refuge. Modes of travel include walking, biking, canoeing/kayaking, and 

motorboating. Approximately 1% of the refuge lands are impacted directly from visitation. Highest 

use occurs on 220 acres at the east and west entrances. There are approximately 62 miles of water 

trails open for day use and motorboat use. Estimating disturbance to an area 150 ft from the trail 

would result in 2247 acres being considered potentially disturbed. Canoe-only trails add an additional 

1679 acres that have the potential of being impacted. Providing additional opportunities helps to 

distribute visitors to lessen the impacts to the resources. Adaptive management monitors the impacts 

and adjusts this activity. 

Wildlife observation and photography is conducted both outside and inside the Okefenokee 

Wilderness Area, Maintaining wilderness values and resources, preserving the wilderness character 

of the biological and physical resources, and providing opportunities for research and recreation are 

the management focuses for designated wilderness. A minimum-requirements decision guide 

(MRDG) will be completed for all activities proposed in the wilderness area. This process involves 

determining if an essential task should be conducted in the wilderness area and then determining the 

combination of methods, equipment, or administrative practices necessary to successfully and safely 

administer the refuge and accomplish wilderness management objectives. 

Availability of Resources: The existing visitor facilities are mentioned above. Annual refuge 

operation and maintenance funds are adequate to support public use activities. The annual cost of 

operating and maintaining the present wildlife observation and photography programs is 

approximately $23,000. Therefore, the program is in compliance with the Refuge Recreation Act. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Visitor Center,

Wildlife Drive, hiking and water trails, boardwalk, observation tower, day-use shelters, signs, kiosks, 

and brochures. 

Maintenance Costs: $20,000

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $3,000 

Offsetting revenues: $25,000 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. 
274 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

New or expanded activities proposed within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the MRDG 

process in an attempt to identify potential impacts and develop methods to accomplish management 

objectives without jeopardizing wilderness values and resources. 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. Individual animals may be disturbed 

by human contact to varying degrees during wildlife observation and photography. Examples of 

potential disturbance include flushing of animals from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling 

of plants from observers and photographers along the edge of trails. Disturbance to trust species are 

expected to be minimal due to the placement of trails in association with recurring wildlife use, limiting 

access to trails only, and closing areas where necessary to decrease disturbance. With the use of 

outboard motors, minor amounts of gasoline and oil are released into the waters. Short-term impacts 

to facilities such as roads and trails can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe or wet 

conditions. Trails through wetlands are avoided or created by the use of boardwalks to minimize 

disturbance. The wildlife observation and photography programs have been designed to avoid or 

minimize impacts anticipated to refuge resources and visitors. 

Long-term impacts: 

Resident wildlife has greater potential of being impacted over a long time period due to the recurring 

visitation of wildlife observers. Wildlife can become accustomed to humans. Lack of fear could result 

in harm to the animal or an animal could become aggressive and need to be relocated or dispatched. 

Long term use of an area needs to be monitored as visitation increases. Monitoring would include an 

evaluation of changes in wildlife use patterns, trampling of vegetation, and compaction of the soil 

around the activity area. 

Cumulative impacts: 

As visitation increases, more impacts to the landscape may occur. Ways of limiting access or 

spreading visitor use will be developed. Programs will be modified as necessary to mitigate 

unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 
Section B. Appendices 275 

Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography are designed to minimize impacts to the wildlife and the environment. Evaluations of 

sites and programs should be conducted periodically to assess if objectives are being met and that 

the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts begins to 

appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the facilities. As visitation increases, additional 

sites may be developed to lessen the impact to one area. All activities will be monitored to ensure 

that wildlife-dependent recreation and its impacts remain compatible with refuge purposes. Lawenforcement patrols will also be routinely conducted in an effort to maximize compliance with policies, 

rules, and regulations. 

Justification: These wildlife-dependent uses are priority public uses of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. Providing opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would contribute toward 

fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended in 1997. 

Wildlife observation and photography would provide an excellent forum for allowing public access and 

increasing understanding of refuge resources. The stipulations outlined above would minimize 

potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions and insure these uses to continue to be 

compatable. The level of visitation proposed in the CCP for wildlife-dependent uses would not 

conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health 

of the refuge. The MRDG process for activities proposed within the wilderness further emphasizes 

the refuge’s commitment to minimizing impacts to the wilderness values and resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2021 
276 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation consists primarily of teacher workshops, visitor education, 

teaching students, and interpretation. Activities would include teacher or staff-led on-site field trips, 

off-site programs in classrooms, teacher and student workshops, and interpretation of wildlife and 

cultural resources on the refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and 

understanding of wildlifeand their habitats, and to contribute to wildlife conservation. In addition, a 

restored homestead on Chesser Island facilitates interpretation on the areas historic conditions and 

the influences of humans on the landscape. Environmental education and interpretation have been 

identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses 

provided they are compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

Expansion of the environmental education program to a multi-faceted, curriculum-based program for 

use on and off the refuge is presented in the refuge’s CCP. It is designed to enhance public 

awareness and understanding of the refuge’s natural ecology, the human influences on the swamp 

ecosystem, the wilderness philosophy and concepts, and to inspire action among local, national, and 

international educational groups on behalf of the Service, the refuge, and the ecosystem. The refuge 

plans to develop facilities to accommodate and distribute students for quality outdoor and indoor 

experiences. Partnering and networking with other entrances and educators is critical. Developing 

materials to be used on and off the refuge will increase the exposure to environmental education. 

The proposed interpretation strives to increase awareness and understanding of the refuge’s natural 

and human influences, habitat diversity, wildlife values, wilderness philosophy and concepts, and 

management activities to protect, enhance, restore and maintain the Okefenokee ecosystem. 

Revising and developing brochures, panels, and signs assists this effort. Also, outreach to interpret 

refuge messages is key for expanding the public’s understanding. 

Twelve percent of the refuge visitors (approximately 44,000 visitors in 2004) are interested in 

environmental education and interpretation. This use of the refuge is expected to increase with the 

establishment of the Okefenokee Education and Research Center in Folkston, Georgia. Numbers may 

double in the next 15 years. Environmental education and interpretation sites are currently limited to 

the 1% of refuge lands that is available to the general public. Interpretation sites include visitor centers 

located at Suwannee Canal Recreation Area (east entrance), Stephen C. Foster State Park (west 

entrance) and Swamp Park (north entrance), the Chesser Island homestead, and information kiosks 

located along trails and other key sites. Environmental education is a year-round activity, conducted on 

an as requested basis. These activities are closely coordinated with the refuge ranger. 

The refuge serves as an outdoor classroom for a variety of audiences with an interest in wildlife 

conservation and management. Typically, teachers, students, and other groups will learn from 

hands-on demonstrations, tours, projects, and activities delivered by refuge staff and volunteers. 

Most activities will be conducted on-site utilizing existing refuge facilities. Environmental education is 

primarily concentrated on the 220 acres located at Suwannee Canal Recreation Area and Stephen C. 

Foster State Park. There are numerous facilities at each site to increase distribution of the groups. 

Group size is typically limited to ensure effective presentation of desired materials which may be 

specifically tailored to meet the educational needs of the group. Boat tours are often included in the 

environmental education experience for older students which may take them into the wilderness area. 

Maintaining wilderness values and resources, preserving the wilderness character of the biological 

and physical resources, and providing opportunities for research and recreation are the management 

focuses for designated wilderness. A minimum-requirements decision guide (MRDG) will be 

completed for all activities proposed in the wilderness area. This process involves determining if an 
Section B. Appendices 277 

essential task should be conducted in the wilderness area and then determining the combination of 

methods, equipment, or administrative practices necessary to successfully and safely administer the 

refuge and accomplish wilderness management objectives. Activities involving collection or catch 

and release of fauna also require Special Use Permits in advance. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds are adequate to 

support public use activities. The annual cost of operating and maintaining the present environmental 

education and interpretation programs is approximately $50,000. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Wildlife Drive, 

hiking and water trails, boardwalk, signs, kiosks, brochures, Chesser Island homestead, etc. 

Maintenance Costs: $20,000 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $30,000 

Offsetting revenues: $8,000. The Okefenokee Wildlife League also supplements environmental 

education activities on the refuge. 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

New or expanded environmental education activities proposed within the wilderness area will be 

evaluated through the MRDG process in an attempt to identify potential impacts and develop 

methods to accomplish management objectives without jeopardizing wilderness values and 

resources. 

Short-term impacts: 

Environmental education and interpretation activities generally take place on existing roads, trails, 

boardwalks, platforms, boats, Chesser Island homestead site, and within buildings. This minimizes 

disturbance to the vegetation and soil. Temporary disturbance to wildlife species in the immediate 

vicinity during the activities can be expected. If roosting and/or nesting is established during a 

season, public use of the area may be suspended. 

Long-term impacts: 

Repeated use of an area may compact the soil or cause erosion. Certain plant species may be 

prevented from growing under these circumstances. Introduction of a non-native species is possible 

in these disturbed areas also. Occasionally, wildlife that become habituated to a site frequented by 

humans need to be relocated if they become aggressive or lose their fear of humans. These 

potential impacts can be mitigated through the messages presented during environmental education 

and interpretation. 
278 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative impacts: 

Any additional facilities for environmental education and interpretation will be evaluated and 

designed to minimize disturbance to the environment and the wildlife that use the area. Off-site 

activities will be considered to increase the refuge’s audience and lessen the impact on the natural 

resources of the refuge. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: On-site activities should be held where minimal 

impact would occur. Evaluations of sites and programs should be conducted periodically to assess if 

objectives are being met and that the natural resources are not being degraded. If evidence of 

unacceptable adverse impacts begins to appear, it may be necessary to change the location of the 

outdoor activities. 

The following are some stipulations presented in the Special Use Permit issued to environmental 

education groups: 

• Field trip participants' behavior is the responsibility of the permittee. 

• When boating anywhere on the refuge, slow your boat to a crawl or idle when passing other boats 

and canoes. 

• Boats will be kept on designated trails. 
Section B. Appendices 279 

• Participants will remain in boats. 

• Collected insects and small fish will be examined and released at the location where they were 

collected. 

• Disturbance to the vegetation, soil and wildlife will be kept to a minimum. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage all citizens to act 

responsibly in protecting a healthy ecosystem. They are tools to use in building a land ethic, 

developing political support, and decreasing wildlife violations. They constitute one method of 

increasing visibility in the community and improving the image of the Service. 

Okefenokee NWR has two full-time staff dedicated to environmental education and interpretation of 

refuge programs and issues. Stephen C. Foster State Park staff conducts environmental education 

and interpretation programs on the west side of the refuge, while Swamp Park at the north end of the 

refuge is dedicated to the interpretation of the fauna and flora of the Okefenokee Swamp. Only 1% of 

the refuge is directly impacted from these activities. In turn, the entire area benefits from the public’s 

increased awareness of the area’s natural resources and the processes that govern them. No new 

activity areas are being proposed to accommodate an increase in educational groups. Rather, new 

locations within the 1% already impacted would be considered to help distribute visitors in relation to 

the sites’ carrying capacity. The MRDG process for activities proposed within the wilderness further 

emphasizes the refuge’s commitment to minimizing impacts to the wilderness values and resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2021
280 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Hunting, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use, provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. 

In supporting the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Okefenokee NWR offers 

the following hunt opportunities outside the wilderness area: 

• Small game (rabbit, squirrel, and bobwhite quail) at the Cowhouse Unit. 

• Turkey at the Cowhouse Unit. 

• Deer and feral hog at the Cowhouse Unit, Suwannee Canal Recreation Area, and the Pocket 

Unit. 

The public is notified of hunts through news releases in local and regional newspapers, public service 

announcements, inclusion in the State of Georgia hunting publications, and postings on the refuge 

website. 

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GA DNR) conducts two hunter education courses 

annually at the refuge. 

Hunter usage is estimated through a “sign-in/sign-out’ process, located at both the Pocket and the 

Cowhouse Unit, and through check-in and check-out at the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area. 

An annual two-day (morning) quota deer hunt is administered at the Suwannee Canal Recreation 

Area in October. Hunting activities are permitted with a valid refuge hunt permit and appropriate state 

licenses. The Cowhouse Island section hunt dates coincide with Dixon Memorial State Forest 

(DMSF). The Pocket on the refuge is opened for deer archery season. Refuge hunters in all units 

are required to follow the Georgia state regulations in addition to refuge-specific regulations. 

The refuge hunt program provides quality recreational opportunities for the public. It provides a 

public hunting area where private hunt clubs abound. Quality hunting opportunities that are 

universally accessible are emphasized over quantity. The deer hunt at Suwannee Canal Recreation 

Area sets aside an area especially for disabled hunters. 

A total of 625 hunter visits occurred on the refuge in 2004. This number is not expected to 

significantly increase unless additional opportunities are created. Current and potential hunting 

opportunities will be evaluated for expansion as stated in the refuge’s CCP. 

Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources moinitors and adjusts harvest levels within the state if 

they exceed established harvest limits. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds are adequate to 

support public use activities. The annual cost of operating and maintaining the present small game, 

turkey, deer, and feral hog hunting programs is approximately $6,000. Therefore, the program is in 

compliance with the Refuge Recreation Act. 
Section B. Appendices 281 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Brochures, signs 

Maintenance Costs: $500 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $5,500 

Offsetting revenues: $430 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. The offsetting revenues are 

from the sale of hunting permits. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Providing a public hunting area on the refuge allows hunters not able to hunt within a private hunt 

club an opportunity to hunt. The refuge’s hunting opportunities may result in localized disruption of 

individual animals’ daily routines. 

The hunt on the Pocket, a narrow peninsula into the swamp, reduces the number of deer in the 

immediate area resulting in less car-deer collisions. 

The deer hunt at the east entrance forces the closure of a public wildlife observation and photography 

area during two mornings in October for safety reasons. Hunters have exclusive use of this area 

during the hunt. 

Long-term impacts: 

The small refuge areas hunted would not significantly impact the total populations of the area. 

Individual fauna move freely between private and public lands depending on the human activity 

present and the animal’s tolerance level.

Should hunting pressure increase on the refuge, alternatives such as quota hunts, a reduction in the 

number of days of hunting, or restrictions on that part of the refuge open to hunting can be utilized to 

limit impacts. 

Cumulative impacts: 

Due to the close proximity to other suitable habitat, the refuge hunts will not have a cumulative impact 

on deer and small game populations. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 
282 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Hunting seasons are established annually as agreed upon during the annual hunt coordination 

meeting with GA DNR personnel. These generally fall within the State framework. The refuge can 

establish more restrictive seasons to prevent over-harvest of individual species, disturbance to trust 

species, and interference with other refuge activities. The special hunt at the east entrance requires 

a permit obtained through a drawing. A limited number of hunters are allowed because of the small 

area. Law enforcement patrols are frequently conducted throughout the hunting season to ensure 

compliance with refuge laws and regulations. Additional LE staff proposed in the refuge’s CCP will 

help in these patrols and ensure compatibility. 

Refuge staff working in the field will be reminded of the hunts and required to take safety precautions. 

Precautions will be taken during prescribed burning operations to alert hunters ahead of time. 

Justification: 

Hunting is one of the priority uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Providing recreational 

hunting on the refuge provides an area for hunting outside private hunt clubs. Populations will not be 

impacted due to the size and location of the hunt areas. Deer move freely between private hunt 

clubs, refuge hunt areas and refuge lands closed to hunting. 

No conflict is anticipated with threatened or endangered species, which may utilize the refuge. There 

are no red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters on the Cowhouse Unit; there are no active RCW 

clusters on the Pocket (per biological records); there are active clusters at the Suwannee Canal 

Recreation Area and Chesser Island. Gopher tortoises and indigo snakes occupy the huntable 

areas; however, the restriction on motorized vehicles will reduce any impacts on their habitat. Should 

it become apparent that hunting activities are or will adversely affect a threatened or endangered 

species, the hunt will be modified or discontinued through changes in state regulations and if 

necessary by the Refuge Manager as provided in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 50. 
Section B. Appendices 283 

Public use conflicts are minimal. No other public use is allowed on Cowhouse Island. The only public 

use allowed at the Pocket Unit during hunts is travel on Highway 177 into and out of Stephen C. Foster 

State Park. Traffic is mostly cars and light trucks, with occasional bicyclists using the road. No other 

public use is allowed at the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area and Chesser Island during hunts. 

The refuge provides adequate and appropriate information to the public about the hunts through 

news release, brochures, etc. This allows for informed decisions about types and timing of other 

recreational uses. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2021

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing, a wildlife-dependent recreational pursuit, has been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority public use provided it is compatible with the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. Maintaining wilderness values and resources, preserving the 

wilderness character of the biological and physical resources, and providing opportunities for 

research and recreation are the management focuses for designated wilderness. 

The Wilderness Act establishing the Okefenokee Wilderness Area stated in Section 3: 

“Fishing shall be permitted in the waters of the Okefenokee Wilderness, in accordance with 

applicable State and Federal regulations, except that the Secretary of the Interior may 

designate zones and establish periods when no fishing shall be permitted for reasons of public 

safety, administration, fish and wildlife management, or public use and enjoyment.” 

Refuge fishing regulations (species, limits, and other general regulations) closely follow state 

guidelines and are coordinated with the state annually. Refuge biologists coordinate with appropriate 

state and USFWS fishery biologists in providing the annual electro-fishing survey. Enforcement of 

refuge fishing regulations occurs through regular patrols by refuge law enforcement officers and state 

law enforcement rangers. Infractions of both federal and state fishing regulations are grounds for 

issuance of citations.

Recreational fishing is permitted on all refuge waters open to the public. Providing universal access 

to suitable fishing sites and promoting fishing opportunities for youth is emphasized in the CCP. The 

areas open to fishing include 120 miles of designated waterway trails, natural lakes, and some “gator 

holes” attached directly to the trail system within the refuge. In 2004, 5,599 visits were associated 

with fishing. This number is expected to fluctuate through the years depending on the status of the 

fish and current water levels. However, a significant increase in fishing pressure is not expected 

because expansion of fishing opportunities is limited on the refuge. 
284 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Recreational fishing is accessible to the public via two primary and two secondary entrances: 

• Suwannee Canal Recreation Area (east entrance) 

• Stephen C. Foster State Park (west entrance) 

Secondary entrances are located at: 

• Kingfisher Landing (east side of the refuge between Folkston and Waycross) 

• Suwannee River Sill area (adjacent to the west entrance gate). 

Recreational fishing with conventional line and pole is permitted; however, bush hooks, trot lines, limb 

lines, seining, and netting are prohibited. To avoid the introduction of non-native species into refuge 

waters, live minnows are not permitted to be used as bait. Fishing is permitted year round, following 

statewide seasons and creel limits. Harvesting of frogs, turtles and other species is not permitted. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds is adequate to support 

public use activities. The annual cost of operating and maintaining the present recreational fishing 

program is approximately $2,600. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Boat ramps, 

signs, brochures 

Maintenance Costs: $20,000 (Trail Maintenance) 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $2,600 

Offsetting revenues: $2,000 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

All proposed management actions related to the fisheries within the wilderness area will be evaluated 

through the MRDG process. 

Short-term impacts: 

Impacts from litter. Minor amounts of gasoline and oil are released into the water by the operation of 

outboard motors. 

Long-term impacts: 

Fishing pressure is seasonal; however, the additional motorboat traffic increases gasoline and oil 

contamination. The refuge concessionaires rent four-stroke engines to lessen the problem with 

gasoline contamination. 
Section B. Appendices 285 

The increased use of motorboats assists with trail maintenance in some areas. 

Cumulative impacts: 

If the water level is low during with motorboat activity, the sediments may be disturbed and mobilize 

contaminants. This may have a negative impact on the health of the fisheries. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Okefenokee NWR allows fishing on designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State 

regulations subject to the following conditions: 

• The refuge allows motorized boats with motors 10 hp or less. 

• The refuge prohibits the possession of live baitfish. 

• The refuge allows only the use of pole and line or rod and reel. 

• The refuge prohibits fishing in the boat basin. 
286 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

• The refuge prohibits fishing in ponds and canals along the Swamp Island Drive. 

• The refuge reserves the porch and canal area behind the visitor center for youth 15 years of 

age and under and the physically disabled. 

The refuge and concessionaire only operate four stroke outboard engines to minimize the amounts of 

oil and fuel deposited into refuge waters. 

Justification: While the number of participants is limited, fishing has been an important activity of 

the refuge resulting in only very temporary disturbance to refuge habitats and wildlife populations, 

and has caused no noticeable impact on the abundance of species sought or other wildlife affected 

by angler disturbance. Current regulations limit the impacts to trust species and provide a safe and 

rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. In addition, the Wilderness Act that established the 

Okefenokee Wilderness Area clearly directs the refuge to facilitate fishing opportunities within the 

wilderness area. 

On the occasion of a drought, fishing may be suspended due to the limited resources for the wildlife 

dependent on the refuge’s fishery. Any decision to change the limit of fish taken will be carefully 

coordinated with Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2021

Description of Use: Resource Research Studies 

Resource research studies are not specifically identified as a priority public use within the Service; 

however, keeping Wildlife First is the primary tenet of the Improvement Act and Fulfilling the Promise. 

In addition, the Director has mandated that good scientific data is essential and required to make 

good management decisions. 

This determination covers research conducted by all agencies or entities other than the Service when the 

refuge acts solely in an administrative role, providing minimal assistance in most cases while providing 

secure sites for science based research. For the purposes of this compatibility determination, research 

includes data gathering for hypothesis testing, modeling, monitoring, and surveys. The activities will vary 

in scope and duration to satisfy the requirements of the research project or survey. Projects may involve 

everything from a limited one time sampling or survey to long-term study plots. 

Scientific research studies will be accommodated for the purpose of managing the area as wilderness and 

protecting the Okefenokee ecosystem. The objective of authorizing this use is to gain better knowledge of 

our natural resources and improved methods to manage, monitor, and protect refuge resources. 
Section B. Appendices 287 

All research studies will be evaluated and if deemed beneficial, a special use permit will be issued as 

an agreement between the researcher and the refuge. The permit will outline the guidelines that the 

researcher must follow while conducting research on the refuge. 

In addition, research conducted within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the minimum 

requirement decision guide (MRDG) prior to the issuance of a special use permit. This process 

involves determining if an essential task should be conducted in the wilderness area and then 

determining the combination of methods, equipment, or administrative practices necessary to 

successfully and safely administer the refuge and accomplish wilderness management objectives. 

Maintaining wilderness values and resources, preserving the wilderness character of the biological 

and physical resources, and providing opportunities for wilderness recreation are the management 

focuses for designated wilderness. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds support the 

administration of research activities. The annual cost of operating and maintaining the present 

resource research studies program is approximately $5,000. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance Costs: $5,000 (Trail maintenance) 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $6,000 

Offsetting revenues: Miscellaneous grants 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Research activities proposed within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the MRDG process 

in an attempt to identify potential impacts and develop methods to accomplish management 

objectives without jeopardizing wilderness values and resources. 

Short-term impacts: 

There should be no significant adverse impacts from scientific research because each proposal will 

be reviewed annually for appropriateness and consistency with compatibility determinationbefore the 

researcher will be issued a Special Use Permit. Factors such as project purpose, data collection 

methods, number of researchers, transportation, project duration, and location of access points will 

determine the extent of effects on the refuge. The knowledge gained from the research activities 

would provide information towards improving management techniques for trust resource species. 

Impacts such as trampling vegetation, removal of small numbers of plants and/or animals, and 

temporary disturbance to wildlife could occur, but should not be significant. 

Long-term impacts: 

Long-term benefits associated with species’ population trends and improved management techniques 

would outweigh any negative impacts which may occur. 

Cumulative impacts: 

No adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated with proper evaluation of the research project. 
288 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Each request for use of the refuge for research 

would be examined on its individual merits. Questions of who, what, when, where, and why would be 

asked to determine if the requested proposal contributes to the refuge purposes and could be best 

conducted on the refuge without significantly affecting the resources. If so, the researcher would be 

issued a Special Use Permit that would clearly define allowable activities. Progress would be 

monitored through annual reports. The success and usefulness of the data would be evaluated 

through final reports, and chronicles in publications derived from the research. 

The following stipulations apply to special use permits issued for scientific research. Monitoring 

authorized research activities would ensure compliance with the permit’s general and special 

conditions. 

• The permittee is responsible for ensuring that all employees, party members, and any other 

persons working for the permittee and conducting activities allowed by this permit are familiar with 

and adhere to the conditions of the permit. 

• The permit may be cancelled or revised at any time by the Refuge Manager in case of emergency, 

unsatisfactory compliance, or determination of incompatibility with the purpose of the refuge. 

• In accordance with the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa), the removal or 

disturbance of archaeological or historic artifacts is prohibited. The excavation, disturbance, collection 

or purchase of historical, ethnological, or archaeological specimens or artifacts is prohibited. 
Section B. Appendices 289 

• All waste materials and markers must be removed from the refuge upon the permittee’s departure. 

• Construction of structures is prohibited unless prior approval is obtained. 

Justification: 

The benefits derived from sound research provide a better understanding of resources on the refuge 

and surrounding area. This knowledge becomes valuable in managing natural systems, establishing 

thresholds, identifying threats, and better understanding the species and the environmental 

communities present on the refuge. Research projects would be designed to minimize impacts and 

disturbance. All research conducted within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the MRDG 

process. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2016 

Description of Use: Camping 

Camping on Okefenokee NWR and within the Okefenokee Wilderness Area allows access to the 

interior portion of the refuge that would otherwise be inaccessible to the general public due to time 

restraints in non-motorized watercraft. A camping trip through the Okefenokee Swamp is an 

experience that many treasure for a lifetime. Since the majority of camping on the refuge is within a 

nationally designated Wilderness Area, the refuge’s reservation system emphasizes solitude. This 

wilderness solitude could not be experienced fully without camping opportunities. In addition, the 

wilderness legislation that established the Okefenokee Wilderness Area clearly states the 

maintenance of up to 120 miles of water trails for continued public access. 

The seven overnight shelters combined with the trail system offer 12 different combinations of trips 

ranging from two to five days. Canoe-only trails restrict human impacts to approximately 1679 

acres, less than a half percent of the total refuge acreage. The overnight shelters are along the 

trails include the following: a 20’x28’ camping platform with a shelter top that spans most of the 

platform, a picnic table, and a composting toilet located nearby. “Leave No Trace Skills and Ethics” 

are required by the refuge. Visitors must carry in all of their gear, food, drinking water, portable toilet 

for use in canoe, and cooking devices. Reservations can be made up to two months in advance for 

one party of one to twenty people. The cost to visitors that use the overnight camping facilities is $10 

per night per individual. Transportation is by canoe or kayak only. 

In 2004, 2,416 individuals used the overnight camping facilities on the refuge. Due to the limited 

number of platforms and the reservation system, an increase in use numbers is not expected. 

Increases would result from larger group sizes and expanding the use of the platforms during 

currently low use times. Environmental conditions (insects and heat) generally limit use during the 
290 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

summer months. Through the Wilderness Act establishing the Okefenokee Wilderness Area, the 

refuge is not allowed to expand the canoe system within the wilderness area beyond the 120 miles of 

existing trails. There is also limited space to expand the canoe system outside the wilderness. 

Availability of Resources: Overnight canoeing facilities are described above. Annual refuge 

operation and maintenance funds are adequate to support public use activities. The annual cost of 

operating and maintaining the present overnight camping program would be approximately $125,000. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Shelters (7), 

toilets, trails, trailcutter, brochures, permits, and reservation system, all require maintenance. 

Maintaining wilderness values and resources, preserving the wilderness character of the biological 

and physical resources, and providing opportunities for research and recreation are the management 

focuses for designated wilderness. A minimum-requirements decision guide (MRDG) will be 

completed for all maintenance activities proposed in the wilderness area. This process involves 

determining if an essential task should be conducted in the wilderness area and then determining the 

combination of methods, equipment, or administrative practices necessary to successfully and safely 

administer the refuge and accomplish wilderness management objectives. 

Maintenance Costs: $60,000 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $65,000 

Offsetting revenues: $65,000 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

All refuge activity related to overnight camping is evaluated through the MRDG process to preserve 

the wilderness character and values while providing recreation opportunities. 

Short-term impacts: 

Similar to the impacts related to wildlife observation and photography, providing wilderness camping 

opportunities within the refuge increases the area of potential disturbance and the number of 

disturbances to the environment and wildlife. One thousand, six hundred, seventy nine acres along 

trails beyond the day-use trails provides access to the overnight shelters. This is less than a half 

percent of the total refuge acres. Individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying 

degrees during the overnight camping experience. Examples of potential disturbance include 

flushing of animals from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Travel after dark is prohibited which 

eliminates flushing animals from their resting areas. Overnight campers are in canoes on established 

waterways, so disturbance to the vegetation would be minimal. Disturbance to trust species are 

expected to be minimal unless use shifts to locations adjacent to waterways. Camping facilities are 

designed to minimize impact to the vegetation and wetland soils. Campfires are only allowed at 

campsites located on dry ground. Litter increases around the overnight platforms due to wind. 
Section B. Appendices 291 

Long-term impacts: 

Resident wildlife have greater potential of being impacted over a long time period due to the recurring 

visitation at campsites. Wildlife can become accustomed to humans. If campers are not 

conscientious of keeping a clean camp on and off the platform, food odors and scraps may become 

attractive to certain wildlife. Lack of fear could result in harm to the animal or an animal could 

become aggressive and need to be relocated or dispatched. 

Cumulative impacts: 

As visitation increases, the demand for the overnight camping platforms may extend the peak season 

beyond March-May and October-November. With only 7 campsites and one party allowed per site 

per night, minimal impact and solitude is emphasized. No additional platforms are proposed. The 

use of camping sites will be modified as necessary to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Maintaining camping facilities requires outboard motorboats into otherwise canoe-only areas. The 

refuge uses four stroke motors to minimize oil and gas being released into the water. Small amounts 

of lead are still being released from these motors. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 
292 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The following rules and regulations are in place to provide visitor safety, solitude, and a primitive 

experience on the trail system: 

1. Permittee and their party must launch from each site before 10:00 a.m. to ensure that 

they reach the next overnight stop before dark. 

2. Permittee and their party must register when they enter and leave the swamp and at 

each overnight stop. 

3. Permittee and their party are responsible for bringing a portable toilet with disposable 

bags for waste disposal and a camp stove and fuel for cooking. 

4. Permittee and their party must follow exactly the route described on their permit. 

Permittee and their party must not stray from the assigned trail. Only one party per stop 

is permitted. 

5. Permittee and their party may not bring pets, swim, or wade in the swamp, due to 

danger from alligators. 

6. Permittee and their party may not bring a motor of any kind on canoe trips. 

7. Keep trails free from litter. Please pack out any litter generated from the trip and any 

found during the course of the trip. 

8. Permittee and their party may not bring firearms or other weapons onto the refuge. No 

hunting is permitted. 

9. All wildlife, plants, and artifacts in the refuge are protected. Do not feed or harass any 

wildlife, or pick any plants. 

10. Permittee and their party must remain at the designated overnight area between sunset 

and sunrise for one night only. 

11. Open fires are permitted only at Canal Run, Floyds Island, and Cravens Hammock. 

Justification: 

The overnight camping program at Okefenokee NWR provides a challenge, an opportunity to 

experience solitude, observe the wilderness character, the fauna, the flora, and the landscape within 

the heart of the swamp. The refuge’s reservation system provides limitations on party size, travel 

routes, and the number of nights spent camping. Unconfined access is not allowed to avoid 

disturbance to the vegetation, increased contamination from human waste, and excessive numbers of 

people in uncontrolled locations. Managing people within the wilderness area elevates the quality of 

the experience. 
Section B. Appendices 293 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2016 

Description of Use: Commercial Guiding 

Any person, organization, or business that charges or includes a fee for guiding on the refuge is 

required to have a guiding permit. This includes non-profit organizations. Okefenokee has defined 

two types of guiding permits: day use and overnight. 

• Day Use Guiding Permits: Guides/organizations that lead activities including fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation for a fee. 

• Overnight Guiding Permits: Guides/organizations that lead overnight canoe trips for a fee. 

The objectives of the refuge policy are to: 

• Ensure that guides have the knowledge, skills, and resources to ensure safe recreational and 

educational use of Okefenokee NWR. 

• Ensure that guides have background knowledge of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Okefenokee NWR and major resource issues. 

• Create sustainable limits on the number of permits issued. 

• Promote high-quality visitor experiences on the Refuge. 

• Protect the natural resources at Okefenokee NWR 

Guides are an important part of the visitor services program at Okefenokee NWR. Currently, four 

overnight and nine day-use outfitters have permits for guiding on Okefenokee NWR. Guides are 

licensed to conduct activities such as hiking, kayaking, canoeing, guided nature tours, or a combination 

of these activities. Commercial activities increase competition for refuge resources, and their value 

must be evaluated in conjunction with similar public activities. Refuge staff is actively seeking to ensure 

that all guiding activities are conducted under the terms of a Special Use Permit (SUP), and that the 

permitting process is efficient, fair, consistent, and easy to communicate to applicants. 

Types of Guiding Permits 

Overnight Guiding Permit Day Use Guiding Permit 

Issued for: 

Guides/organizations that lead 

overnight canoe trips for a fee. 

(reservations required) 

Guides/organizations that lead activities 

including fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education, and 

interpretation for a fee. 

Length of 

permit 

1 year* 1 year 
294 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Overnight Guiding Permit Day Use Guiding Permit 

Number of 

permits issued 

25 total maximum 

1st come/1st served 

Must meet application standards 

100/year maximum 

1st come/1st served 

Must meet application standards 

Requirements 

Insurance ($500,000/occurrence

General Liability) 

Refuge Training 

Current First Aid and CPR 

Training for all employees 

Insurance ($300,000/occurrence 

General Liability) 

Refuge Training 

Current First Aid and CPR 

Training for all employees 

Entrance Fees 

Pay Wilderness Canoe system 

fees during trip. 

Entrance fees apply for other 

visits. 

9 people in vehicle: $5/day 

10-25 people: $25/day 

26 or more: $50/day 

Year Issued October 1 - September 30 October 1 - September 30 

* Guiding Permits will be renewed automatically, upon receipt of application, if performance is acceptable. No formal 

evaluation will take place, however a list of expectations will be provided to guides (see attached). 

Availability of Resources: Public facilities are available on a first come first serve basis. There are 

no facilities or privileges designated for guided parties only. Guides compete for overnight camping 

platforms along with the general public. 

Guided activities can occur throughout the refuge in locations where the public is allowed. A wildlife 

drive, boardwalk, two towers, boat basin, and hiking trails provide observation opportunities at 

Suwannee Canal Recreation Area on the refuge’s east entrance. Stephen C. Foster State Park at 

the west entrance provides a boardwalk, boat basin and hiking trails to promote wildlife observation 

and photography. In addition, each entrance provides access to the interior of the refuge via boat. 

Approximately 1% of the refuge lands are impacted directly from visitation. Highest use occurs on 

220 acres at the east and west entrances. There are approximately 62 miles of water trails open for 

day use and motorboat use. Estimating disturbance to an area 150 ft from the trail would result in 

2247 acres being considered potentially disturbed. Canoe-only trails add an additional 1679 acres 

that have the potential of being impacted. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: 

All public facilities are open to guided groups. Higher concentrations of visitors may require more 

administrative involvement to encourage distribution to minimize impacts to equipment and facilities. 

Administering guiding permits and providing associated training requires additional staff time. 

Maintenance Costs: $65,000 to maintain public facitilities. 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $ 5,000 for administering the guide permits 

in addition to the $65,000 to administer the public use program. 
Section B. Appendices 295 

Offsetting revenues: $65,000 - Currently, revenue collected for guiding and outfitting operations on 

the refuge is considered “Public Use Revenue generated on Acquired Lands,” and as such is not 

considered user fees. Under this designation, revenue collected by permitted guides and outfitters is 

not included in the refuge’s Recreational Fee Demonstration program, and thus is transferred to the 

U.S. General Treasury. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Guided activities follow the general regulations set forth for the general public. New or expanded 

activities related to public use proposed within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the 

MRDG process in an attempt to identify potential impacts and develop methods to accomplish 

management objectives without jeopardizing wilderness values and resources. 

Short-term impacts: 

Impacts from guided groups are expected to be similar to other public use activities as indicated 

below. Larger groups may increase the likelihood of disturbances related to noise, trampling, 

compaction, or longer duration of continuous activity. 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. Individual animals may be disturbed by 

human contact to varying degrees during wildlife observation and photography. Examples of potential 

disturbance include flushing of animals from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling of plants 

from observers and photographers along the edge of trails. Disturbance to all species is expected to be 

minimal due to the placement of trails in association with recurring wildlife use, limiting access to trails 

only, and closing areas where necessary to decrease disturbance. With the use of outboard motors, 

minor amounts of gasoline and oil are released into the waters. Short-term impacts to facilities such as 

roads and trails can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe or wet conditions. Trails through 

wetlands are avoided or created by the use of boardwalks to minimize disturbance. 

Overnight campers are in canoes on established waterways, so disturbance to the vegetation would 

be minimal. Disturbance to all species is expected to be minimal unless use shifts to locations 

adjacent to waterways. Camping facilities are designed to minimize impact to the vegetation and 

wetland soils. Campfires are only allowed at campsites located on dry ground. Litter increases 

around the overnight platforms due to wind. 

Long-term impacts: 

The continuous use of an area by large guided groups may compact the soil, trample the vegetation, 

and displace wildlife. These impacts may require some time to recover.l Resident wildlife has 

greater potential of being impacted over a long time period due to the recurring visitation of wildlife 

observers. Wildlife can become accustomed to humans. Lack of fear could result in harm to the 

animal or an animal could become aggressive and need to be relocated or dispatched. Long term 

use of an area will be monitored as visitation increases and adaptive management strategies 

developed to address significant impacts. Monitoring would include an evaluation of changes in 

wildlife use patterns, trampling of vegetation, and compaction of the soil around the activity area. 

Managing group size and distributing groups to various sites will minimize the impacts. 
296 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative impacts: 

If there is an increase in guiding large groups within the Okefenokee NWR, there is greater potential 

for impacting the landscape. Ways of limiting access or spreading visitor use will be developed. 

Programs will be modified as necessary to mitigate unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial overnight and day-use guides and outfitters (up to 25 and 100, respectively) are required 

to apply for a Special Use Permit prior to leading trips into Okefenokee NWR. Requirements include 

proof of liability insurance, basic first aid, and CPR. Once each applicant has been reviewed and 

approved, they are then required to attend a refuge-sponsored, one-day training session to review 

special operating procedures, guidelines, rules, regulations, laws and other refuge-specific 

information. 

Rules and regulations must be followed as addressed under each recreational activity. Guidelines for 

the general public also apply to guided groups. Guides however do have to comply with the 

following: 
Section B. Appendices 297 

Insurance 

All guides will be required to furnish proof of liability insurance by an insurance company which is 

acceptable to the Service. Day-use guides will be required to furnish $300,000 general 

liability/occurrence; overnight guides will furnish $500,000 general liability/occurrence. 

Each policy or certificate evidencing the insurance shall contain an endorsement which provides that 

the insurance company will notify the refuge 30 days prior to the effective date of any cancellation or 

termination of the policy or certificate or any modification of the policy or certificate which adversely 

affects the interest of the Government in such insurance. The notice shall be sent by registered mail 

and shall identify the permitee and the number of the special use permit. 

Training 

All permitees and their employees who guide on Okefenokee NWR shall attend a training course that 

describes the refuge and its mission, the habitats and history of the area, and the customer service 

standards expected of all permitees. Training will take place on the refuge, in an eight-hour (1 day) 

session. All guides that work at Okefenokee NWR will be required to maintain current Red Cross First 

Aid and CPR certification. 

Canoe Trail Reservations 

Guides will not receive any special privileges in scheduling or reserving canoe trails and platforms. 

The refuge does not accept reservations for the picnic shelter or picnic area, auditorium, Chesser 

Island Homestead or other facilities. 

Entrance Fees 

The private, non-commercial vehicle entrance pass is a daily pass to a 7-day pass. However, all day 

use guides will be required to pay daily entrance fees based on the number of passengers in the 

vehicle. 

For overnight guides, the entrance fee is included in the canoe permit fee. (However, any guiding 

outside a canoe permit requires the appropriate entrance fee.) 

Guiding permits do not exempt permitees or their employees from entrance or other fees when 

visiting for non-work related activities. 

Any other commercial use on the refuge, including catering, shuttle service, and outfitting will be 

required to pay the minimum established commercial vehicle fee (up to 25 people). 

If you are guiding a group with an educational/scientific entrance fee waiver, you must either board 

their vehicle to enter the refuge or pay the commercial vehicle rate for your vehicle. 

Reporting 

At the end of the permit year, permitees are required to fill out a short form revealing dates, times and 

number of trips they took into Okefenokee NWR; total number of participants for each trip; and total 

fees collected per trip. There will also be space to list problems encountered and additional 

comments 

Justification: 

Guides are allowed to operate on the refuge to provide recreational opportunities to a wide spectrum 

of individuals with various levels of outdoor skills. Guides also provide a needed service for those 

visitors that do not possess appropriate equipment. They are able to present educational information 

about the swamp and the ecosystem to those parties that would like this additional knowledge. To 
298 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

minimize pressure from guides on the overnight camping reservation system, a limited number of 

guiding permits are allowed. Day use guides would not limit other users from using the area and 

therefore, the quota is high. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2016 

Description of Use: Commercial Video/Cinematography/Photography 

The Okefenokee is a national and international treasure. Every year photographers from prestigious 

magazines, newspapers, and production companies travel to the refuge for the purpose of producing 

multi-media features. Whether they are seeking to produce documentaries for national and 

international media on the Okefenokee NWR, or just out to shoot film and/or stock video footage, 

which may ultimately be used for commercial purposes, photographers, writers, and film producers 

need to secure a Special Use Permit. Special Use Permits are issued only after a formal written 

request from the person/company has been sent in advance of the planned activity, and is reviewed 

and approved as compatible with refuge purposes. Refuge staff makes every effort to insure that 

factually correct information is presented in each story. Numerous staff hours are spent annually in 

editing, and providing support to various media markets, which seek to present information about the 

refuge and its resources. 

Photography is conducted both outside and inside the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. Facilities open 

to the general public are also accessible by photographers and other media personnel. Maintaining 

wilderness values and resources, preserving the wilderness character of the biological and physical 

resources, and providing opportunities for wilderness research and recreation are the management 

focuses for designated wilderness. A minimum-requirements decision guide (MRDG) will be 

completed for all activities proposed in the wilderness area. This process involves determining if an 

essential task should be conducted in the wilderness area and then determining the combination of 

methods, equipment, or administrative practices necessary to successfully and safely administer the 

refuge and accomplish wilderness management objectives. 

Requests for commercial filming number between 2-10 each year. Request may increase through 

the next 15 years depending on the national, regional, or local environmental issues. 

Availability of Resources: 

Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds are adequate to support public use activities. This 

activity is supported through the public use program with additional administrative maintenance of 

permits. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: Commercial 

photographers use the same facilities as the general public. 
Section B. Appendices 299 

Maintenance Costs: $20,000 for the wildlife observation and photography portion of the public use 

program. 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $3,000 for the wildlife observation and 

photography portion of the public use program. 

Offsetting revenues: $23,000 

The refuge is a participant in the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program which currently returns 80 

percent of fees generated from recreational activities back to the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Proposed commercial filming that goes beyond the opportunities available to the general public within 

the wilderness area will be evaluated through the MRDG process in an attempt to identify potential 

impacts and develop methods to accomplish management objectives without jeopardizing wilderness 

values and resources. 

Short-term impacts: 

The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. Individual animals may be disturbed 

by human contact to varying degrees during photographic shoots. Handling animals and disturbing 

vegetation during photography sessions is prohibited. Examples of potential disturbance include 

flushing of animals from feeding, resting, or nesting areas and trampling of plants from observers and 

photographers along the edge of trails. Disturbance to trust species are expected to be minimal due 

to the placement of trails in association with recurring wildlife use, limiting access to trails only, and 

closing areas where necessary to decrease disturbance. With the use of outboard motors, minor 

amounts of gasoline and oil are released into the waters. Short-term impacts to facilities such as 

roads and trails can be avoided by special closures due to unsafe or wet conditions. Trails through 

wetlands are avoided or created by the use of boardwalks to minimize disturbance. The issuance of 

photography permits are designed to avoid or minimize impacts anticipated to refuge resources and 

visitors. Commercial photographers and media specialists are not allowed to have exclude and/or 

impede the public visitors. 

Long-term impacts: 

Photographers are encouraged to not use the same area for extended periods of time. Resident 

wildlife has greater potential of being impacted over a long time period due to the recurring visitation. 

Wildlife can become accustomed to humans. Lack of fear could result in harm to the animal or an 

animal could become aggressive and need to be relocated or dispatched. Long term use of an area 

needs to be monitored as visitation increases. Monitoring would include an evaluation of changes in 

wildlife use patterns, trampling of vegetation, and compaction of the soil around the activity area. 

Long term impacts from photographers are currently minimal due to the low number of 

photographers, access is limited to existing trails and boardwalks, and the absence of a “favorite” 

viewing area on the refuge. The establishment of a photo blind may increase use of a specific area; 

however, a refuge structure would protect the surrounding habitat from disturbance. 
300 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Cumulative impacts: 

As visitation increases, more impacts to the landscape may occur. Ways of limiting access or 

spreading visitor use will be developed. Programs will be modified as necessary to mitigate 

unforeseen impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Commercial photography will follow these guidelines: 

• Photographers have access only to areas normally open to the public, during posted hours. It 

does not allow for after hours filming. 

• Photographer may not leave any items on the refuge for future use. You must remove all 

equipment and supplies daily. 

• A DVD version of the final product to Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge for our files must be 

submitted to the refuge. We are available to review and provide clarification prior to final 

production. 

• Handling of animals or disturbing vegetation for photographic purposes is prohibited. 
Section B. Appendices 301 

Justification: 

Providing opportunities for commercial photography, video, and cinematography contributes to the 

achievement of refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System by 

increasing the public’s awareness of the refuge’s beauty and ecological importance, as well as, 

advancing the public’s knowledge and support for the refuge system. 

The stipulations outlined above would minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human 

interactions and insures this use to continue to be compatable. The level of visitation proposed in the 

CCP for wildlife-dependent uses would not conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological 

diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. The MRDG process for activities 

proposed within the wilderness further emphasizes the refuge’s commitment to minimizing impacts to 

the wilderness values and resources. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2016

Description of Use: Commercial Timber Harvesting 

Commercial timber harvesting is used on refuge upland management compartments on Okefenokee 

NWR as a management tool to accomplish habitat management goals. There is no timber 

harvesting within the wilderness area. The habitat management goals are to restore longleaf pine 

communities on refuge uplands and to make the limited amount of remaining upland habitat suitable 

for native wildlife species adapted to these historic, fire dependent communities. This tool will be 

used where it is the most practical method of removing unwanted trees from the habitat. 

Refuge uplands, once part of a 70 million acre longleaf pine community ecosystem are now isolated 

fragments only partially resembling the original habitat. Native wildlife species are now confined to 

these remaining fragments of land of Okefenokee NWR and other fragments of public and private 

land. Many of these species, wildlife and plants, are endangered, threatened, or imperiled. 

Before any harvest is conducted, a forest habitat management prescription on the area will be 

completed. A systematic timber inventory will be completed to determine any habitat deficiencies 

which may exist and to document the treatment necessary to meet refuge habitat management 

objectives. The prescription will also describe how the sale will be conducted or controlled to avoid 

damage to the habitat communities and to insure that the product is removed according to the 

conditions of the sale. Prescriptions are reviewed and approved before any harvesting takes place. 

If a commercial sale is not feasible, trees will be removed by other means. 
302 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Detailed instructions for improving the habitat are developed for each stand using the inventory data. 

These instructions include: 

• Appearance of the stand after timber removal is complete. 

• Descriptions or examples of trees to be removed. 

• Basal area to be left, so that the marker knows how much to leave. The marker may not be able 

to remove all the unwanted trees during one prescription cycle. 

• Where to locate loading areas. 

• Locations of patch regeneration areas. 

• Other special management techniques. 

Timber marking and thinning may involve several objectives: 

• Removal of an entire stand (clearcutting) usually utilized when restoring longleaf pine on an area 

now supporting a slash pine stand. 

• Patch harvesting (opening a 1⁄4 to 5 acre opening or enhancement of natural openings) to 

establish patch regeneration areas. 

• Removal of selected overstory stems to release patches of existing natural longleaf pine 

regeneration. 

• Opening of crowns to provide more light to the understory. 

• Selective thinning to remove unwanted species, poor quality trees, accelerate growth or to provide 

open stands for red-cockaded woodpecker foraging and nesting areas. 

• Remove unneeded midstory trees interfering with red-cockaded woodpecker movement. 

• Adjust basal area and diameter class distribution. 

All timber sales will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines established in the Habitat and 

Wildlife Management Plan and will be designed to meet refuge habitat management objectives. 

Small sales (estimated receipts < $5,000) will usually be negotiated. The refuge forester will make a 

reasonable effort to obtain at least three bids from potential buyers. Often the successful bidder on 

negotiated sales is selected on the basis of special equipment or ability to complete the sale in 

addition to best price. 

Larger timber sales (estimated receipts > $5,000) are usually conducted by a formal bid procedure. 

The successful bidder will make performance guarantee deposits as specified in the invitation to bid 

to cover any damages caused by the permittee or his producers. 

Availability of Resources: Commercial harvesting can be used as a management tool on 16,216 

acres divided into 16 upland management compartments, ranging from 411 to 1,944 acres. These 

compartments are grouped into 10 prescription units, each unit to be inventoried every 10 years. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: The Swamp 

Perimeter Road along with numerous forest industry roads provides access from public roads to the 

upland management compartments. Within the refuge boundary, approximately 70 miles of roads 

provide access through the 16 compartments. Various informal agreements allow refuge personnel 

access through the private road system to the Perimeter Road and the compartment roads. Roads 

are maintained as needed to accomplish management activities. 
Section B. Appendices 303 

Forest management activities require road maintenance, site preparation, and tree planting. Fire 

management equipment located at the refuge is adequate to perform most required maintenance and 

construction projects. 

Maintenance Costs: $15,000 (Road work, culverts, fuel, supplies, paint, gravel) 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $45,000 

Close inspection of all timber sales is necessary to insure that harvesting operations continuously 

meet refuge objectives and the conditions of the permit. Mill scale tickets, required to be submitted 

with payment for timber products, will be checked to insure that proper payment is made. 

Offsetting revenues: A percentage of revenues from both concession operations and timber sales 

across the nation are put into a special account (Proceeds from Sales). A fractional percentage of 

this fund is divided among Regions and then each Region allots monies to refuges which have these 

types of operations. Okefenokee NWR typically receives $45.0 - $60.0 annually from this fund. The 

refuge then uses the allotment to supplement costs of these operations. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: 

Timber harvesting during wet weather could cause excessive damage to the forest stands, soils, the 

understory community, and wildlife habitat. If wildlife is present in or near the area of harvest, 

excessive disturbance could occur. This is especially true during the breeding season. Too big of 

equipment and/or careless operations could also damage the trees that are left or compact the soil. 

For this reason, small negotiated sales are more desirable. 

Long-term impacts: 

If a sale is not monitored carefully, damage or excessive cutting may occur which would set back the 

restoration of the forest stand. 

Cumulative impacts: 

Proper use of fire, timber harvesting, and planting as management tools can benefit the habitat and 

restore native communities; however, these tools can have an cumulative effect if miss-managed. 

Careful thought out manipulations will insure the maximum benefit out of these tools. 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 
304 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Each harvesting permit contains a list of special conditions the permittee must follow to insure that the 

refuge objectives are met. The following are some stipulations that may be included: 

• Permittee must commence harvesting operations within three (3) months of accepting the permit 

for harvest and must complete harvesting within a period of twenty-four (24) months from permit 

start date. The Refuge Manager may issue an extension to the permit-agreement if the sale is not 

completed due to weather or other circumstances beyond permittee's control. 

• Tree length skidding must be accomplished without excessive damage to remaining trees. The 

sale area involves selective thinning of stands of trees that will remain 200+ years. Permittee's 

producers/employees and their equipment must be capable of successfully completing selective 

thinning operations without excessive damage to the remaining trees. Damage to remaining 

standing timber or cutting trees not designated for harvest will be paid for by permittee at double 

the stumpage price. It is expected that the successful bidder must be capable of moving at least 

100 cords of wood per week to successfully complete the sale within established time frames. 

• The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is one of the many endangered species found on 

Okefenokee’s pine uplands. If evidence of the bird is found during the sale, harvesting operations 

will be adjusted accordingly. If there is currently RCW activity, special provision will be made 

during the breeding season. 

• The successful bidder will negotiate with private landowners haul routes between refuge lands and 

suitable public roads. The permittee is responsible for the repair of damages to all roads and 

bridges (on and off refuge) utilized to transport timber products from the refuge. The permittee will 

also repair any damage to gates, locks, public trails, fire lines, etc. As part of the sale, the permittee 

will be required to purchase 10 loads (20-25 ton loads) of crush-n-run rock ($400-500 per load) for 

road maintenance during and after the sale. Permittee will need to make arrangements for delivery 

of this rock to a site designated by the refuge forestry staff within or adjacent to the sale area. 
Section B. Appendices 305 

• Take appropriate action, conduct training, and make necessary plans to avoid spills and releases 

of fuels, oils, lubricants, and other hazardous substances and notify refuge staff if any such spill or 

release occurs. 

Justification: 

Okefenokee NWR is active in restoring native communities including the longleaf pine community. 

Conversion to longleaf pine stands requires the removal of less desirable pine species or poor quality 

trees. Other occasions, the habitat would be enhanced if the canopy was opened to accelerate 

growth or to promote good RCW foraging and nesting areas. When most effective and efficient, the 

refuge administers controlled timber sales to accomplish these habitat improvements. All timber 

sales are designed to meet refuge habitat management objectives. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02-2016

Description of Use: Suwannee Canal Recreation Area Concession 

The refuge promotes wildlife observation, photography, fishing, hunting, environmental education and 

interpretation. Visitation numbers fluctuate depending on accessibility. Over the past 15 years, 

overall visitation numbers ranged from 242,372 in 2000 to 423,157 in 1990. Carrying capacity of the 

refuge is estimated at 800,000. The consequences of visitor use depends on how the visitation is 

managed. Increased development in the area and interest in the environmental programs offered by 

the Okefenokee Education and Research Center will bring more visitors to the refuge. However, 

visitation is not expected to reach 600,000 over the next 15 years. 

The east entrance to the refuge receives approximately 200,000 visitors per year. The above 

mentioned wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge require traveling along established trails by walking, 

biking, canoeing/kayaking, and motorboating. 

A concession is currently present to enhance visitor experiences at the east entrance to the 

Okefenokee NWR. The existing contract was signed June 21, 2000 and renewed by mutual 

agreement in 2005. The current contract runs through June 20, 2010. It permits the concessionaire 

to operate out of the east entrance with the following property: 

• 1,800 sq ft concession building 

• 900 sq ft canoe storage shed 

• 1,100 sq ft deck/eating area 

• 6’x6’ sq ft oil/gas house for hazardous material storage 

• 500 gallon above-ground fuel tank 

• 40 ft long canoe storage rack 

• Boat dock area, including 400 ft bulkhead/dock; (25) 15 ft long docks, and a boat launching ramp. 
306 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

The contract requires the concessionaire to provide the following visitor services: 

 Rental of: 

 watercraft (canoes/kayaks, johnboats and motors) 

 Associated boating and safety equipment 

 Fishing equipment 

 Sale of: 

 fishing tackle and equipment, bait (no live minnows) 

 Merchandise 

 Prepared food and food prepared on-site, including sandwiches, salads, and other food items. 

 Guided interpretive tours including night boat tours 

 Collection of entrance fees 

The following services are authorized but not required: 

 Sale of canoes/kayaks; associated boating and safety equipment 

 Bicycle rentals 

Availability of Resources: 

The concession provides the above equipment and services for those visitors that do not own or have 

not brought the appropriate gear to experience the Okefenokee NWR. The area used by the 

concession users is the same as the area open to the general public. However, the general user is 

limited to regular refuge hours while the concession occasionally operates special evening tours after 

refuge hours. 

Approximately 1% of the refuge lands are impacted directly from visitation. Highest use occurs on 

220 acres at the east and west entrances. The east entrance has a visitor center, boardwalk, two 

observation towers, wildlife drive, restored homestead, hiking trails, fishing and hunting opportunities, 

and access to the interior of the swamp. 

There are approximately 62 miles of water trails open for day use and motorboat use. Estimating 

disturbance to an area 150 ft from the trail would result in 2247 acres being considered potentially 

disturbed. Canoe-only trails add an additional 1679 acres that have the potential of being impacted. 

Food service provided by the concession supplies the visitors with refreshments that encourages 

longer refuge visits and thus, greater opportunities to explore and interpret the resources at the east 

entrance of the refuge. The nearest restaurants are approximately 11 miles away. 

Special equipment, facilities or improvements necessary to support the use: 

All public facilities are open to use by the concession users. The concession has structural facilities 

to support their operations. They also have touring boats that accommodate larger groups of visitors. 

Their rental motorboats have four-stroke engines and comply with the environmental compliance and 

horsepower limits of the refuge. 

Maintenance Costs: (Salaries, supplies, repairs) $23,600 

Administrative/Law Enforcement Monitoring Costs: $9,247 
Section B. Appendices 307 

Offsetting Revenues: A percentage of revenues from both concession operations and timber sales 

across the nation are put into a special account (Proceeds from Sales). A fractional percentage of 

this fund is divided among Regions and then each Region allots monies to refuges which have these 

types of operations. Okefenokee NWR typically receives $45.0 - $60.0 annually from this fund. The 

refuge then uses the allotment to supplement costs of these operations. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The concession accommodates greater numbers of visitors and provides them with the appropriate 

gear, food, and tour options. Without the concession, the majority of the visitors to the east entrance 

would not experience the interior of the Okefenokee Swamp. Their length of stay would also be 

shorter due to fewer opportunities. 

Concession users follow the general regulations set forth for the general public. New or expanded 

activities related to public use proposed within the wilderness area will be evaluated through the 

MRDG process in an attempt to identify potential impacts and develop methods to accomplish 

management objectives without jeopardizing wilderness values and resources. 

Short-term Impacts: 

Impacts from individual concession users are expected to be similar to other public use activities. 

Accommodating larger groups may increase the likelihood of disturbances related to noise, trampling, 

compaction, or longer duration of continuous activity. Regular scheduled tours to specific areas may 

displace wildlife use at certain locations to a greater extent than random visitor use. 

Providing equipment to access the swamp and food service allows the visitor greater opportunities to 

observe wildlife, photograph, and fish, enhancing their refuge experience. In addition, environmental 

education messages and proper wilderness etiquette can be communicated since the concession 

employees are in direct contact with the visitor prior to their trip into the swamp. 

Long-term Impacts: 

As a business, the concession is concerned over the long-term with making a profit and expanding 

their customer base. Promotion of their services may bring greater numbers of visitor groups and 

individuals to the refuge and thus, greater disturbance to the resources may occur. Long term use of 

an area will be monitored as visitation increases and adaptive management strategies developed to 

address significant impacts. Monitoring would include an evaluation of changes in wildlife use 

patterns, trampling of vegetation, and compaction of the soil around the activity area. The refuge and 

concession operator will work collaboratively to manage group size and distribute groups to various 

sites to minimize the impacts resulting from this use. 

Cumulative Impacts: 

Through the concession tours and contacts with individuals, the public will become more informed 

about the refuge and its resources. Certain information presented may be carried to other natural 

recreation areas giving additional benefit to the messages that are presented. 
308 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: This compatibility determination has been reviewed along with the 

refuge’s draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. This document was announced in the Federal 

Register and made available for public comment for 45 days (August 1 – September 16, 2005). The 

following methods were used to solicit public review and comment on the CCP: 

 

 Post notice in Folkston, GA post office. 

 Public notice appeared in the following newspapers: 

 Atlanta Journal Constitution August 19, 2005 

 Charlton County Herald August 17, 2005 

 Clinch County News August 17, 2005 

 The Gainesville Sun August 19, 2005 

 The Florida Times Union August 20, 2005 

 Macon Telegraph August 19, 2005 

 Savannah Morning News August 20, 2005 

 Valdosta Daily Times August 19, 2005 

 Waycross Journal Herald August 20, 2005 

 Public meetings: 

 August 23, 2005 Waycross, GA 

 August 25, 2005 Folkston, GA 

 August 30, 2005 Fargo, GA 

Determination (check one below): 

 X Compatible with the following stipulations 

_____Not Compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

The contract governing the Suwannee Canal Recreation Area Concession ensures compatibility with 

the refuge’s goals and objectives as it addresses the following in detail: 

 Quality of Operation 

 Operating Plan 

 Merchandise and Services 

 Rates 

 Impartiality as to Rates and Services 

 Employees 

 Legal, Regulatory, Policy Compliance 

 Environmental Protection 

 Interpretation of Refuge Resources 

 Concession facilities 

 Utilities 

 Maintenance 

 Fees 

 Indemnification and Insurance 

 Accounting Records and Reports 

 Services and Receipts 
Section B. Appendices 309 

Public use in general will continue to be monitored to minimize resource impacts. 

Justification: 

The concession is allowed to operate on the refuge to provide recreational opportunities to a wide 

spectrum of individuals with various levels of outdoor skills. They also provide a needed service for 

those visitors that do not possess appropriate equipment or did not bring their own. The concession 

staff increases contacts with the visitors, providing an opportunity to present educational information 

about the swamp and the ecosystem and regulatory information. Providing food service increases a 

visitor’s length of stay so they may discover the refuge in more detail. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: Place an X in appropriate space. 

______Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 08-02- 2016

Approval of Compatibility Determination

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. If one of the descriptive uses is considered for compatibility outside of the plan, 

the approval signature becomes part of that determination. 
310 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 311 

Appendix XIII. Consultation and Coordination 

A planning team consisting of refuge management staff, a private ecology consultant, and 

representatives from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of Ecological Services, the Georgia Wildlife 

Federation, the Wildlife Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Georgia State 

Parks and Historic Sites Office, and the Osceola National Forest was formed to prepare the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and the Environmental Assessment for Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge. 

The refuge management staff began meeting regularly on March 16, 2001, to discuss the planning 

process. The first core planning team meeting was held on July 26, 2001. This planning team met 

three additional times (December 11, 2001, April 11, 2002, and December 17, 2003). 

Five public workshops to identify the important issues, concerns, and suggestions related to the 

management of the refuge were conducted in the communities around the refuge in September and 

October 2001. In addition, professional reviews of the refuge’s forestry/fire, biological, and public 

service programs were conducted between October 2001, and February 2002. 

On July 2, 2003, the refuge staff participated in a wilderness workshop that was facilitated by Nancy 

Roeper, Wilderness Coordinator, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Sue Matthews, Fish and Wildlife 

Service liason at the Arthur Carhart National Wilderness Training Center. 

The refuge management staff compiled the thoughts and comments from the numerous discussions 

at all of the above-mentioned gatherings into the writing of the draft comprehensive conservation plan 

and the environmental assessment. Team participants are listed below: 

Refuge CCP Coordinator and Preparer: Sara Brown Aicher, Wildlife Biologist, Okefenokee 

Refuge, Folkston, Georgia 

Refuge Management Team: 

Skippy Reeves, Refuge Manager 

Shaw Davis, Deputy Refuge Manager 

Jim Burkhart, Supervisor Ranger 

Maggie O’Connell, Ranger (currently Ranger, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge, 

Socorro, New Mexico) 

Gisella Burgos, Ranger 

Fred Wetzel, Forester/Fire Management Officer 

Russ Langford, Assistant Forester/Assist Fire Management Officer 

Cindy Thompson, Biologist (currently NEPA Coordinator, Osceola National Forest, Olustee, 

Florida) 

Dean Easton, Biologist 

Core Planning Team: 

Refuge Management Team (above) 

John Kasbohm, Ecologist, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville, Florida 

Frank Cole, Fire Ecology Consultant, Thomasville, Georgia 
312 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Jerry McCollum, Georgia Wildlife Federation, Covington, Georgia 

Wes Abler, Georgia Department of Natural Resouces, Wildlife Resources, Fitzgerald, Georgia 

Ed Reed, Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites, Region 2 Office, Brunswick, Georgia 

Will Metz, Superintendent, Osceola National Forest, Olustee, Florida 

(currently Deputy Forest Supervisor, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California) 

FORESTRY/FIRE PROGRAM REVIEW TEAM 

(October 29 - November 2, 2001) 

Team Leader: David J. Brownlie, Regional Fire Ecologist, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast 

Region, Tallahassee, Florida 

Alan Dozier, Georgia Forestry Commission, Macon, Georiga 

Gary Howell, International Paper, Glen Saint Mary, Florida 

Dale Wade, Forestry Science Laboratory, USDA-Forest Service, Athens, Georgia 

Cyndy Loftin, U.S. Geological Survey-BRD, Maine Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 

University of Maine, Orono, Maine 

BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM REVIEW TEAM 

(November 26 - 30, 2001) 

Team Leader: Chuck Hunter, Division of Wildlife and Habitat Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Laura Brandt, A.R.M. Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, Boynton Beach, Florida 

John Robinette, Savannah Coastal Refuges, Savannah, Georgia 

Greg Looney, Warm Springs Regional Fisheries Center, Warm Springs, Georgia 

Parley Winger, U.S. Geological Survey-BRD, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 

Todd Engstrom, Tall Timber Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida 

John Jensen, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Nongame-Endangered Wildlife Program, 

Forsyth, Georgia 

Joe Clark, NBS-CPSU, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 

PUBLIC SERVICES PROGRAM REVIEW TEAM 

(January 28 - February 1, 2002) 

Team Leader: Matt Gay, Outdoor Recreation Planner, National Conservation Training Center, 

Shepherdstown, West Virginia 

Donna Stanek, Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 

Kimberly King-Wrenn, Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Manteo, North Carolina 

Joel Vinson, Forsyth, Georgia 

Tommy Gregors, Okefenokee Education and Research Center, Folkston, Georgia 
Section B. Appendices 313 

Appendix XIV. Glossary Of Terms and 

Acronyms 

Adaptive Management A process in which projects are implement within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and assumptions 

outlined within the comprehensive conservation plan. The analysis of the 

outcome of project implementation helps managers determine whether 

current management should continue as is or whether it should be 

modified to achieve desired conditions. 

“Area of Concern” Lands near the refuge boundary that the Service would prefer to stay 

undeveloped; remain agricultural or be restored to their natural state. The 

Service would assist in managing these lands for wildlife through 

developing partnerships or by entering into license agreements or 

boundary easements. 

Alluvial Of, relating to, or found in sediment deposited by flowing water, as in a 

riverbed, flood plain, or delta. 

Alternative A set of objectives and strategies needed to achieve refuge goals and the 

desired future condition. 

Anadromous Going from salt water to fresh water; such as salmon, shad, snook, or 

tarpon. 

Anthropogenic Caused by man, such as air pollution. 

Approved Acquisition 

Boundary 

A project boundary that the Direction of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

approves upon completion of a detailed planning and environmental 

compliance process. 

Bio-accumulation The process in which industrial waste, toxic chemicals, or pesticides 

gradually accumulate in living tissue, or in the food web/chain. 

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

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur. 
314 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Biological Integrity The biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 

and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the 

natural biological processes the shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities. 

Biomass The total mass, or amount of material, in particular area. 

Biota The plant and animal life of a region. 

Buffer A multi-use transitional area designed and managed to protect core 

reserves and critical corridors from increased development and human 

activities that are incompatible to wildlife. In the document, agricultural 

lands are also considered buffer lands. 

Canopy A layer of foliage; generally the upper-most layer in a forest stand. It can 

be used to refer to mid- or under-story vegetation in multi-layered stands. 

Canopy closure is an estimate of the amount of overhead tree cover (also 

canopy cover). 

Catastrophic Wildfire Fires which historically occurred in the area prior to the 1900’s, usually 

once every 20 years during severe droughts; fires had potential due to 

their intense nature, to physically alter a particular plant community. 

Class I Airshed A section of wilderness, national park, or international park designated by 

Congress as critical areas to protect pristine air quality. 

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

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

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

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purposes of the 

national wildlife refuge. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

A document that describes the desired future condition of a refuge and 

provides long-range guidance and management direction in order to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the 

refuge system, and meet other relevant mandates. 

Cone of Depression An area surrounding a well or underground mine within which 

groundwater flow changes direction when water is pumped out and 

drawing down (lowering) of the water table occurs in the immediate area. 
Section B. Appendices 315 

Conservation 

Easement 

A legal document that provides specific land-use rights to a secondary 

party. A perpetual conservation easement usually grants conservation 

and management rights to a party in perpetuity. 

Cooperative 

Agreement 

A simple habitat protection action in which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually long-term and can be modified by 

either party. 

Corridor Resources A route that allows movement of animal species from one region or place 

to another. 

Cultural Resources The physical remains of human activity (e.g., artifacts, ruins and burial 

mounds) and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, 

historic, or prehistoric events, such as a sacred area of native peoples) of 

an area. It includes historically, archaeologically, and/or architecturally 

significant resources. 

Ecological Succession The orderly progression of an area through time in the absence of 

disturbance from one vegetative community to another. 

Ecosystem A dynamic and interrelated complex of plant and animal communities and 

their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem Approach A strategy or plan to protect and restore the natural function, structure, 

and species composition of an ecosystem, recognizing that all 

components are interrelated. 

Ecosystem 

Management 

Management of an ecosystem that includes all ecological, social, and 

economic components which make up the whole of the system. 

Ecotone A transitional zone between two habitat types or adjacent communities. 

Elemental 

Contaminants 

Elements such as phosphorus, mercury or selenium that occur in the 

environment naturally or unnaturally as the result of human actions. 

Endangered Species Any species of plant or animal defined through the Endangered Species 

Act as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion 

of its range, and published in the Federal Register. 
316 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Endemic Species Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose 

distribution is relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Evapotranspiration The total water loss from soil, including direct evaporation and that by 

transpiration from the leaf surface of plants. 

Exotic Species A non-indigenous or alien species, or one introduced, either purposefully 

(horticulture trade) or accidentally that escaped into the wild where it 

reproduces on its own, either sexually or asexually. Any introduced plant 

or animal species that is not native to the area and may be considered a 

nuisance. 

Fauna All the vertebrate or invertebrate animals of an area. 

Fee Title The acquisition of most or all of the rights to a tract of land. There is a 

total transfer of property rights with a formal conveyance of a title. While 

a fee title acquisition involves most rights to a property, certain rights may 

be reserved or not purchased, including water rights, mineral rights, or 

use reservation (the ability to continue using the land for a specified time 

period, or the remainder of the owner’s life). 

Feral A wild, free roaming domestic animal; may be a domestic escapee. 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact. 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. 

Fragmentation The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches. 

The disruption of extensive habitats into isolated and small patches. 

Fuel Living and dead plant material that is capable of burning. 

GIS Geographic Information System. A computer-based system for the 

collection, processing, and managing spatially-referenced data. GIS 

allows for the overlay of many data layers and provides a valuable tool 

for addressing resource management issues. 

Goals Descriptive statements of desired future conditions. 
Section B. Appendices 317 

Habitat The place where an organism lives. The existing environmental 

conditions required by an organism for survival and reproduction. 

Helibase Central location where helicopters are stationed for refuge operations. 

Herbicide A chemical agent used to kill plants or inhibit plant growth. 

Hydrological Involving water flows or their distributions as related to evaporation, or 

flow to freshwater marshes, salt marshes, seas, estuaries, etc. 

Hydrology The scientific study of the properties, distribution, and effects of water in 

the atmosphere, on the earth’s surface and in soil and rocks. A 

hydrologic model is a type of simulation that takes into account the 

known behavior of water in the form of mathematical formulas and 

computer models that allows one to mimic the movement of water in a 

known area. 

Hydropattern A description of water movement change in depth, timing, flow, or 

location of surface water. 

Hydroperiod A measure of the fluctuation and change of water levels and flow over 

time. The length of time an area is inundated. 

Indicator Species A species of plant or animal that is assumed to be sensitive to habitat 

changes and represents the needs of a larger group of species. 

In-Holding Privately owned land inside the boundary of a national wildlife refuge. 

Invasive Species A native, or non-native plant that has flourished beyond its normal 

constraints, due to changes in its natural environment. 

Issue Any unsettling matter that requires a management decision. For 

example, a resource management problem, concern, a threat to natural 

resources, a conflict in uses, or the presence of an undesirable resource 

condition. 

Keystone Species A species unique to, or dependent upon, a specific habitat; that one of a 

number of associated parts or things that supports or holds together the 

others. 
318 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Listed Species Any species of fish, wildlife, or plant that has been determined to be “at 

risk” by a state or the federal government agency. In this document, at 

risk may include threatened, endangered, species of special concern, 

species of management concern, or species included in the Convention 

of International Trade in Endangered Species. 

Midden A slightly elevated mound composed of shell fragments and other debris 

left as waste by native Indians; shell mounds found throughout the 

ecosystem constructed by native Indians. 

Migratory The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Minimum 

Requirements Decision 

Guide 

The 2-step process to identify, analyze, and select management actions 

that are the minimum necessary for wilderness administration. Step 1 

determines whether action is necessary. If action is found to be 

necessary, then Step 2 provides guidance for determining the minimum 

action. 

Mitigation Avoiding or minimizing impacts of an action. 

Monitoring The process of collection information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

Monotypic Consisting of one type or species, such as exotic vegetation. Examples 

include single crops or Casuarina “heads.” Scientific studies have shown 

that monotypic stands of vegetation generally provide poor wildlife 

habitat. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act 

Requires all federal 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 this Act 

with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate policy 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

A national network of lands and waters administered 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. 
Section B. Appendices 319 

Native A species already occurring in the area at the time of European contact 

(1500 AD). With respect to a particular ecosystem, a species that, other 

than as a result of introduction, historically occurred or currently occurs in 

that ecosystem. 

Natural Terraces A stair-step of hydrologic pools within the refuge. Water moves with the 

gradient depending on current water levels within each pool. 

Neotropical Migratory 

Birds 

Birds that migrate from North America back and forth to South or Central 

America. These birds usually breed in North America and “winter” in the 

Caribbean, or South or Central America. Usually this term is inclusive of 

many passerines (perching birds) and shorebirds. 

Objectives Actions to be accomplished to achieve a desired outcome. 

Old-growth Forest Forested areas lacking frequent disturbance to vegetation, usually 

characterized by dominant species entered into a late successional 

stage; usually associated with high diversity of species, specialization 

and structural complexity. 

Partnerships A mutually beneficial, joint relationship between two agencies or an 

agency and landowner, etc. 

Partners-in-Flight 

Initiative 

A cooperative effort involving partnerships among federal, state, and 

local government agencies, conservation groups, academic communities, 

industry, private organizations and individuals in North, Central, and 

South America to promote conservation of birds in this hemisphere. 

Passerine The largest bird group composed of small perching birds. Examples 

include northern cardinals, blue jays, warblers, sparrows, and wrens. 

PM10 Particles Respirable particles in the air that are smaller than 10um. These 

particles are collected for analysis at the refuge’s air quality station. 

Preferred Alternative The Service’s selected alternative identified in the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. 

Prescribed Fire A planned or intentional fire set by resource land managers to improve or 

restore wildlife habitat and reduce potentially dangerous fire fuel loads, 

also known as “controlled burn.” 
320 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Use Natural 

Area 

A National Wildlife Refuge System designation for a relatively 

undisturbed ecosystem or sub-ecosystem that possesses exceptional 

value or quality in illustrating or interpreting an element of the natural 

heritage of our Nation. It is available for use by the public with certain 

restrictions for protecting the area. 

Research Natural Area Specific natural areas set aside in large refuges of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System that are protected and preserved from disruptive uses, 

active or manipulative management, encroachment and development. In 

this refuge, 2,560 acres of the interior have been set aside and are 

generally off-limits to all personnel. Potentially, these areas can be used 

for comparative studies by research scientists and staff. 

Restoration 

Management 

Management actions to return a vegetative community or ecosystem to 

its original, natural condition. To bring a disturbed site or an area 

changed from its current state back to its historic structure, including 

water regimes, plant communities, and wildlife components. In this 

document, restoration can refer to exotic plant removal, planting native 

plants, and/or reintroductions of native plants or animals. 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System. A national database which contains 

the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. Projects included are 

those required to implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, 

and legal mandates. 

Scoping Process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed by a 

comprehensive conservation plan and for identifying the significant 

issues. Involved in the scoping process are federal, state, and local 

agencies, private organizations, and individuals. 

Service Fish and Wildlife Service; the federal agency under the Department of the 

Interior that guides the management of the refuge. 

Shrub A plant usually with several woody stems; a bush. A shrub differs from a 

tree by its low height. 

Species A group of organisms all of which have a high degree of physical and 

genetic similarity, generally interbreed only among themselves, and show 

persistent differences from members of allied groups of organisms. 
Section B. Appendices 321 

Species of 

Management Concern 

This is a category assigned to species for which information in the 

possession of the Service indicated that proposing to list as threatened or 

endangered was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data were 

not available to support proposed rules. 

Stakeholders Individuals or groups that have an interest in a potential or current issue; 

could include federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies, 

academic institutions, the scientific community, non-governmental entities 

including environmental agricultural, and conservative organizations, 

trade groups, commercial interests and private landowners. 

Step-down 

Management Plans 

Plans which provide the details necessary to implement management 

strategies and projects identified in the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Strategy A general approach or specific actions to achieve objectives. 

Synergy The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined 

effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. 

Threatened Species Those plant or animal species likely to become endangered species 

throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable 

future. A plant or animal identified and defined in accordance with the 

1973 Endangered Species Act and published in the Federal Register. 

Tree Islands Areas of higher elevation within the Okefenokee ecosystem that 

characteristically support more upland type shrubs, trees, and woody 

vegetation, namely pines (longleaf and slash), loblolly bay, titi, willow, 

wax myrtle, Dahoon holly, and buttonbush. Hundreds of tree islands are 

found in the refuge. 

Trust Species Specifically, species that are federal responsibility and include migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain 

marine mammals. The term is broadly used in this document to include 

federal, state, and internationally listed species, including threatened, 

endangered, species of special concern and species of management 

concern. Also known as “listed species.” 

Umbrella Species Species for which protection of its habitat will protect the habitat and life 

history requirements of a large number of other plants and animals such 

as the American alligator. 
322 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Understory Any vegetation with canopy below or closer to the ground than canopies 

of other plants. 

Upland Management 

Compartment 

A defined area of upland habitat within the refuge that receives 

management actions such as prescribed fire, commercial thinning, and 

replanting of longleaf pine trees. 

Vegetation Plants in general, or the sum of total plant life in an area. 

Watershed The entire land area that collects and drains water into a stream or 

stream system. 

Wetland Areas such as lakes, marshes, and streams that are inundated by 

surface or ground water for a long enough period of time each year to 

support, and do support under natural conditions, plants and animals that 

require saturated or seasonally saturated soils. 

Wildfire An uncontrolled fire started naturally by means such as lightning, or 

accidentally/intentionally by man. Same as wildland fire. 

Wildlife Diversity Measure of the number of wildlife species in an area and relative 

abundance. 

Wildlife Management The art and science of producing, maintaining, benefiting, and/or 

enhancing wildlife populations and their associated habitats. 

Wildlife-dependent 

Recreation 

Uses on a national wildlife refuge that involve hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. 

Xeric Of, characterized by, or adapted to an extremely dry habitat 

Zone of Influence A geographic region, typically surrounding a smaller defined area, that 

has the potential to influence conditions within all areas of the region. An 

example would be a watershed surrounding a pond or lake. 
Section B. Appendices 323 

Acronyms 

AMSL Above Mean Sea Level 

AQRV Air Quality Related Values 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

EA Environmental Assessment 

FLFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

GASPHS Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites 

GAWRD Georgia Wildlife Resource Division 

GOAL Greater Okefenokee Association of Landowners 

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

IP International Paper 

MDN Mercury Deposition Network 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MRDG Minimum Requirements Decision Guide 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF National Forest 

NTN National Trends Network

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OERC Okefenokee Education and Research Center 

OWL Okefenokee Wildlife League 

PSD The Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration program

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

SCFSP Stephen C. Foster State Park 

SCRA Suwannee Canal Recreation Area 

SESARM Southeast States Air Resource Managers

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

WUI Wildland Urban Interface 
324 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 325 

Appendix XV. Literature Cited 

Allen, A.A. 1854. Allen’s Journal: A Trip Along the Georgia-Florida Boundary, 1854. Occasional 

Paper from South Georgia No. 6, South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia 1984. Edited by 

Christy T. Trowell and Frances R. Trowell. 

Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. General 

Technical Report INT-122. National Wildfire Coordinating Group, Boise Idaho. 

Bennett, A. 1989. Population size and distribution of Florida sandhill cranes in the Okefenokee 

Swamp, Georgia. J. Field Ornithol. Winter 1989. 

Bennett, A.J. and L.A. Bennett. 1990. Productivity of Florida sandhill cranes in the Okefenokee 

Swamp, Georgia. J. Field Ornithol. Spring 1990. 

Blalock-Herod, H.N. and J.D. Williams. 2001. Quarterly Report II, Status survey for the Suwannee 

Moccasinshell, Medionidus walkeri, and assessment of historical habitat for the federally 

endangered Oval Pigtoe, Pleurobema pyriforme, in the Suwannee River drainage, Florida. 50 

pp. 

Blocker, S. 1875. Burning in the woods. Early County News, January 15, 1875. 

Bosserman, R. W. 1984. Diurnal variation of water chemistry parameters in the Okefenokee Swamp. 

Pages 296-313 In A. D. Cohen, D. J. Casagrande, M. J. Andrejko, and G. R. Best (eds.). The 

Okefenokee Swamp: Its natural history, geology and geochemistry. Wetland Surveys, Los 

Alamos, New Mexico. 

Brown, H. 1999. Smokey and the myth of nature. Fire Management Notes, Volume 159, Number 3. 

USDA Forest Service 1999. 

Carter, C.R. 1998. Personal communication with R. Phernetton. 

Carter, H.A. 1941. Biological Narrative Report. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. November, 

December 1940; January1941. 

Carter, H.A. 1941. Okefenokee Bird Records. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. Quarterly 

Biological Report; May 1941. 

Carter, H.A. 1942. Biological Narrative Report. Okefenokee Nation al Wildlife Refuge. May - August 

1942. 

Center for Economic Development Services. 2001. The Many Faces of the Okefenokee Visitors 

Phase II. Visitor Survey. Georgia Institute of Technology. 

Chabrek, R.H. 1967. The American alligator - Past, present and future. Paper presented at 21st

Annual Conference. Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. New 

Orleans, Louisiana. 
326 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Chabrek, R.H. 1971. Management of the American alligator. Louisiana Cooperative Wildlife 

Research Unit. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Publication: IUCN, 

Survival Service Commission. Crocodile Specialist Group. 

Christenson, N.L. 1993. The effects of fire on nutrient cycles in longleaf pine ecosystems. Pages 

205-211 in S.H. Herman, ed. The longleaf pine ecosystem: Proceedings of a symposium. Tall 

Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, No. 18. Tallahassee, Florida. 

Cohen, A.D., M.J.Andrejko, W. Spackman and D. Corvinus. 1984. Peat deposits of the Okefenokee 

Swamp. Pages 493-521 In A. D. Cohen, D. J. Casagrande, M. J. Andrejko, and G. R. Best 

(eds.). The Okefenokee Swamp: Its natural history, geology and geochemistry. Wetland 

Surveys, Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Conner, R. N., D. C. Rudolph, D. Saenz, and R. R. Schaefer. 1994. Heartwood, sapwood, and fungal 

decay associated with red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 58(4): 728-734. 

Creaser, E.P. 1939. Letter to Salyer of Biological Survey concerning a Biological Management 

Report for the Okefenokee Swamp. 

Crowder, L. B., J. A. Priddy, and J. R. Walters. 1998. Demographic isolation of red-cockaded 

woodpecker groups: a model analysis. Project Final Report, prepared for U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Cypert, E. 1961. The effects of fires in the Okefenokee Swamp in 1954 and 1955. American 

Midland Naturalist. (2) 66:485-503. 

Cypert, E. 1964. Christmas Bird Count, Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge files, Jan-June 1964. 

Cypert, E. 1965. A trip to Minnie’s Island; Former home of the ivory-bill. Biological Files, Wildlife, 

Birds-Woodpeckers. 

Cypert, E. 1972. The origin of houses in the Okefenokee prairies. American Midland Naturalist. (2) 

87:448-458. 

Cypert, E. 1973. Plant succession on burned areas in Okefenokee Swamp following the fires of 

1954 and 1955. Proceedings, Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, 1972. Edited by Roy 

Komarek, Tall Timbers Reaearch Station, Tallahassee Florida. 

Davis, J.D. 1996. Evidence for Plio-pleistocene polygenetic development of Okefenokee arcuate 

ridges. Southeastern Geology, Volume 36, Number 2, August 1996, p. 47-64. 

Davis, J. D. 1987. The origin of arcuate sand ridges in the Okefenokee Swamp. University of 

Georgia. 288pp. 

Diemer, J.E. 1986. The ecology and management of the gopher tortoise in the southeastern United 

States. Herpetologica, 42(1), 1986, pp.125-133. By The Herpetologists’ League, Inc. 
Section B. Appendices 327 

Diemer, J.E., and D.W. Speake. 1981. The status of the eastern indigo snake in Georgia. R. Odom 

and J. Guthrie (eds.), Proceedings, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Symposium, Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Divosion. Technical Bulletin WL5. Pp.52-61. 

Diemer, J.E., and D.W. Speake. 1983. The distribution of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon 

corais couperi) in Georgia. Journal of Herpetology, Volume 17, Number 3. Pp. 256-264. 

DiSabatino, A., R. Gerecke, and P. Martin. 2000. The biology and ecology of lotic water mites 

(Hydrachnidia). Freshwater Biology. 44:47-62. 

Dobey, S., D.V. Masters, B.K. Scheick, J.D. Clark, M.R. Pelton, and M. Sunquist. 2002. Population 

ecology of black bears in the Okefenokee-Osceola Ecosystem. Final report to study 

cooperators. 

Dodd, Jr., C. Kenneth and Linda V. LaClaire. 1995. Biogeography and status of the Striped Newt 

(Notophthalmus perstriatus) in Georgia, United States of America. Herpetological Natural 

History. 3(1):37-46. 

Eyre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and Canada. Society of American 

Foresters, Washington D.C. 

Finn, J.T. and E.J. Rykiel, Jr. 1979. Effect of the Suwannee River Sill on Okefenokee Swamp water 

level. Pages 313-320, Water Resource Research, Volume 15, Number 2. 

Frost, C.C. 1993. Four centuries of changing landscape patterns in the longleaf pine ecosystem. 

Pages 17-37. The longleaf pine ecosystem: Ecology, Restoration and Management. 

Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Number 18. Tall Timbers research 

Station, Tallahassee, Florida. 

Frost, C. C. 1995. Pre-settlement fire regimes in southeastern marshes, peatlands, and swamps. 

Pages 39-60 In Susan I. Cerulean and R. Todd Engstrom, eds. Fire in wetlands: a 

management perspective. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Number 

19. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida 

Frost, C.C. 1998. Presettlement fire frequency regimes of the United States: A first approximation. 

In Leonard A. Brennan and Teresa L. Pruden (eds.) Fire in ecosystem management: Shifting 

the paradigm from suppression to prescription. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers Fire Ecology 

Conference, Number 20. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida. 

Gabrielson, I.N. 1943. Wildlife refuges. McMillan. New York, New York. Pages 115-123. 

George, B.M. and D.P. Batzer. 2002. Invertebrates as bioindicators of mercury levels in the 

Okefenokee Swamp of southeast Georgia. Submitted to Environmental Toxicology and 

Chemistry. 

Gresh, W.A. 1955. Memo to Regional Engineer requesting engineering assistance to control water 

levels at Okefenokee. Refuge Files. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Volume 2, Second edition. John Wiley and Sons, 

New York, New York. 
328 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Hamilton, D. B. 1982. Plant succession and the influence of disturbance in the Okefenokee Swamp, 

Georgia. Okefenokee Ecosystems Investigations. Technical Report Number 9. University of 

Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

Harper, F. 1920. The Florida water-rat (Neofiber alleni) in Okefinokee Swamp, Georgia. J. 

Mammalogy. Volume 1., February. 

Harper, F. 1927. The mammals of the Okefinokee Swamp region of Georgia. Proceedings of the 

Boston Society of Natural History. 38(7):191-396. 

Harper, F. 1921-1929. Francis Harper Okefinokee Field Notebooks, 1921 – 1929. Housed in Special 

Collections, Henderson Memorial Library, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia. 

Harper, R. M. 1909. Okefinokee Swamp. Popular Science Monthly. 74:596-614. 

Hebard, F.V. 1941. Winter birds of Okefinokee and Coleraine. Georgia Society of Naturalists Bulletin 

Number 3:88. 

Herrington, S.J., K.J. Popp, H.N. Blalock-Herod, J.H. Herod, and L. Jenkins. 2004. Ten-year 

assessment of the unique fishery of the Okefenokee Swamp. Proceedings of the 58th Annual 

Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies: in Press. 

Hooper, R. G. 1988. Longleaf pines used for cavities by red-cockaded woodpeckers. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 52(3):392-398. 

Hopkins, J. M. 1947. Forty-five years with the Okefenokee Swamp. Georgia Society of Naturalists 

Bulletin Number 4. 

Hortman, Bob. 1999. Plantation Manager, Medway Plantation, Charleston SC. Survival study of 

longleaf and loblolly pines on Medway Plantation after Hurricane Hugo. Personal 

communication. 

Huddleston, P. F. 1988. A revision of the lithostratigraphic units of the coastal plain of Georgia: the 

Miocene through Holocene, Bulletin 104, Georgia Geological Survey. 

Hunter, C. 2001. Biological review for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Hurst, R.L. 1974. This Magic Wilderness, Historical features from the wiregrass. The WaycrossWare County Centennial Committee. 

Hyatt, R.A. 1984. Hydrology and geochemistry of the Okefenokee Swamp basin. Ph.D. 

Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 361 pp. 

Jackson, D.R. and E.G. Milstrey. 1989. The fauna of gopher tortoise burrows. Gopher Tortoise 

Relocation Symposium Proceedings. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report Number 

5. Pp. 86-99. 

Jensen, J.B. 1995. Survey of potential habitat on Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge for 

Ambystoma cinqulatum, Rana capito, and Notophthalmus perstriatus. Report to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. Order Number 43910-5-0092. 
Section B. Appendices 329 

Jensen, J. B. 1999. Flatwoods salamander. In Protected animals of Georgia. Published by Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Joanen, T. and L. McNease. 1970. A telemetric study of nesting female alligators on Rockefeller 

Refuge, Louisiana. Proceedings of 24th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association 

of Game and Fish Commissioners. 

Johnson, S.A. 1997. Summary of surveys for striped newts (Notophthalmus perstriatus), flatwoods 

salamanders (Ambystoma cingulatum), and gopher frogs (Rana capito) along the Trail Ridge, 

Georgia. Prepared for Golder Associates, Inc. (Project 9533778-072A). 

Johnson, S.A. 2002. Life history of the striped newt at a north-central Florida breeding pond. 

Southeastern Naturalist. 1(4):381-402. 

Kasbohm, J.W. 1996. Bibliography of environmental contaminants in the Suwannee River Basin, 

Florida and Georgia. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Unpublished. 

Kjellmark, E. 1995. Personal Communication. 

Kratzer, E.B. 2002. Temporal and spatial variation of wetland macroinvertebrates of the Okefenokee 

Swamp. Masters Thesis, Universtiy of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

Laerm, J. and B.J. Freeman. 1986. Fishes of the Okefenokee Swamp. University of Georgia Press, 

Athens, Georgia. 

Loftin, C. 1998. Assessing patterns and processes of landscape change in Okefenokee Swamp, 

Georgia, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 

Longwoods International. 2000. Travel and tourism in Georgia: 2000 travel year. 

Lignon, J. D., P. B. Stacey, R. N. Connor, C. E. Bock and C. S. Adkisson. 1986. Report of the 

American Ornithologists’ Union Committee for the conservation of the red-cockaded 

woodpecker. The Auk 103:848-855. 

Malcolm, R. L., D. M. McKnight and R. C. Averett. 1989. History and description of the Okefenokee 

Swamp; origin of the Suwannee River. Humic substances in the Suwannee River, Georgia: 

interactions, properties, and proposed structures. 87-0557: Geological Survey, Denver, 

Colorado, United States. 

Marshall, W.D. 1936. Preliminary report on Okefenokee Swamp. Report prepared for the Migratory 

Waterfowl Division, U.S. Biological Survey. Refuge Files. 

Masson, G.R. and M.D. Bowers. 1995. Mercury and lead levels in fish of the Okefenokee National 

Wildlife Refuge. Report by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Contaminants 

Division, Brunswick, Georgia. 11 pp. 

Maxwell, J. 1989. Effects of prescribed fire on soil and water in southern national forests. Appendix 

B. Final environmental impact statement. Vegetation management in the Coastal Plain. 

Volume II. Management Bulletin R8-MB-23. 
330 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

McAllister, M. 1998. Personal communication. National Weather Service, Jacksonville Florida. 

Mills, M.S. 1994. The organic geochemistry of natural aquatic foams. Ph.D. dissertation. University of 

Kansas. 274 pp. 

Murphy, T.M., et. al. 1984, (updated 1989). Southeastern states bald eagle recovery plan. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Palmer, E.L. and A.H. Wright. 1920. A biological reconnaissance of the Okefinokee Swamp in 

Georgia: The fishes. Iowa Academy of Science. 27:353-377. 

Parrish, F. K. and E. J. Rykiel, Jr. 1979. Okefenokee Swamp origin: review and reconsideration. J. 

Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 95(1):17-31. 

Peet, R.K. and D. J. Allard. 1993. Longleaf pine vegetation of the Southern Atlantic and Eastern Gulf 

Coast Regions: a preliminary classification. Pages 45-81. Proceedings of the Tall Timbers 

Fire Ecology Conference, Number 18, The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: ecology restoration and 

management, editor Sharon Hermann, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida. 

Pendleton, C.R. 1900. (Author not named but determined by context by Trowell C.T.) Cattle raising 

in the wiregrass. Valdosta Times, March 6, 1900. 

Phernetton, R. 2001. Habitat Management Plan for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, Folkston, Georgia. 

Pirkle, F.L. 1984. Environmental deposition of Trail Ridge sediments as determined from factor 

analysis. Pages 629-650. Cohen, Casagrande, Andrejko and Best. The Okefenokee Swamp: 

Its natural history, geology and geochemestry. Wetland Surveys, Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Pirkle, W.A. and E.C. Pirkle, 1984. Physiographic features and field relations of Trail Ridge in 

northern Florida and southeast Georgia. Pages 613-628. Cohen, Casagrande, Andrejko and 

Best. The Okefenokee Swamp: Its natural history, geology and geochemestry. Wetland 

Surveys, Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Rich, F. J. 1979. The origin and development of tree islands in the Okefenokee Swamp, as 

determined by peat petrography and pollen stratiography. Pennsylvania State Univiversity 

301pp. 

Roggenbuck, J. W. and A. D. Yoder. 2001. Okefenokee Wilderness Visitors’ Characteristics, 

Perceptions, and Management Preferences. Visitor Survey. Virginia Institute of Technology, 

Department of Forestry. 

Rykiel, E.J. Jr. 1977. The Okefenokee Swamp watershed: Water balance and nutrient budgets. 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

Sandrik, A. and C. Landsea. 2003. Chronological listing of tropical cyclones affecting north Florida 

and coastal Georgia, 1565-1899. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Technical Memorandum SR-224. 
Section B. Appendices 331 

Save Our Suwannee, Inc. The Suwannee River. Brochure published in Bell, Florida. 

Schlesinger, W.H. 1978. Community structure, dynamics and nutrient cycling in the Okefenokee 

cypress swamp-forest. Ecological Monographs 48: pp. 43-65. 

Silver, J. 1935. Supplementary data on the Okefenokee Swamp when Silver was Regional Director 

of the U.S. Biological Survey. Refuge files. 

Silver J. 1956. Letter by Silver to the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service opposing the 

construction of the Sill. Refuge files. 

Simberloff, D. 1993. Species-area and fragmentation effects on old-growth forests: Prospects for 

longleaf pine communities. Proceeding of the Tall Timber Fire Ecology Conference, Number 

18, The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem: ecology, restoration and management, edited by Sharon 

M. Hermann, Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee Florida. 

Smith, L.M., 1996. Longleaf fundamentals: How longleaf develops, grows, and reproduces in 

relationship to various habitats and environmental conditions. Proceedings of the First 

Longleaf Alliance Conference, Longleaf Pine: A regional perspective of challenges and 

opportunities, edited by John S Kush, The Longleaf Alliance, Auburn University, Auburn, 

Alabama. 

Smith, L.L. 2001. Southeast amphibian research and monitoring initiative. Summary report. 

Soil Survey Staff, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Official Series Description. 

Soulak, K. 1998. Personal communication. U.S. Geological Survey-Florida Carribean Research 

Center, Gainesville, Florida. 

Speak, D.W. 1988. Letter to Refuge Manager John Schroer. Biological files, Gopher tortoise. 

Thomas, K. H., Jr. 1975. McCranie's turpentine still. University of Georgia. 68pp. 

Trowell, C.T. Personal communication. Okefenokee historian. Douglas, Georgia. 

Trowell, C. T. 1979. A reconnaissance of aboriginal Okefenokee. An outline of prehistoric 

archaeological sites in the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. South Georgia College. 

Trowell, C.T. 1984. The Suwanee Canal Company in the Okefenokee Swamp. Occasional Paper 

from South Georgia No. 5, South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia. 

Trowell, C. T. 1989. Okefenokee: The biography of a swamp. Unpublished. 

Trowell, C. T. 1994. Origin of the Okefenokee Swamp. Unpublished. 

Trowell, C.T. 1994. Some notes on the history of the Suwannee River Sill. A working paper. 

May 30, 1990, Revised 1994. 

Trowell, C. T. 1998. Indians in the Okefenokee: Their history and prehistory. Okefenokee Wildlife 

League – Special Publication Number 2. 
332 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Trowell, C.T. 1998a. Seeking a sanctuary. Okefenokee Wildlife League – Special Publication 

Number 6. 

Trowell, C.T. 1998b. Life on the Okefenokee frontier. Okefenokee Wildlife League –Special 

Publication Number 3. 

Trowell, C.T. and L. Fussell. 1998. Railroads of the Okefenokee Realm. Occasional Paper from South 

Georgia Number 8, South Georgia College, Douglas, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1939-1960. Annual Narrative Reports: Okefenokee National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. The ivory billed woodpecker. Feature Material, Endangered 

Wildlife Series, Number 4. Released September 3, 1967. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Eastern indigo snake recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Atlanta Georgia. 23 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the U.S. breeding population of the wood 

stork. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta Georgia. 28 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated 

Recreation. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Future Management of the Suwannee River Sill – 

Environmental Assessment, Ware and Charlton Counties, Georgia. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis). 2nd Revision. 

U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Gearing up for wellness. Southern Region publication 

FS-6200-28b(4/88). 

VanMeter, V.B. 1988. The Florida panther. Florida Power and Light Company. 

Veatch, O. and Stevenson, L. W. 1911. A preliminary report on the geology of the coastal plain of 

Georgia. Geological Survey of Georgia, Bulletin 26. 

Wahlenberg, W.G. 1946. Longleaf pine. Charles Lathrop Pack Forestry Foundation, Washington, 

D.C. in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service. 

Wells, R.E. 1979. Effects of fire on soil. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report WO-7. 

Washington, D.C. 

Winger, P.W. 1997. Fate of airborne contaminants in Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. 

Department of the Interior. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division. University of 

Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 

Wright, A.H. and F. Harper. 1913. A biological reconnaissance of Okefenokee Swamp: The birds. 

The Auk. 
Section B. Appendices 333 

Wright, A. H. and A. A. Wright. 1932. The Habitats and Composition of the Vegetation of Okefinokee 

Swamp, Georgia. 

Yin, Z.Y. and G. A. Brook. 1992. The impact of the Suwannee River Sill on the surface hydrology of 

Okefenokee Swamp, USA. Pages 193-217, Journal of Hydrology, Number 136 (1992). 

Websites: 

http://blm.gov/wildlife/pifplans.htm 

http://www.census2000.com 

http://policy.fws.gov
334 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Appendices 335 

Appendix XVI. Finding of No Significant 

Impact 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Charlton, Ware, and Clinch Counties, Georgia and Baker County, Florida 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage the natural resources of 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Georgia and northeast Florida. An Environmental 

Assessment has been prepared to inform the public of the possible environmental consequences of 

implementing the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. A 

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

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

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

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

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

Alternatives 

In developing the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Okefenokee Refuge, the Service 

evaluated four alternatives: Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

The planning team selected Alternative 2, Integrated Landscape Management, to direct the 

management of the refuge over the next 15 years. By viewing the refuge as a portion of a larger 

ecosystem, the refuge staff will strive to protect the resources to the best of its ability using the 

current knowledge base. The other alternatives evaluated were Alternative 1, Current Management; 

Alternative 3, Conservation Through Natural Process; and Alternative 4, Refuge Focus Management. 

They are summarized in the following table. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative 2 was selected for implementation because it is the most comprehensive and balanced 

alternative, incorporating the responsibilities associated with the original purpose of the refuge, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the Endangered Species Act, the 

Wilderness Act, and other laws and directives. It emphasizes the restoration of native wetland and 

upland habitats; preserves the wilderness character, fine tunes the collection and sharing of habitat 

and wildlife data to promote the health of the ecosystem; 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. 

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. The goals, objectives, and 

strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the Refuge System, the Endangered Species Act, 

the Wilderness Act, and the purpose and vision for Okefenokee Refuge. The Service intends to 

accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies during the next 15 years. 
336 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Summary table on major differences between alternatives. 

Goals 

Alternative 1. 

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative 2. 

Integrated 

Landscape 

Management 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 3. 

Conservation 

Through 

Natural 

Processes 

Alternative 4. 

Refuge 

Focused 

Management 

Wildlife 

Management 

Provide enhanced 

habitat and protection 

for trust species and 

other native fauna on 

refuge lands. 

Seek partnerships with 

adjacent landowners 

related to RCW habitat 

requirements. 

Continue monitoring 

general 

occurrence/distribution 

of fauna. 

Continue limited 

monitoring of RCW 

populations to 

determine status on 

refuge lands. 

Identify factors 

influencing declines in 

fishery. 

Expand on 

Alternative 1; plus, 

Provide high 

quality habitat and 

protection for trust 

species. 

Conserve the 

natural diversity, 

abundance and 

ecological function 

of native fauna and 

flora. 

Evaluate 

management 

options in the 

context of 

wilderness. 

Expand monitoring 

to gain knowledge 

about limiting 

factors. 

Share data to gain 

an understanding 

of the area 

dynamics of 

wildlife movements 

and distribution. 

Identify wildlife 

species as wildlife 

health and 

contaminant 

availability 

indicators within 

ecosystem. 

Manage wildlife 

and its habitat 

outside the 

wilderness as in 

Alternative 2. 

Monitor select 

islands as 

representative of 

wilderness island 

RCW 

populations as 

access permits. 

Monitor and 

inventory 

indicator species 

to determine 

habitat quality 

within 

wilderness. 

Similar to 

Alternative 2 

with all activity 

associated 

with refuge 

lands only. 

Share data as 

requested. 

Resource 

Protection 

Address threats to 

refuge health as they 

are identified. 

Maintain and/or restore 

landscape features to 

imitate historic 

Same as 

Alternative 1; plus, 

Identify “zones of 

influence” in 

relation to 

resources. 

Promote the 

health of the 

system as in 

Alternative 2. 

Allow natural 

processes to 

Maintain 

and/or restore 

habitat 

features to 

imitate historic 

distribution 
Section B. Appendices 337 

Goals 

Alternative 1. 

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative 2. 

Integrated 

Landscape 

Management 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 3. 

Conservation 

Through 

Natural 

Processes 

Alternative 4. 

Refuge 

Focused 

Management 

Resource 

Protection 

(Cont’d) 

distribution and 

frequency. 

Preserve area’s cultural 

heritage. 

Preserve wilderness 

qualities. 

Enhance protection of 

adjacent lands and 

resources. 

Allow fire to affect the 

swamp interior as part 

of the natural process. 

(modified suppression) 

Promote 

landscape features 

and healthy natural 

systems on and off 

the refuge. 

Establish 

agreements or 

acquire lands to 

protect resources. 

Monitor 

environmental 

parameters as part 

of a network to 

determine the 

health of the 

ecosystem. 

occur without 

interference from 

man. 

Utilize satellite 

images to assess 

habitat 

conditions. 

Protect cultural 

resources to the 

extent possible 

considering 

travel, time, and 

safety within the 

wilderness. 

and frequency 

on refuge 

lands. 

Protect 

resources 

through land 

acquisition. 

Monitor 

parameters 

within the 

refuge. 

Wilderness 

Values 

Evaluate activities 

within wilderness 

through discussions 

and establish Special 

Operating Procedures 

to set guidelines. 

Emphasize solitude. 

Maintain current day 

use/camping facilities 

and reservation 

system. 

Continue to allow 

motorboat and canoe 

trails as designated in 

the establishing 

legislation. 

Maintain trails with trail 

cutter and other 

motorized equipment. 

Use helicopters for 

wildland fire 

surveillance, prescribed 

fire, and access to 

wilderness islands for 

management purposes.

Evaluate activities 

within wilderness 

through Minimum 

Requirements 

Decision Guide. 

 Emphasize 

solitude. 

 Maintain facilities 

and reservation 

system. 

Promote the 

wilderness 

resource and its 

values. 

 Continue to allow 

motorboat and 

canoe trails as 

designated in the 

establishing 

legislation. 

Maintain trails 

using appropriate 

tools to reduce 

human and 

resource 

disturbance. 

Evaluate 

activities within 

wilderness 

through Minimum 

Requirements 

Decision Guide. 

Emphasize 

primitive and 

unconfined 

recreation. 

Emphasize 

challenge and 

self-sufficiency. 

Minimize 

motorboat usage 

to the extent 

allowable in 

wilderness 

legislation. 

Maintain 

wilderness trails 

with hand tools. 

Allow natural 

processes 

exclusively to 

manage the 

Same as 

Alternative 2. 
338 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Goals 

Alternative 1. 

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative 2. 

Integrated 

Landscape 

Management 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 3. 

Conservation 

Through 

Natural 

Processes 

Alternative 4. 

Refuge 

Focused 

Management 

Wilderness 

Values 

(Cont’d) 

Use helicopters 

over the 

wilderness during 

emergencies and 

where it is 

determined to be 

the minimum tool 

to meet 

management 

objectives. 

Evaluate human 

carrying capacity 

of the wilderness 

area and adjust 

public use 

appropriately. 

wilderness 

landscape. 

Reduce 

helicopter flights 

to only 

emergency 

situations, 

including 

wildland fire. 

Evaluate human 

carrying capacity 

of the wilderness 

area and adjust 

public use 

appropriately. 

Public 

Services 

Maintain current 

opportunities for the six 

priority uses. 

Promote public 

appreciation and 

greater awareness of 

the Okefenokee 

Ecosystem. 

Maintain current 

wilderness facilities and 

trails. 

Build volunteer and 

partnership support. 

Continue on-refuge 

environmental 

education and 

interpretation. 

Form partnership with 

Okefenokee Education 

and Research Center. 

Expand on 

Alternative 1; plus, 

Increase and 

enhance outreach 

opportunities. 

Promote area, 

linking recreational 

and educational 

avenues. 

Expand 

education/outreach 

to reflect 

ecosystem health 

and connectivity. 

Manage 

appropriate level of 

public use in 

relation to 

wilderness. 

Education, 

outreach, and 

recreation 

opportunities 

outside the 

wilderness as in 

Alternative 2. 

Discontinue 

overnight canoe 

reservation 

system to 

emphasize 

unconfined 

recreation. 

Eliminate 

conveniences 

within the 

wilderness to 

enhance the 

values of the 

wilderness 

experience, 

including 

composting 

toilets and 

Similar to 

Alternative 1 

with a strong 

emphasis on 

refuge 

resources and 

management. 

Provide quality 

experiences 

on the refuge 

related to the 

priority uses. 

Build quality 

environmental 

education and 

Interpretation 

programs 

promoting the 

refuge. 
Section B. Appendices 339 

Goals 

Alternative 1. 

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative 2. 

Integrated 

Landscape 

Management 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 3. 

Conservation 

Through 

Natural 

Processes 

Alternative 4. 

Refuge 

Focused 

Management 

Public 

Services 

(Cont’d) 

shelters. 

Require pack out 

of human waste. 

Minimize human 

hand on the 

wilderness area. 

Maintain trails 

using hand tools 

and nonmotorized 

equipment. 

Partnerships Support ecosystembased partnerships with 

adjacent landowners, 

education institutions, 

interest groups, and 

Okefenokee Education 

and Research Center. 

Continue current 

partnerships related to 

management of 

surrounding lands for 

fire purposes. 

Participate in regional 

and national surveys 

and share data where 

appropriate. 

 Expand on 

Alternative 1; plus, 

Promote 

communication, 

cooperation and 

partnerships to 

conserve the 

integrity of the 

ecosystem. 

Promote research 

opportunities for a 

full understanding 

of the ecosystem 

processes. 

Develop a network 

for sharing and 

analyzing data 

within “zones of 

influence”. 

Similar to 

Alternative 2 with 

the additional 

emphasis on 

manual methods 

of accomplishing 

tasks within the 

wilderness. 

Develop 

agreements, 

partnerships, and 

advocacy groups 

to support full 

implementation 

of natural 

processes 

management. 

Gain 

understanding 

and support of 

“natural 

processes” 

management 

from Congress. 

Develop 

partnerships with 

groups to provide 

a work force for 

maintaining trails 

by hand. 

Support 

communication 

and 

partnerships 

with 

landowners 

and interest 

groups to 

ensure the 

health of the 

refuge 

resources. 

Partner with 

researchers 

and 

educational 

institutions to 

gain 

knowledge on 

the refuge’s 

resources. 
340 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

Goals 

Alternative 1. 

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative 2. 

Integrated 

Landscape 

Management 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 3. 

Conservation 

Through 

Natural 

Processes 

Alternative 4. 

Refuge 

Focused 

Management 

Administration Continue to develop 

internal Service and 

external partnerships to 

share equipment, staff 

and services. 

Integrate staff into 

communities through 

communication, 

participation, and 

partnerships. 

Promote participation in 

cooperative activities. 

Expand refuge staff by 

20 positions. 

Provide adequate 

facilities and support to 

accommodate new 

positions as they are 

established. 

Increase funding to 

support the 

accomplishment of 

goals. 

Same as 

Alternative 1; plus, 

Provide adequate 

staff, partners, and 

volunteers, 

sensitive to 

wilderness ethics 

and “zones of 

influence”. 

Expand refuge 

staff by 98 

positions. 

 Provide staff 

with wilderness 

education and 

training in hand 

and primitive tool 

use. 

Establish 

compensation 

protocol for 

private property 

damage when 

natural 

processes leave 

the refuge. 

Provide 

adequate staff, 

partners and 

volunteers, 

sensitive to 

wilderness and 

physically able to 

do the manual 

labor required. 

Expand refuge 

staff by 129 

positions. 

Similar to 

Alternative 2 

with reduced 

effort with 

partnerships. 

Increase staff 

by 84 

positions. 

Obtain funds 

for acquisition. 

Wildlife Management 

Goal: Promote and provide high-quality habitat and protection for threatened and endangered 

species and conserve the natural diversity, abundance, and ecological function of native flora and 

fauna on and off refuge lands. 

Resource Protection 

Goal: Restore, maintain, protect, and promote native habitats and healthy natural systems where 

possible to imitate historic distribution, frequency, and quality on and off the refuge, and preserve the 

associated cultural sites and wilderness qualities. 
Section B. Appendices 341 

Wilderness Values 

Goal: Restore, preserve, and protect the primeval character and natural processes of the 

Okefenokee Wilderness, leaving it untrammeled by man while providing recreational solitude, 

education, scientific study, conservation ethics, and scenic vistas. 

Public Services 

Goal: Provide and enhance fully accessible opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation when compatible to promote 

public appreciation, understanding, and action on behalf of the Okefenokee Ecosystem while 

maintaining the wilderness resource of the Okefenokee Wilderness Area. 

Partnerships 

Goal: Promote communication, cooperation, and partnerships between local, state, and federal 

agencies, land managers, and private citizens within the “zones of influence” to conserve the integrity 

of the pathways associated with resource protection, wildlife populations, and public services. 

Administration 

Goal: Provide adequate staff, partners, volunteers, and others with the facilities and equipment to 

support the goals and objectives of the refuge in a safe manner while maintaining sensitivity to 

wilderness ethics and the “zones of influence.” 

Through the implementation of these goals, the following will result: 

C The native habitats of Okefenokee Refuge will be maintained, protected, and enhanced while 

meeting the refuge’s primary purpose of providing “a refuge and breeding ground for migratory 

birds and other wildlife.” 

C Management through the use of prescribed and natural fire is promoted for the maintenance 

and restoration of native habitat. 

C It incorporates an understanding of the refuge’s place locally, regionally, nationally, and 

internationally and recognizes the potential benefits of networking, partnerships, and data 

sharing. 

C Upland management will emphasize the maintenance and restoration of longleaf pine 

communities. 

C Endangered species and other wildlife benefit from improved or maintained habitat conditions. 

C Monitoring will focus on evaluating the effects of management, natural processes, and human 

activity within the “zones of influence1

.” 

C The refuge’s responsibilities in the preservation of wilderness characteristics, which 

emphasize solitude, are recognized. 

C Management within the wilderness will be evaluated through the Minimum Requirements 

Decision Guide. 

C Wildlife-dependent public uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation) are managed in ensure that they are appropriate 

and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. 

C This plan recognizes the impact outside activities may have on the integrity of the swamp and 

the importance of looking beyond the refuge boundary. These “zones of influence” vary 

depending on the natural resources involved. 
342 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

C The refuge staff will continue open communication and partnerships with adjacent landowners 

and interest groups downstream from the Okefenokee Swamp to protect the natural 

resources, especially during emergency fire/weather situations. 

C Partnerships beyond the refuge’s immediate neighbors will be developed to address issues 

associated with the aquifer, air shed, and biota exchange pathways. 

C Extensive resource sharing and networking with other refuges, state agencies, organizations, 

specialists, researchers, and private citizens would expand the knowledge base and develop 

cooperation between interest groups. 

C The refuge will continue to seek partnerships with adjacent landowners to enhance the 

refuge’s habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and associated species by 

providing corridors between refuge upland management compartments or expanding foraging 

and nesting areas. 

C Restoration of natural systems, native communities, and healthy environments will be 

emphasized thus promoting a high quality of life regionally. 

C Within the refuge, natural processes and the wilderness philosophy will be strongly considered 

in all decisions. 

C Monitoring environmental parameters, fauna and flora will be incorporated into an integrated 

study to gain knowledge on the health of the Okefenokee Ecosystem. 

C It provides expanded educational and appropriate, compatible, wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities to develop a constituency that is knowledgeable of refuge resources, mandates, 

and environmental issues, and willing to work toward common goals. 

C The refuge and surrounding area will be promoted, linking recreational and educational 

avenues. 

C Promoting the refuge as an asset of Charlton, Clinch, and Ware Counties in Georgia and 

Baker County in Florida will enhance the refuge’s image and help expand local support. 

C Staffing will be expanded to meet the increased communication commitment and 

accommodate data and resource sharing. 

C A significant increase in staff is presented due to the additional time required to manage the 

refuge with a greater consciousness for the wilderness resource. 

1

Zone of Influence – A geographic region, typically surrounding a smaller defined area, that has the potential to influence 

conditions within all areas of the region. An example would be a watershed surrounding a pond or lake. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Effects from Public Use on Natural Resources

Disturbance to wildlife and the land 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. Public use at the refuge is limited to five entrance points and the 

designated water trails within the swamp. The management actions to be implemented have been 

carefully planned to avoid unacceptable levels of impact. Within the wilderness area, the public’s 

activity foot print is controlled through the use of designated trails and a reservation system for 

overnight use to minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance and emphasize solitude. However, 

continued monitoring of the wildlife, habitat, and public use levels will assist in adjusting public use 

programs as needed to limit disturbance and degradation of the resources. 

Effects on Wilderness Character 

Management of the refuge encompasses many mandates, including the original purpose of the refuge, 

the recovery of an endangered species population, preserving the wilderness character, and restoring 
Section B. Appendices 343 

the native habitats and associated wildlife. The character of the wilderness may be compromised in the 

refuge’s attempt to accomplish other goals and objectives presented in the comprehensive 

conservation plan. However, the plan does specify that all activities proposed within the wilderness 

area be evaluated thoroughly to minimize the impacts to the wilderness character and values. 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners

Adjacent landowners and the refuge have been brought together through the Greater Okefenokee 

Association of Landowners (GOAL) in the interest of working together to benefit the land 

management goals of each member. This organization is recognized in the comprehensive 

conservation plan as a supporting factor in using natural processes within the wilderness area. Fire 

issues are a significant concern as the refuge implements the use of wildland fire to benefit the 

resources. Land management practices are presented to protect the adjacent landowners to the 

extent possible. As development moves closer to the refuge, the management of the refuge may 

come in conflict with adjacent landowner activities. Negotiations and buffer zones may develop to 

minimize restrictions on the management of the refuge. 

The refuge’s acquisition boundary includes 519,480 acres, 117,600 acres beyond the current refuge 

boundary. Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values 

within the approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title 

purchases and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, 

cooperative agreements) from willing sellers. 

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

plains, 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 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

Georgia State Park and Historic Sites 

Georgia Wildlife Federation 

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 Okefenokee 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, Effects on 

Socioeconomic Environment – pages 215-217) 
344 Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

Assessment, Effects on Public Services – pages 213-215; Effects on Administration – pages 

217-218) 

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, Environmental Consequences – pages 199-218) 

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

(Environmental Assessment, Effects on Socioeconomic Environment – pages 215-217) 

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

environment. (Environmental Assessment, Environmental Consequences – pages 199-218) 

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

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

pages 125-222) 

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, Effects on the Physical 

Environment and the Biological Environment – pages 199-210) 

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, Effects on Special Designation and 

Cultural and Historic Resources – pages 210-212) 

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

habitats. (Environmental Assessment, Effects on the Biological Environment – pages 205-210) 

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

of the environment. (Environmental Assessment, Effects on Administration – pages 217-218) 

Supporting References

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge - Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 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 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in August 2005. Additional copies are 

available by writing: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.