DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

WOLF ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

McIntosh County, Georgia 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

June 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other 

Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 4

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

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

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

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

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12

Wilderness ........................................................................................................................ 12

Class I Air Quality Area ..................................................................................................... 13

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

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

Initiative for Watershed Excellence: Upper Altamaha Pilot Project ................................... 14

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................15

Beach Erosion and Accretion ............................................................................................ 15

Control of Nuisance Wildlife .............................................................................................. 15

Protection of the Natural Functions of the Altamaha River System .................................. 16

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 16

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 18

Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 18

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

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

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................20

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 21

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 21

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 23

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 23

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 23

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 23

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 25

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 25

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 25
ii Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 27

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 27

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 32

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 34

Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 34

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 35

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 35

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 37

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 37

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 38

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 38

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 38

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 42

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 44

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 47

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 49

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 49

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 49

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 51

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 52

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 54

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 54

Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................... 55

Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 56

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 56

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 57

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 59

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 59

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 59

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 60

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 60

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 60

Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 60

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 61

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 63

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 65

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 65

Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 65

Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................... 65
Table of Contents iii

Alternative B: Intensive Biological Resource Management ............................................... 66

Alternative C: Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) ....................................... 66

Features Common to All Alternatives ......................................................................................... 67

Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 68

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis .................................................. 74

Allow Public Access .......................................................................................................... 74

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 75

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 75

Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................75

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 75

Climate Change ................................................................................................................75

Other Management ........................................................................................................... 76

Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 77

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 77

Refuge Revenue-sharing .................................................................................................. 77

Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 78

Summary of Effects by Alternative .............................................................................................78

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 78

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 78

Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 79

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 79

Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 79

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 80

Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 80

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 80

Human Resources ............................................................................................................ 92

Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .......................................... 92

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 92

Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 92

Wildlife Disturbance ..........................................................................................................92

Vegetation Disturbance ..................................................................................................... 93

User Group Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 93

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 93

Land Ownership and Site Development ............................................................................ 93

Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......................................... 93

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 94

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 94

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 95

Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 95

CCP Planning Team ................................................................................................................... 95

Biological Review Team ............................................................................................................. 95

Visitor Services Review Contributors ......................................................................................... 96

Other Contributors ...................................................................................................................... 96
iv Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 97

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ............................................................... 107

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................ 109

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 123

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 123

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................ 125

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 131

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 141

APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 147

APPENDIX I. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 167
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................ 10

Figure 2: Aerial photo of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge with acreages. ................................... 11

Figure 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S. 

The Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem is no. 31. .................................................................. 14

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of projects and their associated costs and staffing needs. ................................... 55

Table 2. Step-down management plans, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ................................. 56

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wolf Island 

National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 68

Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ..... 81
vi Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Plan and Environmental Assessment to provide a foundation for the management and use of Wolf 

Island National Wildlife Refuge in McIntosh County, Georgia. The plan is intended to serve as a 

working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years. Fish and 

wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities will be allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with, and do not detract 

from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

The plan has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

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

Manual. The plan also meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (Section B), which describes the 

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

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

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

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

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

described in Chapter III, Plan Development. 

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

other alternatives, which are described in the Environmental Assessment (Section B). The plan is 

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

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

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

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

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

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

with sound principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

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

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

Service’s management actions on and around the refuge; 

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

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

Refuge System; and 

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

and capital improvement needs. 
2 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The plan also addresses the purposes for which the refuge was established: 

y Provide protection and habitat for migratory birds. 

y Provide protection and habitat for endangered and threatened species. 

y Maintain the refuge as an undisturbed national wilderness area and Class I Airshed. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

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

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

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

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

Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds 

and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was 

changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896. 

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

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

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

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

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

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

research activities. 

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

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

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

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

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

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

Americans. 

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

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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

comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public 

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

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

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

y fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y consider the needs of wildlife first; 

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

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

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

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

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and 

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

The following describes a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands. 

Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of 

colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges 

were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert 

bighorn sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the 

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

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

waterfowl production areas, such as those that protected prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. 

The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in 

response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service began to focus on 

establishing refuges for endangered species. 

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

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, the local communities receive significant 

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

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

percent in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in the surrounding communities 

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

economies. The 15 refuges in the 2002 study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); 

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

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

(California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

than $22 million. 
4 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive 

conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners 

and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure active public involvement in the 

preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans. 

All lands of the System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive 

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

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

and legal mandates, including the Service’s compatibility standards and other Service policies, 

guidelines, and planning documents. 

LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT 

LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The treaties and laws relevant to the administration of the Refuge System 

and management of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix C. 

These treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in 

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

cultural resources; and research and recreation on refuge lands. They also provide a framework for 

cooperation between Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, such as the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, private landowners, etc. 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands are closed to public use unless specifically and legally 

opened. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is one example of a refuge that is closed to public 

access. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is 

a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with 

or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All 

programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act, including those that: 

y contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as the purposes and goals for the refuge; 

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

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

y manage and ensure appropriate wildlife-dependent visitor uses as those uses which benefit 

the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the 

public; and 

y ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

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

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

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

in planning and management. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Because many issues affecting the protection and management of natural resources transcend 

geopolitical boundaries, multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private 

entities to address the environmental problems affecting regions. A large amount of conservation 

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

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

affected parties to address the declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic 

environments. The conservation plans and initiatives listed below, along with issues, problems, and 

trends, were reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

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

South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area (in which Wolf Island is located) represents a 

scientifically based landbird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of 

healthy populations of native landbirds, primarily nongame landbirds. Nongame landbirds have been 

vastly underrepresented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This 

plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where 

conservation actions can be most effective rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and 

peripheral populations. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. Its goal is to 

return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats. 

Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 to address the critically low numbers of 

waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of 

federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments; nongovernmental organizations; private 

companies; and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit 

of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. The plan’s projects are 

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

of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape. 
6 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network is a voluntary, nonregulatory coalition that identifies and promotes the conservation of crucial 

sites for shorebirds regardless of whether they are used during the breeding, migratory, or winter 

seasons. It was created in 1985 as an ambitious and visionary approach to addressing shorebird 

conservation needs. On October 9, 1999, the organization recognized the Altamaha River Delta in 

Glynn and McIntosh counties, Georgia, as the 40th major reserve for shorebirds. This designation 

highlights its importance as a stopover site for migratory and wintering birds traveling between the 

Artic and South America. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources estimates that this area 

supports at least 55,000 seabirds and shorebirds annually, and states, “There are very few places as 

valuable to such a large and diverse number of coastal birds in all the southeast United States.” 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

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

institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico that works to 

ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations. It fosters an integrated 

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

bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; Partners in Flight; Waterbird 

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

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

throughout the United States that works to ensure the protection and restoration of stable and selfsustaining populations of shorebird species. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

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

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

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

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The North American Waterbird Conservation 

Plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 

nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands; the 

introduction of predators and invasive species; pollutants; mortality from fisheries and industries; 

disturbance; and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the 

southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island 

complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood 

storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations 

of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to 

better recommend effective conservation measures. 

National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. The objective of the National Wetlands Priority 

Conservation Plan (NWPCP) is to assist agencies in focusing their acquisition efforts on the more 

important, scarce and vulnerable wetlands in the Nation. The NWPCP was prepared by the 

Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the chief executive officer of 

each state in accordance with Section 301 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. Section 301 

mandates that the Secretary of the Interior shall establish, and periodically review and revise, a 

national wetlands priority conservation plan which shall specify, on a region-by-region basis or other 

basis considered appropriate by the Secretary, the types of wetlands and interests in wetlands which 

should be given priority with respect to federal and state acquisition. 

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. The Waterbird Conservation for the Americas 

(Conservación de las Aves Acuáticas de las Américas) is an independent partnership of individuals and 

institutions having an interest and responsibility for the conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Americas. The partnership was created to support a vision in which the distribution, diversity, and 

abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained 

or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. In 

2004, the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiated a project to gather and assess information in 

order to strategically advance conservation for critically threatened waterbird species and sites in Central 

America, the Caribbean and South America. This information will be used to raise awareness among 

decision-makers and representatives from key governments and nongovernmental agencies of the 

increasing threats to waterbirds and their habitats, and to inform future monitoring and management of 

these resources throughout the entire Western Hemisphere. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

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

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

fish and 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 United States. 

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) is a statepartnering agency with the Service. The WRD is charged with enforcement responsibilities for 

migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources and 

wildlife management areas. The WRD coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and 

provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management areas. The WRD’s 

participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing opportunities 

and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in Georgia. An essential 

part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between 

the Service and the State of Georgia, where appropriate. 

In December 2002, the WRD began a process to develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (CWCS) for Georgia. Through its Wildlife Conservation and Reinvestment Program, the 

WRD made a commitment to develop and begin implementation of this CWCS by October 1, 2005. 

Funding for this planning effort came from a federal grant to WRD through the State Wildlife Grant 

Program, with matching funds provided through Georgia’s Nongame Wildlife Conservation Fund. The 

goal of the CWCS is to conserve Georgia’s animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive 

measures emphasizing voluntary and incentive-based programs on private lands; habitat restoration 

and management by public agencies and private conservation organizations; rare species survey and 

recovery efforts; and environmental education and public outreach activities. Components of this 

planning effort include: 

1. Development of databases on rare species and natural communities; 

2. Identification of high priority species and habitats; 

3. Identification of high priority research and biological inventory needs; 

4. Surveys for rare species on public and private lands; 

5. Development of databases of conservation lands and high priority watersheds and landscapes; 

6. Prioritization of conservation, education, and habitat protection needs; 

7. Collaboration with state and federal agencies on habitat protection/restoration plans; 

8. Technical assistance to private conservation organizations and local governments; 

9. Review of existing conservation laws, rules, and policies; and 

10. Public input and educational outreach. 

 
8 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The following goals represent important themes in the CWCS: 

 

y Maintain known viable populations of all high-priority species and functional examples of all 

high priority habitats through voluntary land protection and incentive-based habitat 

management programs on private lands, and habitat restoration and management on public 

lands. 

y Increase public awareness of high priority species and habitats by developing educational 

messages and lesson plans for use in environmental education facilities, local schools, and 

other facilities. 

y Facilitate restoration of important wildlife habitats through reintroduction of prescribed fire, 

hydrologic enhancements, and vegetation restoration. 

y Conduct statewide assessments of rare natural communities and habitats that support species 

of conservation concern. 

y Improve efforts to protect vulnerable and ecologically important habitats such as isolated 

wetlands, headwater streams, and caves. 

y Combat the spread of invasive and noxious species in high priority natural habitats by 

identifying problem areas; providing technical and financial assistance; developing specific 

educational messages; and managing invasive/noxious species populations on public lands. 

y Minimize impacts from development and other activities on high priority species and habitats 

by improving environmental review procedures and facilitating training for and compliance with 

best management practices. 

y Update the state’s protected species list and work with conservation partners to improve 

management of these species and their habitats. 

y Conduct targeted field inventories of neglected taxonomic groups, including invertebrates and 

nonvascular plants. 

y Continue efforts to recover federally listed species through implementation of recovery plans, 

and restore populations of other high priority species. 

y Establish a consistent source of state funding for land protection to support wildlife 

conservation, and increase availability and use of federal funds for land acquisition and 

management. 

y Continue efforts to monitor land use changes statewide and in each ecoregion, and use 

predictive models to assess impacts to high-priority species and habitats. 

 

This comprehensive conservation plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge was developed with 

the cooperation of the WRD, and incorporates many elements of the Georgia CWCS. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is a barrier island located off the Georgia coast, 12 miles east of 

Darien (by boat) in McIntosh County (Figure 1). The refuge was established by Executive Order No. 

5316 on April 3, 1930, as a migratory bird sanctuary. It includes Egg Island and Little Egg Island, and 

encompasses a total of 5,126 acres. 

This three-island wildlife refuge at the mouth of the Altamaha River consists mainly of salt marsh and 

provides critical sanctuary for rare migrating birds and nursery habitat for sea turtles. Wolf Island, the 

largest island in the refuge, covers 4,519 acres. Its boundaries are defined by the South River to the 

north; Little Mud River to the west; Altamaha Sound to the south; and the Atlantic Ocean to the east. 

The island has only 300 acres of dune and beach along its narrow, four-mile-long eastern shoreline. 

It fronts the sea in the Altamaha River Delta and forms a physical barrier between Doboy Sound to 

the north and Altamaha Sound to the south. Tucked into the mouth of Altamaha Sound and directly 

south of Wolf Island are Egg and Little Egg islands. They are 593 and 14 acres in size, respectively, 

and support extensive salt marsh with only 70 acres of upland (Figure 2). 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

Wolf Island's recorded history began on March 7, 1769, when King George III of England granted 

Christopher DeBrake title to 150 acres (the upland portion) of Wolf Island. Early diaries record that locals 

used the island for hunting. Additionally, the island also served as quarantine area for sailors who were 

sick with yellow fever, as it was “a solitary spot washed by the waves of the Atlantic and miles from any 

human habitation.” In 1828, part of the island (538 acres) was conveyed to the U.S. Government. 

The strategic location of Wolf Island made it an important identification point on early navigational 

charts, and the U.S. Coast Guard erected a lighthouse at the northern end. This old Coast Guard 

lighthouse, which stood on the northern tip of Wolf Island, has long since disappeared into the ocean. 

Today, no navigational lights or other structures now exist anywhere on the refuge. 

In 1819, the Georgia legislature ceded jurisdiction of Wolf Island to the United States for the purpose 

of building a 55-foot-high beacon light to complement the lighthouse across Doboy Sound on Sapelo 

Island. Along with a light keeper’s house, the structure was built and was in operation by the summer 

of 1822. The beacon light was pounded by periodic hurricanes and blown up during the Civil War by 

Confederate soldiers who did not want the light to aid the Union Navy. After the Civil War, a larger, 

grander structure was built. The beacon light was 38 feet tall with a sixth-order light that could be 

seen 11.5 miles away. This lighthouse had several keepers over the years until it was destroyed by 

the terrible hurricane of 1898, which killed several people on Wolf Island. The light beacon was 

deactivated and the remaining structures were moved to the Sapelo Lighthouse. 

In 1891, a group of hunters named the Wolf Island Club built a clubhouse on the southern end of the 

island. The 1898 hurricane also swept this clubhouse away and killed a caretaker. An account of the 

storm in the Darien Gazette said that the Wolf Island light keeper, Mr. James Cromley, “had a terrible 

time of it and says that in the future the high land will be good enough for him.” 
10 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2: Aerial photo of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge with acreages. 
12 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge was established by Executive Order No. 5316 on April 3, 1930, when the 538 acres 

already in government ownership were set aside as a sanctuary for migratory birds. In 1969, the 

protection of Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg islands became the goal of Jane Hurt Yarn, a prominent 

Atlanta environmentalist with The Nature Conservancy in the 1970s. She bought an option on Egg 

Island in 1969, which was followed by the purchase of Wolf and Little Egg. Her purchase of Egg 

Island was one of the first actions taken by an environmentalist to protect the coast. 

On October 3, 1972, the United States bought an additional 4,071 acres from The Nature 

Conservancy for inclusion in the Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. The rest of the refuge (517 

acres) was added on December 8, 1972, by a Declaration of Taking determined by The U.S. District 

Court, Southern District of Georgia (Civil No. B/1147). The refuge was closed to the hunting of 

migratory birds on April 17, 1973. In addition, Congress designated the refuge as a national 

wilderness area on January 3, 1975. The refuge consists of a long narrow strip of oceanfront beach 

backed by a broad band of salt marsh. Over 75% of the refuge's 5,126 acres are composed of 

saltwater marshes. 

As a designated national wilderness area, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is maintained as such 

with its primary purpose being to provide protection for migratory birds and endangered and 

threatened species such as the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. Because of its status as a 

wilderness area, no public use facilities exist or are planned on the refuge. Although the salt waters 

surrounding the refuge are open to a variety of recreational activities, all of the refuge’s beach, 

marsh, and upland areas are closed to the public. Visitors must make their own arrangements to 

reach the saltwater areas that surround the refuge. Marinas in the Darien, Georgia, area may offer 

transportation to the waters offshore of the refuge. 

Wolf Island is one of seven refuges administered by the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex. This 

chain of national wildlife refuges extends from Pinckney Island NWR near Hilton Head Island, South 

Carolina, to Wolf Island NWR near Darien, Georgia. Between these lie Savannah National Wildlife 

Refuge, the largest unit in the complex, and the Wassaw, Tybee, Harris Neck, and Blackbeard Island 

national wildlife refuges. Together they span a 100-mile coastline that encompasses a total of more 

than 56,000 acres. The Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex is administered from a headquarters 

office located in Savannah, Georgia. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

WILDERNESS 

As noted above, the entire refuge is a designated wilderness area. Therefore, the refuge’s resource 

values are maintained by natural processes. The refuge is monitored to ensure that these values 

have not been compromised. Law enforcement, education, and interpretation are the primary 

management tools used to relay these values. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

y generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

y has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation; 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

y has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

y does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management at the time of review; and 

y may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every roadless area of 

5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, and to recommend the suitability of each such area for wilderness designation. The Act 

permits certain activities within designated wilderness areas that do not alter natural processes. 

Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which requires 

refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and facilities necessary for 

administering the areas. 

CLASS I AIR QUALITY AREA 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is also designated as a Class I Airshed under the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, establishing a national policy toward 

protecting and enhancing air quality. Amendments passed in 1977 and 1990 strengthened the Act, 

making it a more effective tool for protecting air quality in national parks and national wilderness 

areas. Sections of the Act established a Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

permitting process. As a result, Wolf Island (one of 21 refuges designated throughout the entire 

Refuge System) was selected as and remains a Class I Air Quality Area, as defined by the criteria of 

the Act. This means that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the state permitting 

authority must notify the federal land manager if emissions from a proposed project may impact the 

air quality of a Class I area, which includes all major facilities located or proposing to locate within 100 

kilometers (62 miles) of the refuge. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

An ecosystem is a geographic area that includes all living organisms (people, plants, animals, and 

microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles that 

sustain them. All of these elements are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the 

others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (a single stand of pines, for example) or large 

(an entire watershed including hundreds of forested stands across many different ownerships). 

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

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

drawn primarily along watershed boundaries. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge lies at the 

southeastern boundary of the Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem (No. 31), which includes the Altamaha 

River and its associated watershed tributaries in central and eastern Georgia (Figure 3). 

Expanding human populations and resulting habitat alterations are the biggest threat to natural 

systems and biodiversity. Protecting land is one of the most effective ways to safeguard native 

habitats, fish, wildlife, and plants. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is located off the Georgia 

coast, away from the mainland which has dramatically changed through historical land use practices 

(primarily agriculture), and more recently, residential and industrial development. As a federally 
14 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

designated national wilderness area, the refuge is important in a regional ecosystem context because 

it contains a large area of protected natural habitats. Together with other federal and state lands 

along the Georgia coast, such a network of conservation lands can help mitigate the effects of habitat 

fragmentation and provide protected areas for the benefit of many species of fish and wildlife. 

Figure 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S. 

The Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem is no. 31. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

INITIATIVE FOR WATERSHED EXCELLENCE: UPPER ALTAMAHA PILOT PROJECT 

The Initiative for Watershed Excellence: Upper Altamaha Pilot Project, managed by the River Basin 

Center (http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/iwe/iwe.htm) under the Eugene P. Odum School of 

Ecology, University of Georgia, is working to serve as a model for developing watershed support 

centers across the country. Funding is being provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The 

initiative is bringing together a multidisciplinary consortium of faculty, staff, and students from several 

colleges and universities in the Upper Altamaha basin to provide technical, organizational, and legal 

assistance to stakeholder groups to increase their capacity to enhance and protect water quality. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

The Upper Altamaha watershed was selected as the location for this pilot project for many reasons. 

A wide spectrum of land uses ranging from urban development to agriculture and silviculture occur 

within the watershed. Because of these diverse uses, a variety of best management practices is 

being explored to protect and restore the basin’s water quality. The lessons learned from this project 

are likely to be applicable to many different watersheds. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

In order to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) that will establish goals and objectives 

on how to manage the Wolf Island Refuge over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were 

followed. One of those steps was an internal review of known ecological threats and problems that 

may hinder the ability of refuge personnel to fulfill the objectives of the refuge. This review developed 

the following list of concerns: 

y Beach erosion and accretion; 

y Control of nuisance wildlife and invasive plants; and 

y Protection of the natural functions of the Altamaha River System. 

BEACH EROSION AND ACCRETION 

Coastal Georgia is home to about one-third of the viable salt marsh left on the Atlantic coast. The public 

owns 10 of the 18 major islands on the Atlantic coast. Unlike many other areas along the eastern Atlantic 

coast, two-thirds of Georgia's islands are parks, refuges, or preserves. The population of coastal Georgia is 

growing at approximately 20% per decade. This rapid population growth is intensifying the pressure to 

develop environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, and barrier islands. The South 

Carolina-Georgia Coastal Erosion Study is a collaborative effort among researchers from the U.S. 

Geological Survey, Coastal Carolina University, University of South Carolina, College of Charleston, and the 

South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium aimed at understanding the processes of coastal erosion and the 

factors that affect erosion rates along the South Carolina and Georgia coasts. 

Georgia meets the Atlantic Ocean along the beaches of the offshore islands, which are popularly 

known as the Sea Islands or the Golden Isles. The Georgia islands are several miles offshore and 

are separated from the mainland by extensive marshlands, tidewater streams, and sounds. Other 

islands, in addition to the barrier islands, are scattered throughout the estuarine systems. These 

islands are of various origins. Some of the hammock (forested) islands are remnants of old barrier 

islands formed in the past during periods of higher sea level (Hoyt and Henry 1964). The beaches 

and dunes are constantly being shaped by the action of waves, currents, and wind, which interact to 

keep the beaches and dunes in a dynamic state. 

Refuge concerns regarding erosion and accretion will require input from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers to evaluate the long-term impact to the refuge of nearby sea sand diversion and 

nourishment programs, such as the one at Savannah Harbor. 

CONTROL OF NUISANCE WILDLIFE 

Ghost crabs, feral hogs, and raccoons are the principal natural nest predators of sea turtle eggs, as 

well as the eggs and chicks of ground-nesting birds in Georgia and many other areas (National 

Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). All have an uncanny ability to 

locate sea turtle nests. Usually, ghost crabs are the first to arrive at a nest. They normally dig small 

holes down into the nest cavity and bring several eggs to the surface. The eggs are then eaten at the 

nest or transported to the nearby burrow of the crab. 
16 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Raccoons are the most common natural vertebrate predators of sea turtle nests. They are common 

even on the most isolated of the barrier beaches. Raccoons patrol the beaches during the nesting 

season singly or in family groups to hunt for sea turtle eggs. However, most raccoons utilize food 

sources other than sea turtle eggs. For the relatively few raccoons that prey on sea turtle eggs, it has 

been found that they consume all the eggs they can find. 

Feral hogs are an introduced (nonnative) species. They have the ability to destroy 100% of sea turtle 

nests on barrier islands. Screening of nests, as used to prevent predation from raccoons and ghost 

crabs, is not effective in protecting the nests from feral hogs. Feral hog populations must be 

controlled or extirpated from an island to prevent predation.

Ghost crabs and raccoons are native inhabitants of the islands of the refuge and efforts to control 

their populations may seem at odds with the character of a wilderness area. On the other hand, 

many sea turtles are threatened and need active management protection. The resolution of 

management conflicts such as these are a part of the CCP process. 

PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ALTAMAHA RIVER SYSTEM 

The name Altamaha is from an immigrant Yamassee Indian group, who were descended from an 

interior chiefdom, which were originally known as the Altamaha or Tama (Worth 1995). They were 

located on the Oconee River just below Milledgeville, Georgia. The Spanish explorer Hernando de 

Soto visited this area in 1540. It is also known as Georgia’s Little Amazon. 

The Altamaha has been declared the seventh most endangered river in the United States due to the 

loss of water flow that has resulted from reservoirs and power plants along its banks. The river is 137 

miles long and runs from central Georgia to the southern coast of the state. The Altamaha watershed 

drains about one-fourth of the state of Georgia, which makes it one of the three largest river basins 

on the Atlantic Seaboard. 

While no dams currently exist along the river, five proposed dams will have severe environmental 

effects including loss of important habitat areas, reduced populations of aquatic species, increased 

pollutant concentrations, and reduced recreational opportunities. The continued growth of Atlanta 

puts a strain on the amount of freshwater demanded and extracted from the river. Each day, 

approximately three million gallons of water are taken from the Altamaha River for the public sector 

alone. Chemical seepage of many contaminants (including mercury) from the LCP ChemicalsGeorgia, Inc., building for 15 years has placed the site and its surroundings on the Federal Superfund 

List. The Altamaha River basin has approximately 19 rivers and streams listed on the 2002 303(d) 

federal list as waters not meeting designated uses. 

What comes out of the Altamaha River (the amount and quality of water) has an effect on the refuge. 

Lower water discharges will have yet to be determined impacts on the beach erosion and accretion 

concerns noted above. Contaminated waters will impact the habitat quality on the refuge. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

The coastal region of Georgia has a relatively moderate climate. Average temperatures of the islands 

are slightly lower than on the mainland. Sea breezes offer relief from intense summer heat. Daily 

maximum temperatures in July and August (the warmest months) are usually in the 80s and low 90s. 

The islands are the only part of the state south of Atlanta that has mean daily maximum temperatures 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

below 90° Fahrenheit (F) in July and August (Carter 1967). Winters are relatively mild and short. 

The average minimum temperature for December and January (the coldest months) is about 43°F. 

On the average, there are 305 freeze-free days at Brunswick and 267 at Savannah (Carter 1970). 

The coastal islands have an average annual rainfall of about 53 inches. Rain is most abundant in the 

summer and early fall, with half of the annual precipitation occurring between June and September. 

The driest period is November through February (Carter 1967). Most precipitation in late fall and 

winter is of the frontal type, but most rain in the spring and summer comes as afternoon 

thundershowers. Heavy rainfall in September is commonly associated with hurricane conditions. 

The first recorded hurricane to cause significant damage to the Georgia coast struck the Charleston, 

South Carolina area on September 15, 1752 (Carter 1970). Since that time, numerous hurricanes 

have passed along the Georgia coast, but surprisingly few have caused serious damage. Hurricanes 

off the eastern Atlantic coast tend to follow the path of warm, lighter air above the Gulf Stream, which 

is flanked on both sides with heavier, cooler air. Brunswick, Georgia is farther (80 miles) from the 

Gulf Stream and the accompanying warm air than any other place on the southeastern coast. 

Consequently, the Georgia coastal area is less exposed to hurricanes than areas farther north or 

south (Gibson 1948). 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

The mainland rivers that flow into the Atlantic Ocean along the Georgia coast drain three major 

physiographic provinces: the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Piedmont Plateau, and the Atlantic Coastal 

Plain. The geology of these provinces greatly influences the amount and characteristics of surface 

water, groundwater, and sediments transported to the marshes, estuaries, and continental shelf. 

Many sedimentary strata tilted toward the sea overlie the Coastal Plain. These deposits were formed 

during the many changes in sea level associated with glaciation during the Tertiary and Quaternary 

periods. The thickest deposits are in the coastal area, tapering to a thin edge where the oldest 

(Cretaceous) sediments are exposed. Progressively more recent strata occur at the surface toward 

the coast, but relict coastal features, such as barrier islands and lagoons, are still evident in many 

places. 

The region is generally one of low seismic activity. However, a major earthquake occurred in 1886, 

which had its epicenter at Charleston, South Carolina. This earthquake, registering 10 on the Richter 

scale, caused 150 human deaths and damaged buildings in the Savannah area. 

The elevations on the barrier islands typically range from sea level to about 25 feet above mean sea 

level, although individual dunes may be higher. Broad, nearly level areas interspersed with low, 

gently sloping ridges typically characterize topography of the islands. On beaches in other areas, 

there are major seasonal changes in beach profiles. During the summer when wave energies are 

lowest, many sand grains are not moved out with the backwash, and there is a net movement of sand 

landward. This results in the gradual buildup of sand on the backshore. A horizontal bed of sand (a 

berm) extends from the foot of the dunes to a pronounced beach ridge at the high-tide mark. The 

berm area serves as a source of sand for replenishment and growth of the dunes. In the fall and 

winter, wave energy is greater, the berm erodes, and there is a net movement of sand from the beach 

to the breaker zone, where it is deposited as an offshore bar. 
18 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

SOILS 

The soils of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces are derived from crystalline rocks dating to preCambrian time. The two major river systems of the Atlantic drainage in Georgia have their origins in 

these provinces. The headwaters of the Savannah River are in the Blue Ridge province, and the 

Altamaha River originates in the Piedmont. 

Upland soils are mostly porous sands derived from recently deposited marine sediments that are 

resistant to weathering (Regosols). These soils have a distinct “A” horizon (surface layer) with 

significant accumulations of organic matter that accounts for most of the exchange capacity (Byrd et 

al. 1961). They are subject to moderate to severe leaching, and many are excessively drained. 

Principal soil series include Blanton, Galestown, Klej, Lakeland, and Palm Beach (Byrd et al. 1961). 

Lower, poorly drained sites are characterized by intrazonal soils of the following series: Leon, Ona, 

Plummer, Rutlege, and St. Johns (Byrd et al. 1961). Most of these soil series are characteristically 

very acidic, but locally on the islands they may be neutral to slightly alkaline due to the presence of 

oyster shells in the profile. Dunes along Georgia beaches contain relatively few shell fragments. 

The principal sources of heavy minerals and sands on the Georgia coast are (1) the Altamaha 

and Savannah watersheds, which originate in the Piedmont and mountain areas of the state; (2) 

the smaller Coastal Plain watersheds that are of more recent origin; and (3) suspended material 

from the continental shelf. 

Heavy minerals of the beaches and dunes more closely resemble assemblages from the Piedmont 

rivers than they do assemblages from Coastal Plain rivers (Giles 1966). This suggests that Coastal 

Plain rivers are not important contributors to present beach sediments (Giles 1966). There is also an 

apparent relationship between the composition of beach sands and the mineralogy of the adjacent 

continental shelf, and continental shelf material is another important sediment source (Giles and 

Pilkey 1965; Giles 1966; Levy 1968). 

HYDROLOGY 

The Georgia beaches occur in a region of moderate wave energy, which is the lowest recorded along 

the southeastern Atlantic coast (Tanner 1960). The average height of breaking waves on the 

Georgia coast is 9–12 inches (Helle 1958). 

Limestones of Tertiary and Quaternary age underlying the Coastal Plain form one of the most 

productive aquifer systems in the country. The Tertiary limestone is several thousand feet thick and 

ranges in age from Paleocene to Pliocene. The hydrologic unit of this limestone, deposited in the 

period from the mid-Eocene to the mid-Miocene, is the principal artesian or Coastal Plain aquifer. It 

slopes gently to the coast and appears on the continental slope as freshwater springs in the ocean. 

Low areas between dune ridges on the islands commonly form sloughs containing fresh or slightly 

brackish water. These ponds and sloughs play a major role in maintaining some of the more 

interesting wildlife of the islands, notably alligators and wading birds. 

The sloughs vary considerably in size and depth. Some dry up completely in the summer; others 

contain water throughout the year. The water is usually acidic and stained so that light penetrates 

only 2 or 3 feet below the surface. Consequently, if the sloughs are deep, there may be relatively 

little growth of submersed aquatics and an abundance of emergent plants, rooted plants with floating 

leaves, and unrooted floating plants. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

AIR QUALITY 

In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which established a national policy toward protecting 

and enhancing air quality. Amendments passed in 1977 and 1990 strengthened the Act, making it a 

more effective tool for protecting air quality in national parks and national wilderness areas. Sections 

of the Act established a Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality permitting process. As a 

result, Wolf Island (one of 21 refuges designated throughout the entire Refuge System) was selected 

and remains a Class I Air Quality Area as defined by the criteria of the Act. This means that the EPA 

or the state permitting authority must notify the federal land manager if emissions from a proposed 

project may impact the air quality of a Class I area, which includes all major facilities located or 

proposing to locate within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the refuge. 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY 

Please refer to the section “Protection of the Natural Functions of the Altamaha River System” above 

for information on this topic. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Dunes form as a result of windblown sand piling up behind minor obstacles. Once started, the dune 

itself becomes an obstacle to windblown sand, and the lodgment of more sand causes the dune to 

grow. Dunes and dune ridges along the Georgia Coast normally grow to 10 or 12 feet in height 

(occasionally much higher) and acquire a distinct morphology characterized by gentle windward and 

steeper leeward slopes. Surface ripples parallel the dune ridge at right angles to the wind. 

Vegetation plays an important part in the formation and stabilization of dunes. Salt-resistant beach plants 

trap windblown sand, forming little mounds of sand or dunelets that grow as the plants respond with 

increased growth and trap more sand. These foredune plants must have the ability to withstand salt 

spray, roots that will endure exposure, and stems that will withstand burial by shifting sands. They must 

be perennials able to keep above the sand, spread laterally, and withstand drought (Cowles 1899). 

Few species of vascular plants can survive the extremely harsh physical environment of the beaches 

and dunes. In order to inhabit this area, plants must possess characteristics that enable them to 

withstand the combined effects of salt spray, constant wind, full light intensity, high evaporation, and 

high temperatures. They must be capable of becoming established in and keeping above the shifting 

sands. Distance from the surf and location relative to dunes or protective vegetation on the seaward 

side will determine the exposure of a site to these limiting factors. Thus, there is a gradient or a 

zonation of vegetation from mean high tide toward the interior of the island, which is commonly a 

result of the modifying effect of the dunes. 

Plants occurring on the beach include sea rocket, beach hogwort, beach sandspur, salt meadow 

cordgrass, salt wort, sea-purslane, beach-spurge, and seashore-elder. Principal plants of the 

foredunes include sea oats, sea beach panic grass, railroad vine, beach pennywort, and Spanishbayonet, as well as some of the plants of the beach (e.g., seashore elder, beach spurge, and sea 

rocket). Annuals such as camphorweed may temporarily colonize dunes until killed out by salt spray. 

The foreslope and the crest of the foredunes are subject to the greatest intensity of salt spray (Boyce 

1951). Little salt is deposited on the lee slope of the foredunes or in the interdune area. In addition 

to some of the species previously mentioned, principal species in these areas include little bluestem, 

prickly pear, seaside goldenrod, beach primrose, juniper, yaupon, wax myrtle, and live oak. Bluestem 
20 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

occupies the drier sites. Low, flat areas behind breaks in the foredunes that are periodically 

inundated by unusually high tides may be occupied by stands of salt meadow cordgrass (Oosting and 

Billings 1942; Oosting 1945). 

Salt spray, after passing over the interdune area, next contacts the windward slope of the rear dunes 

and is deposited on the vegetation that occurs there. Consequently, sea oats and other salt-tolerant 

plants of the windward slope of the foredunes are also dominant there. Behind the crest of the rear 

dunes, sites are more protected and vegetation is more diverse. Shrubs and trees may dominate this 

area. Trees and shrubs most commonly occurring in this zone are live oak, red bay, wax myrtle, 

juniper, yaupon, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, and groundselbush. 

Shrubs and trees are commonly pruned by the wind and salt spray, producing a sloping, sheared 

appearance. Studies by Boyce (1954) have shed light on the mechanism by which the salt spray 

produces this effect. Salt enters the leaves through abrasions caused by the lashing of wind action. 

High chloride ion concentration produces necrosis and death of exposed leaves and branches. They 

are not translocated to the leeward side of the tree in injurious quantities, so only the windward sides 

of the plants are killed. This produces an asymmetrical form. Pruning stimulates vigorous sprouting. 

This results in the rapid formation of a dense canopy that reduces the efficiency of deposition on the 

plant and on the individual stems. Most dune plants have a uniformly closed crown. 

Wolf Island contains 300 acres of uplands (6.6%), including a long, narrow four-mile strip of 

oceanfront beach and several small (less than 20 acres) spoil sites along the Little Mud River. 

The highest elevation recorded on the island is 10.57 feet above mean low water and is located 

on one of the spoil sites. The remainder of the island (4,219 acres) is salt marsh, small marsh 

hammocks, and tidal creeks that flood daily with lunar tides of five to nine feet. Tidal action 

constantly influences the physical shape of the island. Each high tide flows across low-lying 

portions of the northern dunes and has resulted in a wide mud flat through the central marsh. 

High spring and flood tides inundate most of the refuge. 

The vegetation on the upland portions of Wolf Island consists of sea oats, sand spurs, and other 

beach-dune perennials. The only woody growth consists of wax myrtle and cedars on the highest 

elevations. The salt marsh is dominated by salt marsh cord grass, sea ox-eye, needle grass, and 

grasswort in a narrow band around the spoil sites and higher elevations. 

Egg Island contains 200 acres of uplands (33.7%) ranging from six to ten feet above mean low water. 

Approximately 70 acres of this island are above nine feet. This acreage has a dense growth of cedar, 

greenbrier, and blackberry plus a small number of oak and pine. The remaining upland acres are 

dominated by wax myrtle except for a long narrow stretch (one and one-half miles) of ocean front 

beach, which is dominated by sea oats, sand spurs, and other beach-dune perennials. The rest of 

the island (393 acres) is salt marsh dominated by salt marsh cord grass. 

Little Egg Island (14 acres) is a low salt marsh dominated by salt marsh cord grass. This island is 

completely inundated during high tides with only the tops of the tallest grasses exposed. 

WILDLIFE 

Brown pelicans, least terns, piping plovers, red knots, loggerhead sea turtles, and diamondback 

terrapins are significant species that utilize the refuge. Loggerhead sea turtles occasionally nest on 

the beaches but rarely are successful due to tidal inundation or predation. Diamondback terrapins 

use the higher dunes for nesting. Raccoon predation of turtle nests is heavy along the entire 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

southeast coast. Shorebirds and marsh birds utilize the refuge extensively. Migratory waterfowl 

winter on the refuge and its surrounding waters. Scaup, scoters, black ducks, mergansers, and 

buffleheads are the most common species. 

Saltwater fishing and crabbing are popular activities during the summer and fall along the creeks that 

intertwine through the refuge. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) provides the framework for federal review 

and consideration of cultural resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing 

regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and sets forth significant criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. 

Cultural resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a 

federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) 

define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or 

indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal 

agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring a federal permit, license or 

approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or 

approval by a federal agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by 

the Secretary of the Interior and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion. 

Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources 

management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director, but is not delegated for the 

Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing 

archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Service’s Regional Historic Preservation 

Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of 

the several cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO 

(early in the process) about Service undertakings; by protecting archeological sites and historic 

properties on Service-managed and administered lands; by monitoring archeological investigations 

by contractors and permittees; and by reporting violations. 

Wolf Island NWR follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving any cultural legacy 

that may potentially occur on the refuge. Because this refuge is designated as a wilderness area, no 

construction activity is expected and certainly none requiring any excavation with heavy earth-moving 

equipment such as tractors, graders, and bulldozers. If, for any reason, such activity were required in the 

future, the refuge would contract with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an 

archaeological survey of the subject property prior to such activity. The results of this survey would be 

submitted to the RHPO as well as the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO 

would review such surveys and determine whether cultural resources will be impacted. In other words, 

the SHPO will determine whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. 

If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge must notify the 

SHPO immediately. To date, two properties on the refuge have been identified as possibly eligible for the 

NRHP: the remains of an old lighthouse and old canoe pieces. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Agricultural development of the Altamaha Delta began soon after the founding of the Georgia Colony 

in 1733. About 25 plantations were located on the low-lying islands and shores by the 19th century. 
22 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

These plantations took advantage of the rich alluvial flow and annual inundation of water required by 

some crops. The first major crop was indigo. When the demand for indigo faded, rice and cotton 

took its place. A major storm in 1824 destroyed much of the town of Darien and put many of the 

islands under 20 feet of water. The Civil War ended the plantation system, and many of the island 

plantations disappeared under heavy brush and new growth of pine forests. 

Today, in McIntosh County, retail trade is the largest employment sector providing 37.7% of the 

jobs. The other predominant employment sectors are services and government. The service 

industry is the largest employment sector for the state, contributing 25.6% of the state's jobs. In 

the year 2000, the average weekly wage for all the employment sectors in McIntosh County was 

$334. This amount was less than the statewide average of $622. The county’s per capita 

personal income in 1999 was $16,450, as compared with $27,324 for Georgia and $28,546 for 

the United States. McIntosh County's median household income in 1997 was $24,357. This 

amount was less than the state's median household income of $36,372 in that same year. 

Nationally, the median household income in 1999 was $37,005. 

According to the 2000 Census, 61.3% of the residents in McIntosh County were white and 36.8% were 

black. Hispanics, who could be identified as either white or black in the Census data, made up 0.9% of 

the county's population. In Georgia, 65.1% of residents were white, 28.7% were black, and 5.3% were 

Hispanic. In McIntosh County, 28.0% of the county’s residents were age 18 or younger, and 11.8% were 

age 65 or older. In Georgia, 26.5% were age 18 or younger and 9.6% were age 65 or older. 

The Census reports 7.8% of McIntosh County's households were headed by females with children 

under 18 years of age, compared with 9.0% statewide. Total households with children under 18 

comprised 31.0% of all households in the county and 35.0% of those in the state. Between 1996 and 

2000, McIntosh County School System reported an average high school dropout rate of 10.1%, for 

students in grades 9 to 12. Statewide, this rate is 6.8% for the same period of time. Between 1996 

and 2000, McIntosh County's annual unemployment rate was higher than the state's rate, averaging 

5.6% compared with the state's average of 4.2%. Nationally, the unemployment rate for the same 

period averaged 4.8%. During 1997, 22.2% of the county's population lived below the poverty level, 

compared with Georgia's rate of 14.7% and the national rate of 13.3%. In addition, 35.1% of the 

children under the age of 18 lived below the poverty level in McIntosh County. Nationally, 19.9% of 

the population under the age of 18 years lived below the level of poverty. 

Data provided by the latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 

(USDI 2003) show that for the year 2001, 1.2 million people participated in fishing, hunting, and 

wildlife-watching activities in Georgia. This group was comprised of 1.1 million anglers (88% of all 

outdoor sports enthusiasts) and 417,000 hunters (34%). The percentage is greater than 100% 

because many participated in both activities. 

Anglers spent $544 million on fishing expenses in Georgia in 2001. Trip-related expenditures 

including food and lodging, transportation, and other related expenses totaled approximately $246 

million (45% of all their fishing expenditures). Anglers spent $106 million on food and lodging and 

$71 million on transportation. Other trip related expenses such as equipment rental, bait, and 

cooking fuel totaled $70 million. Each angler spent an average of $236 on trip-related costs in 2001. 

Anglers spent approximately $262 million on equipment in Georgia in 2001, which was 48% of all 

fishing expenditures. Fishing equipment (rods, reels, line, etc.) totaled approximately $105 million 

(40% of the equipment total). Auxiliary equipment expenditures (tents, fishing gear, etc.) and special 

equipment expenditures (boats, pickups, etc.) amounted to $156 million, 60% of the equipment total. 

The purchase of other items such as magazines, membership dues, license, permits, stamps, and 

land leasing and ownership amounted to $35 million (6% of all fishing expenditures). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Hunters spent $504 million on hunting expenses in Georgia in 2001. Trip-related expenditures 

including food and lodging, transportation, and other related expenses totaled $192 million (38% of all 

their hunting expenditures). They spent $93 million on food and lodging and $45 million on 

transportation. Other trip-related expenses such as equipment rental, bait, and cooking fuel totaled 

$54 million. Each hunter spent an average of $459 on trip-related costs in 2001. Hunters spent 

approximately $200 million on equipment in Georgia in 2001, 40% of all hunting expenditures. 

Hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) totaled $146 million (73% of the equipment total). 

Auxiliary equipment expenditures (tents, hunting gear, etc.) and special equipment expenditures 

(boats, pickups, etc.) amounted to 27% of the total equipment expenditure for hunting. The purchase 

of other items such as magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, stamps, and land leasing and 

ownership amounted to approximately $112 million (22% of all hunting expenditures). 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The refuge consists of the three islands: Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg. There are no current plans for 

refuge expansion. However, additional islands in the near vicinity may be considered for acquisition 

at some future date. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Due to its status as a wilderness area, no public use facilities are planned on the refuge. Although 

the refuge’s salt waters are open to a variety of recreational activities such as fishing and crabbing, all 

beach, marsh, and upland areas are closed to the public. Wildlife observation and photography are 

possible from boats. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Because Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is a designated wilderness area, little active 

management is pursued. Natural processes are allowed to take their course in maintaining the 

refuge and its habitat and wildlife. The only significant management tool used is law enforcement, 

which is required to keep the public off the island. 
24 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

III. Plan Development 

OVERVIEW 

The comprehensive planning process has allowed the Service, governmental and nongovernmental 

partners, and the public the opportunity to take a detailed look at Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

and its management, resources, and future. The Service’s comprehensive planning process provides 

for public involvement in developing a plan for the future management of a refuge. Comprehensive 

conservation plans (CCPs) are revised every 15 years or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation 

determine that significant changes are needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, and/or 

objectives. The basic steps of the CCP planning process involve the gathering of information; scoping 

for public input; developing the draft plan; gathering public input on the draft plan; developing the final 

plan; and implementing and monitoring the actions identified in the final plan. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been an important factor in developing the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Wolf Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. The plan has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation 

organizations, and other federal, state, and local agencies. The participation of these stakeholders 

and their ideas has been of great value in setting the refuge’s management direction. The Service as 

a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are grateful to each individual who has contributed time, 

expertise, and ideas to the planning process. 

Scoping refers to the process by which the planning team gathers input from a variety of internal and 

external sources on the key issues, concerns, and opportunities that need to be addressed in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Sources of internal scoping include the refuge staff itself and 

other Service biologists and professionals. External scoping sources include representatives of state 

and local agencies; nongovernmental conservation organizations; research and educational 

institutions; refuge neighbors; and citizens of the local community. These various interests are 

referred to collectively as “stakeholders,” that is, those individuals and groups that have a stake in 

how the refuge is managed. In developing this comprehensive conservation plan for Wolf Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the planning team conducted both internal and external scoping. 

The planning process began in May 2006 with various data-gathering sessions. As part of this 

process, the Service established a biological review team to conduct a wildlife and habitat 

management review of the refuge. The members of this biological review team included several 

Service biologists and one representative from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. In 

addition, the Service established a CCP planning team in June 2006 that obtained input from the 

biological review team, expert contributors, and the public. The participants on the biological review 

team and other contributors are identified in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, in the 

Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

The biological review took place during the week of May 2–4, 2006. It involved onsite evaluations to 

help the refuge meet its purpose and determine the role(s) the refuge could play regarding wildlife 

needs and objectives at various geographic scales (local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The 

approach was to take a holistic look at achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs, 

while still giving priority to accomplishing the original purposes for which the refuge was established. 
26 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The team produced a biological review report with recommendations to the refuge staff and CCP 

planning team. In keeping with the terminology and expected outcomes of the CCP process, these 

recommendations were presented in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for management of 

the refuge’s biological resources. These preliminary goals, objectives, and strategies were studied by 

the CCP planning team and modified and adapted for this Draft CCP. 

Although no public access is allowed on Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, a brief visitor services 

review was also incorporated as part of the biological review. This visitor services review assessed 

the types of public uses that could be provided, considering the restricted nature of the refuge. Two 

public use managers from the Service contributed comments and recommendations on the refuge’s 

visitor services, environmental education, and interpretation programs. 

The CCP planning team met for the first time on June 21, 2006. The team consisted of four staff 

members from the Service and a contracted consultant from the Mangi Environmental Group. This 

team was the primary decision-making team for the CCP. The key tasks of this group involved 

defining the vision for the refuge; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; defining the goals; 

outlining the alternatives; and drafting the plan. The CCP planning team members are: 

y Jane Griess, Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS 

y W. Shaw Davis, Deputy Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS 

y John Robinette, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS 

y Debra Barnard, Biologist, Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS 

y Randy Williams, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (Service contractor) 

The planning team reviewed the recommendations of the biological review team and visitor services 

experts, and conducted a comprehensive review of the refuge’s overall natural resource management 

and public use programs. It also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary 

schedule, a mailing list, and plans for public involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP for the 

refuge was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2006. 

The planning team then held an open house and public scoping meeting on January 24, 2007, at The 

Nature Conservancy’s Georgia Conservation Office on U.S. Highway 17 south of Darien, Georgia, on 

Butler Island adjacent to the Altamaha Waterfowl Management Area headquarters. The meeting was 

publicized in advance in several ways. Information packets including a letter and invitation to attend, 

a public comment form, and a mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 100 individuals 

representing different federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, state and federal 

congressional offices, private citizens, and other interested parties. News releases announcing the 

public scoping meeting were also sent to local newspapers, and a public service announcement was 

sent to local radio stations. Five citizens attended the open house and scoping meeting. The 

attendees were able to meet and interact with the refuge staff, ask questions, view the exhibits and 

maps on hand, and provide comments. 

The meeting began with brief overviews of the refuge and the comprehensive planning process, 

followed by a facilitated open-floor question and comment period. The attendees were given the 

opportunity to ask questions and voice their thoughts about the refuge and how it should be managed 

in the future. In addition, a public comment form was distributed for the attendees and other 

interested parties to submit written comments. The written comments could be submitted either at 

the meeting or subsequently by mail or e-mail. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

Two citizens offered their comments at the public scoping meeting. No public comment forms were 

received. One citizen submitted comments by e-mail. These comments were considered and 

evaluated in the preparation of the draft comprehensive conservation plan. Appendix D, Public 

Involvement, provides a summary of the public scoping comments. 

The Service is now seeking comments regarding this draft plan as the next stage of public 

involvement. All comments are welcomed and will be considered in the development of the final plan. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and 

wildlife population management; habitat management; resource protection; land acquisition; visitor 

services; and refuge administration. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state 

mandates and applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the 

process of obtaining public input through the public scoping meeting, comment packets, and personal 

contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered. However, some issues that are 

important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be addressed 

within this planning process. The team did consider all issues that were raised through this planning 

process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding 

important issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are the 

most significant to the refuge. The significant issues are summarized below. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle and Other Sea Turtles 

Four species of sea turtles inhabit the waters around Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and 

in the Altamaha River basin. These include the loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and green 

sea turtles. The most common sea turtle, the loggerhead, is protected under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) and is listed as threatened. The other three species are listed as endangered. 

The loggerhead is the primary turtle nesting in Georgia waters (approximately 1,200 nests per year). 

Throughout all of the Georgia coast, all other species combined account for five to ten nests per year 

(Johnson et al. 1974). 

The waters adjacent to the refuge are an important feeding ground for all of the sea turtle species 

stated above except for the leatherback, which is typically found in an open oceanic environment 

feeding on jelly-like organisms. Loggerheads and ridleys prefer horseshoe crabs and other crabs, 

whelks, and other food in which they have the ability to catch and ingest (Caldwell 1959). Green sea 

turtles are vegetarians and prefer sea grass beds and seaweed. In addition, juvenile turtles use the 

waters adjacent to the refuge as a safe haven from large ocean-dwelling predators such as sharks. 

West Indian Manatee 

One breeding group of West Indian manatees exists behind Wolf Island. The refuge has an interest 

in maintaining high water quality, but beyond that, no additional objectives are identified for this 

species. 
28 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Piping Plover 

Piping plovers occur in three distinct nesting populations: (1) the Atlantic population, which includes North 

Carolina to Maine in the United States and the Canadian maritime provinces (about 1,700 pairs); (2) the 

Great Lakes group (less than 50 pairs); and (3) the Plains population, including the plains states in the 

United States and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada (about 1,400 pairs). The Great Lakes 

population is federally listed as endangered. The populations that nest in the rest of the country are listed 

as threatened. Individuals from all three populations migrate through or winter along the Atlantic coast, 

with critical habitat specifically designated for the endangered Great Lakes population. 

In Georgia, the Altamaha Delta is an important site for wintering piping plovers. It is the most 

important wintering area for the endangered Great Lakes population, with numbers that vary from 

year-to-year but are consistently high relative to other wintering sites. Therefore, much of the 

Altamaha Delta has been established as “Critical Habitat” for piping plovers, including Wolf Island, 

Egg Island Bar, Little St. Simons Island, and Pelican Spit. Because the over-winter survival of young 

may be the most critical conservation issue for this species, the availability of high quality winter 

roosting and foraging habitat may be crucial for the recovery of piping plovers. Wolf Island NWR 

contributes to the recovery of this species by providing critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. 

Other Protected Species and Species of Concern (Wood Stork and Bald Eagle) 

The endangered wood stork feeds in the marshes and tidal creeks within the refuge. Although wood 

storks do not nest on the refuge, the refuge is within the feeding range of 12 coastal Georgia wood stork 

colonies. The Altamaha River system is relatively unaltered by human actions as compared to other river 

systems within the United States. Therefore, this river system is still comparatively healthy and very 

productive, as demonstrated by the fish and wildlife populations supported within the system. It produces 

a very rich feeding ground for wood storks and other wading birds within the Altamaha Delta. Wood 

storks are tactile feeders and require a very concentrated food source. Severe tidal amplitudes, 

combined with the refuge’s extremely productive marsh and aquatic habitats, provide the concentrations 

of small fish needed to produce an exceptionally high quality feeding area for wood storks. 

Bald eagles nest on Blackbeard Island NWR, 10 miles north of Wolf Island NWR. Bald eagles are 

frequently seen on Wolf Island NWR, either perched in the trees on Egg Island or on the beach on 

Wolf Island. They feed on the abundant fish and birds utilizing the refuge. Bald eagles can cause 

disturbance to nesting and feeding shorebirds and wading birds, but they create far less impacts to 

the avian resources than other predators such as raccoons. 

Nesting Waterbirds, Wading Birds, Marshbirds, and Sparrows 

Nesting and Foraging Colonial Beach Nesting Waterbirds 

Wolf Island NWR does not presently support high levels of beach-nesting colonial waterbirds. 

However, large colonies of brown pelicans, royal terns, black skimmers, and small numbers of 

sandwich and gull-billed terns exist at nearby Egg Island Bar directly south of the refuge. The royal 

tern colony represents the largest one (9,000 pairs) on the Atlantic coast. The pelican colony on Egg 

Island Bar is currently the largest colony on the Atlantic coast. The beaches of the refuge provide 

important roosting habitat for nesting and post-fledging birds from the Egg Island Bar colony. In 

addition, these birds use the waters within and around the refuge for foraging. The Altamaha Delta is 

a very important region in the southeastern United States due to its ability to support large numbers 

of nesting and foraging waterbirds. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Nesting and Foraging Long-legged Wading Birds 

The estuaries and marshes of Wolf Island NWR and the surrounding area provide important foraging 

habitat for long-legged wading birds. A small freshwater wetland on Egg Island supports a breeding 

colony of 30 pairs, including great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, white ibis, and tri-colored 

herons. This wetland potentially could become a nesting site for the roseate spoonbill and wood 

stork. A variety of wading birds uses the entire Altamaha Delta and its associated wetlands to forage 

on small fish and estuarine invertebrates. Notably, an increasing number of post-breeding reddish 

egrets have been observed in the area. These are primarily dark-plumaged adults, and although no 

nesting has been documented in the state, this species has been expanding its range northward in 

Florida. It is reasonable to expect that nesting may occur in the Delta some time in the near future. 

There is some concern that the food resources for these species have been impacted and could 

suffer greater impacts in the future. The introduction of flathead catfish into the Altamaha River 

system has caused a severe reduction in the abundance of sunfish and bullhead catfish, which are 

preferred forage for wood storks and other wading birds. In addition, reductions in water quality 

and/or quantity would have negative impacts on forage species. 

Wintering and Breeding Marshbirds and Sparrows 

Nearly 5,000 acres of wetlands are inside the boundary of Wolf Island NWR. These wetlands are 

primarily emergent estuarine marshes dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Other 

wetland types include a small amount of higher marsh and open salt marsh habitat. During winter 

(August through May), coastal cordgrass marsh is critically important for the saltmarsh sharp-tailed 

sparrow and Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow. These two species typically forage on insects and 

cordgrass seeds during winter. These birds are extremely secretive and limited to this specific 

estuarine salt marsh habitat. Other secretive marshbirds such as the seaside sparrow and clapper 

rail utilize the refuge's salt marshes for nesting. Black rails have been identified as a species of very 

high concern in the regional waterbird conservation plan. A small amount of habitat for black rails 

may be available on Wolf and Egg islands. 

A specific monitoring protocol has been developed for secretive marshbirds as part of the National 

Marshbird Monitoring Program. This program is designed to (1) field-test marshbird monitoring 

protocols for eventual use in a continent-wide survey effort; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of call 

broadcasts in increasing the detection probability of certain species; (3) provide estimates of 

population trends of marshbirds on lands managed by program participants; and (4) evaluate the 

effects of wetland management practices on marshbirds. The program also has a centralized 

database where the survey results are compiled and stored. 

Migratory Birds 

Wolf Island NWR was established with the explicit purpose of providing habitat for migratory birds. 

As part of the surrounding state and private lands and waters in the Altamaha Delta, the refuge 

represents the most important habitat for beach-dependent migratory birds in the entire state of 

Georgia. On April 28, 2000, the entire Altamaha Delta was designated as a Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSHRN) site of regional importance. The WHSHRN site extends from 

Nannygoat Beach on Sapelo Island to Little St. Simons Island. It includes all of Wolf Island NWR. 

The only other designated WHSRN site on the Atlantic coast is at Cape Romain, South Carolina, 

which is of international importance. 
30 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Nesting Shorebirds 

Because of its importance for nesting shorebird and colonial beach nesting birds, the American Bird 

Conservancy has listed the refuge and the adjacent Altamaha River Delta as one of the top 500 Important 

Bird Areas. The refuge provides nesting habitat for Wilson's plovers, American oystercatchers, and 

willets. Wilson's plovers and American oystercatchers are both species of significant conservation 

concern, listed as High and Extremely High Priority Species, respectively, in the regional shorebird 

conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). Willets and black-necked stilts are both listed as Moderate Priority 

in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000) but are still worthy of consideration. 

Predators such as raccoons are present on Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg islands but are not considered to be 

a conservation issue for these shorebirds. Wilson's plover nests appear to be less susceptible to raccoon 

predation than American oystercatchers, because they are located in less exposed areas near vegetation. 

Ghost crabs have been documented as a key predator of Wilson's plover nests in North Carolina, but do 

not seem to be an issue for nesting plovers at the refuge. The highest density of American oystercatchers 

and willets in Georgia can also be found on Egg Island Bar, which has as many as 24 pairs of American 

oystercatchers and approximately 35 pairs of willets. 

Nonbreeding, Migrating, and Overwintering Shorebirds 

Wolf Island NWR and the surrounding Altamaha Delta provide important stopover habitat for a variety of 

shorebirds that are of conservation concern. This area represents the largest roosting site for American 

oystercatchers during their southbound migration and supports individuals that have been color-banded 

from every nesting population on the Atlantic coast. American oystercatchers are listed as an Extremely 

High Priority Species in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). 

The Altamaha Delta is one of two locations in Georgia that has been identified as important 

during winter for marbled godwits. Every year, 300–500 individuals arrive in August–September, 

presumably from the declining South James Bay population. These birds spend the winter either 

in the Delta or in St. Catherine's Sound. They show high wintering site fidelity. Marbled godwits 

are identified as a species of High Priority for conservation in the regional shorebird conservation 

plan (Hunter et al. 2000). 

Approximately 6,000 red knots annually stop off in the Altamaha Delta during September to forage on 

surf clams and other bivalves. On the northbound migration, red knots from different breeding 

populations are found in the Delta and other sites in Georgia. In April to mid-May, birds from the 

southeastern U.S. wintering population are present foraging primarily on bivalves, especially Donax

and surf clams. During mid- to late May, birds from the Tierra Del Fuego (TDF) wintering population 

arrive to take advantage of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs during the spawning season. The 

number of red knots varies on the northbound route; it can be thousands in some years and hundreds 

in other years. The subspecies rufa, which winters in TDF and potentially on the southeastern U.S. 

coast, is of special concern as the population has experienced a precipitous decline from 30,000 to 

17,000 individuals between 2004 and 2005. Recently, the Service received a proposal for 

emergency listing of this subspecies due to these population declines. Red knots are considered to 

be an Extremely High Priority in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). 

Other species of importance that use the refuge during migration include the long-billed curlew, shortbilled dowitcher, and whimbrel. These species use the refuge’s beaches for roosting, and forage in 

the shallow waters surrounding the refuge as well as on exposed mudflats during low tides. These 

three species are all identified as High Conservation Priority species in the regional shorebird 

conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Waterfowl and Other Open Waterbird Species 

Wolf Island NWR provides limited habitat for waterfowl and other open water species. Some use of 

the tidal creeks by red-breasted mergansers, hooded mergansers, lesser scaup, bufflehead, horned 

grebe, and red-throated loons has been documented during the nonbreeding season. The redthroated loon and horned grebe are both identified as species of concern requiring immediate 

management and management attention, respectively, in the regional waterbird conservation plan. 

Their status is primarily due to habitat loss and interactions with fishing gear (i.e., fishing line). Lesser 

scaup populations have been declining, and this species is also of concern. The refuge is closed to 

waterfowl hunting; however, the navigable waters around and through the refuge are under state 

jurisdiction. Some hunting occurs in the large tidal creek through Wolf Island, but it is not considered 

to be a conservation issue. 

Breeding, Wintering, and Migrating Landbird Species 

Upland habitat, excluding dunes and beaches, is limited to the small strip of maritime forest on Egg 

Island (200 acres) and the dredge spoil deposition areas on the back side of Wolf Island 

(approximately 20 acres). The maritime forest is dominated by oaks, cedar, pine, and shrub species. 

The dredge spoil deposition areas are primarily covered with wax myrtle and cedar. These areas 

provide limited habitat for landbirds during winter, migration, and breeding. The area has not been 

monitored for landbird use, but it is likely that several pairs of painted buntings are nesting annually in 

the maritime forest of Egg Island. 

Other Species 

Altamaha River - Interjurisdictional and Anadromous Fisheries 

Prior to 1980, the Altamaha River held a large healthy population of striped bass and supported a 

sustainable fishery. The Georgia state record striped bass was caught in the Oconee River (a tributary of 

the Altamaha River) in 1957 and weighed 63 pounds. Today, the striped bass population is depressed, 

and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has begun a restoration effort. Fish numbers 

are too low to obtain a population estimate using standard recapture methods. Stocking began in 2003, 

and from 2003–2005, 15,000 fish were stocked annually. The Georgia DNR believes these efforts may 

make it possible to raise striped bass numbers sufficiently to obtain a population estimate and age class 

structure, and definitively establish the cause(s) of the declining population. 

South Atlantic populations of striped bass are riverine and not truly anadromous as are the north Atlantic 

populations. In the southern range of this species, summertime water temperatures can be lethal, 

especially to fish five years and older. Therefore, a thermal refuge is required during the summer months 

to allow survival of older mature fish. The prime suspect in the decline of the striped bass population in 

the Altamaha River is water withdrawal from the Floridian aquifer. This reduces and/or eliminates 

groundwater discharge into the bed of the river. In addition, the fish are extremely concentrated during 

summer months around areas of groundwater discharge and thus become very susceptible to harvest by 

fishermen. Another potential source of excessive harvest is by shad fishermen using set nets. However, 

the number of shad fishermen on the Altamaha River has declined in recent years, and this by-catch of 

striped bass may not now be a significant cause of mortality. 

The Altamaha River contains a healthy population of American shad and sustains a commercial 

fishery. The American shad population was estimated at 122,000 adult fish in 2005. Approximately 

20% of this population was harvested by fishermen. The population is increasing at present, and it is 

presumed this may be due to the reduced number of fishermen in recent years. 
32 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Dams on many of the river systems that empty into the Atlantic Ocean have restricted or eliminated 

the passage of American shad to their traditional spawning areas. The Altamaha River has no dams 

in the downstream portion of the river and shad migrations are not restricted. American shad spawn 

in the Altamaha River from January through March. The juvenile shad begin their migration from 

October through November and spend the next four to six years in the Bay of Fundy. The males are 

four to five years of age and the females five to six years old when they return to the Altamaha River 

to spawn. The southern population of American shad dies following spawning, while the northern 

populations can spawn for several years. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Very little is known about the herpetofauna on the refuge. With the complete inundation of Little Egg 

Island, reptiles are probably nonexistent there. Wolf Island has a few hammocks of shrub-scrub habitat, 

and reptiles may be present but probably in low numbers. Egg Island (with its presence of a small 

maritime forest) is said to have a high number of eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, but the density is 

unknown. Since rattlesnakes are present, the refuge staff suspects that other species of snakes and 

lizards may also be there. Nothing is known about the presence or absence of amphibians. 

Diamondback terrapins are abundant in the waters adjacent to the refuge, and the refuge staff suspects 

high numbers are nesting on Egg and Wolf islands. Presently, the two largest threats to the species in 

the Altamaha River basin are depredation of nests by raccoons and drowning in crab pots. The University 

of Georgia’s Marine Extension Service (MAREX) recently completed a study examining the effectiveness 

of several terrapin excluder devices on crab traps. Funded by The Environmental Resources Network, 

MAREX personnel examined five excluder devices in the St. Simons and St. Andrew estuaries during the 

summers of 2003 and 2004. A serious problem could occur to the diamondback terrapin population if a 

commercial crab fishery was initiated, such as the one that occurred in the Chesapeake Bay years ago, 

which almost caused a total loss of the local terrapin population. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Estuarine Emergent Wetlands 

Wolf and Egg islands are both primarily (75%) composed of estuarine emergent wetlands dominated 

by smooth cordgrass. During high tide, the wetlands can be completely inundated. As the water 

level rises in the marsh, it carries with it aquatic organisms including fish, crustaceans, and other 

invertebrates. Estuarine wetlands are very important as nursery habitat for juvenile fish, crabs, and 

shrimp that take refuge among the vegetation for protection from predators. When the tide recedes, 

these organisms often remain in the marsh trapped in pools of water at lower elevations until the next 

high tide. Such pools provide excellent foraging opportunities for birds, as the aquatic organisms 

may be highly concentrated within these pools. 

The wide variety of organisms supported by estuarine marshes is linked to the range of salinities that 

occur there. When rain falls in the Altamaha River drainage, it flows downstream and discharges into the 

estuaries surrounding Wolf and Egg islands. This freshwater temporarily lowers the salinity in the 

estuaries, which makes them habitable for organisms that prefer fresher water. Alternatively, when 

rainfall is limited and salinity levels rise in the estuaries, more saline-tolerant species can move in from the 

Atlantic Ocean, and those that are intolerant of the high salinities migrate upstream into the river system. 

The diversity and abundance of fish and aquatic invertebrates in the estuary are very important for 

shorebirds and fish-eating waterbirds. Terns, gulls, and skimmers forage along the top of the water 

column—from the surface to one meter deep—of tidal creeks and wetland edges, looking for small 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

fish or shrimp. Pelicans also use these resources but may dive deeper, as do loons and grebes. 

Shorebirds utilize shallowly flooded or exposed mudflats, especially in the interior of the marsh at low 

tide. During higher tides, these areas are flooded and available for fish-eating birds such as wading 

birds, terns, and skimmers. The constantly changing environment of the Altamaha Delta and its 

associated wetlands represents one of the most productive habitat types in the world. 

Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars 

Because of dredging operations up the coast in the Savannah River Delta, the barrier islands in the 

Altamaha Delta are sand-starved. Littoral drift occurs from north to south. Therefore, sand that 

historically came out of the Savannah harbor drifted south to deposit along the barrier islands 

including Wolf Island. This sand is now dredged from the river and deposited on upland disposal 

sites, which robs the system of its sand supply. Wolf Island has been eroding for the past 70–80 

years, as evidenced by its change in size and shape. 

Dunes, beaches, and sand bars are critical for migratory birds as loafing and roosting habitat. Even 

more critical for shorebirds are the invertebrate prey populations these habitats support. Horseshoe 

crabs spawn in the intertidal zone during high tides in May. The eggs produced by this effort provide 

excellent high quality food resources for migrating shorebirds, including the red knot, short-billed 

dowitcher, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, and American oystercatcher. In addition, burrowing 

benthic organisms such as Donax spp., surf clam Mulina, angelwing, arc, and other small bivalves 

are eaten, which provide additional critically important food resources. Crustaceans including fiddler 

crabs, ghost shrimp, and other small shrimp are utilized by the Wilson’s plover, gull-billed tern, 

whimbrel, marbled godwit, long-billed curlew, and American oystercatcher. 

Maritime Forest 

Wolf Island NWR contains 200 acres of maritime forest located on Egg Island. The 593 acres of Egg 

Island contain a freshwater depression (pond) surrounded by maritime forest. This maritime forest is 

bounded by tidal salt marsh on three sides and a thin strip of beach on the eastern end of the island. 

The maritime forest is dominated by live oak, southern magnolia, and cabbage palm. The dominant 

understory species are red bay, yaupon, American holly, wax myrtle, and saw palmetto. Loblolly 

pines and slash pines are interspersed throughout and on the fringes (younger portion) of Egg Island. 

A disruptive event (such as a severe storm or wildfire) would shift the dominant overstory to the 

faster-growing pine species. The frequency of such events would dictate the climax community. 

Frequent storms and/or wildfire would result in the maintenance of a “fire climax” pine-dominated 

community. This could be controlled, to an extent, by using prescribed fire during the winter months 

to reduce the fuel loads and foster a far less severe wildfire potential. However, the remoteness of 

the island, the difficulty of accessing the forest, and the small size of this forest community would not 

make prescribed fire economically feasible. 

Maritime Shrub-Scrub (Dredge Spoil) 

Spoil was deposited on the west and south sides of Wolf Island from dredging operations 

associated with the construction and maintenance of the Intracoastal Waterway. Through an 

agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the dredge material is no longer placed on the 

refuge. The established vegetation is wax myrtle, yaupon, eastern baccharis, and saw palmetto 

with sea lavender and sea ox-eye along the fringes. In addition, there is some shrub-scrub 

habitat on the margins and within the maritime forest of Egg Island. It expected that neotropical 

migratory birds and resident songbirds utilize this shrub-scrub habitat. This habitat also provides 

excellent nesting habitat for painted buntings. 
34 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Wilderness 

As a national wilderness area, Wolf Island is closed to public use, and no active management is 

currently conducted on the refuge. Nevertheless, some need for active management may occur in 

the future to control invasive species or, if necessary, to restore heavily eroded beaches. The 

primary needs related to wilderness (as well as for endangered species and other priority fauna and 

flora) would be to ensure high water quality and Class I Air Quality standards. 

Invasive Species Management 

No control of invasive species is considered necessary at this time. However, saltcedar and Chinese 

tallow stands are nearby and may spread to the refuge in the near future. 

Beach Restoration Activities 

Other than trying to change the standard operating procedures conducted by the Corps of Engineers 

that could reverse present beach erosion rates, there are no plans for beach restoration at this time. 

However, the beach is presently highly erodible. If the severity of the erosion increases, then this 

position may need to be reevaluated in the future. 

Air Quality 

Recent threats of increasing industrial and/or utility air emissions near Wolf Island NWR highlight the 

need to maintain high air quality. The region where the refuge is located is designated as a Class I 

Air Quality Area, and this designation affords some legal protection and enforcement to preserve the 

refuge’s air quality. However, actual monitoring of Wolf Island would be very difficult to conduct 

consistently. Present monitoring from Okefenokee NWR or future monitoring from Blackbeard Island 

NWR may be more appropriate. Regardless, the aerial deposition of mercury should be checked, 

especially in and around Wolf Island. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Wolf Island Bar 

Another important focus of the biological review team was the legal status of the emerging “Wolf 

Island Bar.” Based on a memorandum dated June 26, 2006, from John Beasley (the Service’s 

Southeast Regional Land Surveyor) to Chuck Hunter, his interpretation is that Wolf Island Bar may 

currently be considered part of refuge lands based on its connection to Wolf Island proper at mean 

low tide. The deed transferring Wolf Island to the Service states that everything above mean low tide 

was included in the refuge. However, there is a need to discuss this status officially with the State of 

Georgia to seek concurrence with this interpretation. Regardless of its status within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, the Wolf Island Wilderness Boundary would not extend to Wolf Island Bar. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

VISITOR SERVICES 

Posting Wolf Island as Closed 

Much concern was expressed over the likely increase in public use to Wolf Island in the next few years. 

The biological review team recommended that the most critical need is to clearly post Wolf Island as 

closed to public access. At least three large signs (designating “Wilderness” and “Area Closed”) are 

needed at likely access points. Coordination with the Georgia DNR is possible for making the appropriate 

“Closed Area” signs and getting these signs into place (such as at the Egg Island Bar). 

All refuge boundary signs are faded and in need of replacement. In addition, there are currently no 

signs that identify the refuge as a wilderness area. Although the refuge is closed to the public, no 

“Closed Area” signs are posted on the refuge boundary. The public is currently accessing Wolf Island 

at two points: on the north and south ends of the beach. Large “Closed Area” signs should be placed 

at these access points, and the signs should have large enough lettering to be read from a minimum 

distance of 40 yards. Additional information could be placed on the signs in smaller lettering to 

explain the basis for closure. 

Environmental Education 

Associated in general with the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex program, those responsible for 

the refuge should participate with the Georgia DNR and their efforts to promote environmental 

awareness of the important natural heritage of the Altamaha Delta. 

Public Wildlife Viewing 

Wildlife observation may be allowed from boats at recommended distances from foraging and nesting 

birds. These wildlife observation points can be marked by buoys off the islands under a state lease 

agreement. Such a program could be promoted along with public education on the wilderness area 

and why Wolf Island is closed to public access. 

Compatible Recreational Uses 

The increasing recreational pressures on the refuge should be addressed at this time. There is a 

need to clearly indicate that the entire island is closed and not just the area behind the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s “blue goose” sign on the dune line. Posting is necessary now before a clientele 

becomes established. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

State Relationships and Coordination 

The relationship between the refuge and the Georgia DNR has been excellent. The establishment of 

the Altamaha Delta as a part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Program was possible 

only through the cooperative efforts of personnel from the refuge and the Georgia DNR. The need to 

engage in cooperative management and protective efforts for the Delta stems from the diversity of 

ownerships within the area, including a national wildlife refuge, a state natural area, and a privately 

owned island. These cooperative efforts and positive working relationships should be maintained 

through time as personnel change within all organizations. 
36 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Increase in Law Enforcement Effectiveness 

There is a need for additional protection efforts for the refuge. Currently, one law enforcement officer is 

working for three refuges and the Wolf Island Refuge is the most difficult to access. For this reason, it has 

been very difficult to provide the protection the refuge needs. Past problems have included the attempted 

removal of federally protected cultural artifacts (including a dugout canoe), trespass in a closed area, and 

collecting of snakes. All current signs need to be replaced. In addition, “Closed Area” signs need to be 

placed in key locations in coordination with the Georgia DNR. 

Staffing and Budget 

Wolf Island NWR is unstaffed and unfunded. The nearest staff and equipment is stationed at Harris 

Neck NWR, which also staffs Blackbeard Island NWR. However, in addition to the need for a greater 

law enforcement presence, there is a need for at least one additional biological technician (optimally 

two) that would also have duties associated with the Harris Neck and Blackbeard Island national 

wildlife refuges. In addition, baseline funding is needed to support boats, fuel, signage, and 

associated labor for maintenance. 

Wilderness Review 

The Service’s planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process for all refuges. The purpose of the wilderness review is to identify and recommend 

for congressional designation Refuge System lands and waters that merit inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. However, this review is not needed for Wolf Island National Wildlife 

Refuge because it already meets the criteria for wilderness as defined in the National Wilderness Act 

of 1964. In accordance with the criteria required by this Act, Congress designated the refuge as a 

national wilderness area on January 3, 1975. 

Additional information on the National Wilderness Act of 1964 and the refuge’s wilderness 

designation is provided in Chapter II, Refuge Overview, in the Special Designations section. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The U.S. Service (Service) manages fish and wildlife habitats considering the needs of all resources 

in decision-making. However, first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in 

refuge management. A requirement of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are 

allowed only if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. Because of 

the limited upland areas of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge and the various species that depend 

on this habitat for breeding, nesting, and feeding, “No Public Access” was determined as necessary 

to assure their continued protection. However, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation under a Special Use Permit or from watercraft at a safe 

distance from the refuge’s shorelines should be considered appropriate and compatible. 

Described below is the proposed Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for managing the refuge 

over the next 15 years. This proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and 

strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: 

y Alternative A: Current Management Direction (No Action) 

y Alternative B: Intensive Biological Resource Management 

y Alternative C: Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) 

Each of these alternatives is described in Chapter III of the Environmental Assessment (Section B). 

The Service chose Alternative C, Ecosystem Management, as the proposed action alternative. 

Implementing the proposed alternative will result in the recognition of the ecological role of Wolf 

Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) within the interrelated Altamaha River basin and coastal 

barrier island ecosystem. Human activities and natural processes within these ecosystems influence 

Wolf Island NWR in a variety of ways. Alternative C explicitly commits the Service to acknowledge 

these influences and cooperate with other stakeholders in ways that will ensure the continued 

protection and enhancement of the ecosystem’s natural resources. 

As with Alternative B, the refuge would strive to optimize its biological program while recognizing that 

there may be tradeoffs and opportunity costs between the various elements of the biological 

programs envisioned. In other words, it might not be possible to equally pursue and achieve all 

objectives simultaneously because of budgetary and staffing constraints or because of intrinsic 

conflicts between objectives. Hence, Alternative C emphasizes a broader ecosystem approach than 

Alternative B, which is narrowly focused on the refuge. 

The refuge would conduct baseline inventories and monitoring programs with several partners to 

investigate threats and opportunities within the ecosystem as they may impact refuge goals and 

objectives. The Service and its partners would continue to furnish benefits to the ecosystem’s native 

flora and fauna under Alternative C. The refuge would also continue to furnish benefits to federally 

listed threatened and endangered species such as the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. 
38 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Under Alternative C, consideration of land acquisition and efforts at resource protection within the 

ecosystem would be intensified. Control of invasive species would increase and efforts would be 

made to reduce beach erosion. Service staff would work with partners to manage and improve 

habitats within the ecosystem. The staff would also explore opportunities with partners to expand 

land and habitat protection efforts. 

VISION 

Based on sound science and wilderness values, the Wolf Island NWR will protect, manage and, 

where appropriate, restore the Atlantic Coastal Barrier Island System to provide for wildlife, 

plants, and threatened and endangered species as well as their habitats for the benefit of present 

and future generations. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies for Wolf Island NWR— presented here in a hierarchical format—

are the Service’s responses to the issues, concerns, and needs expressed by the public, partners, 

refuge staff, and the planning team. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects 

associated with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; and the purposes and vision of Wolf Island NWR. With adequate staffing and 

resources as outlined in Chapter V, Plan Implementation, the Service intends to accomplish these 

goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

Periodic reviews of the progress made toward accomplishing these goals (and possible 

modifications) will be conducted as advances are made in scientific knowledge affecting the 

management of fish and wildlife resources on the refuge and within the affected ecosystem. Wolf 

Island NWR plays a key role in a number of regional, national, and system-wide conservation 

plans that are referenced in this comprehensive conservation plan. Fulfillment of the following 

goals, objectives, and strategies will contribute significantly to those plans. Some of the following 

recommendations may conflict with ongoing refuge work or with other recommendations. It must 

always be remembered that whenever a management conflict arises, the conflict shall be 

resolved in a manner that first protects the purpose of the refuge and, to the extent practicable, 

that also achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal A. Fish and Wildlife Population Management: Maintain healthy and diverse populations of 

native fish and wildlife with a focus on threatened and endangered species and species of concern. 

Discussion: In Georgia, the Altamaha Delta (Delta) is an important site for wintering piping 

plovers, and the most important wintering area for the endangered Great Lakes population with 

numbers varying from year-to-year but consistently high relative to other wintering sites. Four 

species of sea turtles inhabit the waters around Wolf Island NWR and in the Altamaha River 

basin. The Altamaha River drainage contains the largest population of the endangered shortnose 

sturgeon within the South Atlantic. This population is the third largest population in U.S. waters. 

On April 28, 2000, the entire Delta was designated as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network (WHSHRN) site of regional importance. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-1. Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle and 

other Sea Turtles: Protect and monitor the environment adjacent to the refuge and throughout the 

ecosystem for the protection of sea turtles.

 

Discussion: From aerial overflights conducted by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 

Wolf Island NWR has four to six nests per year with most, if not all, nests destroyed from tidal inundation 

or depredation by predators such as raccoons. Nest protection would not be feasible because of the low 

numbers of nests and the logistical problems associated with the location of the refuge. 

The waters adjacent to the refuge are an important feeding ground for all sea turtles stated above 

except for the leatherback, which is typically found in an open oceanic environment feeding on 

jelly-like organisms. Loggerheads and ridleys prefer horseshoe crabs and other crabs, whelks, 

and other food they have the ability to catch and ingest. Green sea turtles are vegetarians and 

prefer sea grass beds and seaweed. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor water quality for pollutants such as toxic discharge from industry, oil spills, and debris 

that could harm and/or kill turtles. 

y Protect the waters from overfishing and overharvesting food items important to sea turtles. 

y Work with partners to limit or eliminate fishing gear that would cause entanglement and 

drowning of turtles. 

y Work with partners to monitor and control coastal development, which can lead to degradation 

of foraging habitats and increase the numbers of watercraft in the area, potentially causing 

more injuries or deaths from boat strikes. 

y Channel dredging, especially by hopper dredges, can lead to high turtle mortalities and habitat 

destruction. Many dredges are now required to carry turtle observers on board and report any 

turtle/dredge incidents to the proper authorities. If dredging should occur near the Wolf Island 

NWR, refuge and Georgia DNR personnel should work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

to ensure turtle observers are required. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-2. West Indian Manatee: Cooperate with 

partners to maintain habitat quality for any manatees that occur in waters adjacent to the refuge and 

the ecosystem of the refuge. 

Discussion: The refuge has an interest in maintaining high water quality, but beyond that, no 

additional objectives are identified for this species. 

Strategies: 

y Initiate water quality sampling in refuge and adjacent waters. 

y Coordinate water quality sampling efforts with the University of Georgia and the Georgia DNR 

to ensure that critical parameters are tested and these efforts are added to the existing 

databases. 
40 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

y Coordinate with the Georgia DNR and other federal agencies to strengthen the Service’s 

position for preserving and protecting the Altamaha River System. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-3. Piping Plover: Continue to contribute to 

the recovery of the piping plover by providing undisturbed high quality foraging and roosting habitat. 

Discussion: As discussed in Chapter 3, piping plovers occur in three distinct nesting populations. 

The population nesting in the Great Lakes is federally listed as an endangered species, and the 

populations nesting in the rest of the country are listed as threatened. Individuals from all three 

populations migrate through or winter along the Atlantic Coast with Critical Habitat specifically 

designated with respect to the endangered Great Lakes population. Therefore, much of the Delta 

has been established as Critical Habitat for piping plovers, including Wolf Island, Egg Island Bar, 

Little St. Simons Island, and Pelican Spit. Because over-winter survival of young may be the most 

critical conservation issue for this species, the availability of high quality winter roosting and foraging 

habitat may be crucial for recovery of piping plovers. Wolf Island NWR contributes to the recovery of 

this species by providing critical habitat for wintering piping plovers. 

Strategies: 

y Minimize disturbance to foraging and roosting birds by posting signs readable from offshore at 

three key landing points on Wolf Island NWR to deter human use. 

y Monitor use of the refuge by over-wintering piping plovers by instituting monthly surveys from 

July through April. Coordinate with the Georgia DNR to augment surveys currently being 

conducted. Surveys should occur at a minimum in September, February, and April. 

y Evaluate distribution and abundance of food resources for piping plovers by initiating benthic 

invertebrate and water quality sampling. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-4. Other Protected Species (Wood 

Stork and Bald Eagle): Continue to protect habitat for these species, and within 5 years of CCP 

approval, coordinate with partners to increase monitoring efforts within the ecosystem. 

Discussion: The endangered wood stork feeds in the marshes and tidal creeks within the refuge. 

Although wood storks do not nest on the refuge, the refuge is within feeding range of 12 coastal Georgia 

wood stork colonies. The Altamaha River System is relatively unaltered by human actions as compared 

to other river systems within the U.S. Therefore, this river system is still comparatively healthy and very 

productive as demonstrated by the fish and wildlife populations supported within the system. This 

produces a very rich feeding ground for wood storks and other wading birds within the Delta. 

Bald eagles nest on Blackbeard Island NWR, 10 miles north of Wolf Island NWR. Bald eagles can 

frequently be seen on Wolf Island NWR either perched in the trees on Egg Island or on the beach on 

Wolf Island. They feed on the abundant fish and birds utilizing the refuge. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Strategies: 

y Work with other federal and state agencies and conservation groups to preserve the pristine 

nature of the Altamaha River System that the refuge is dependant on. 

y Conduct water quality sampling. 

y Conduct surveys of wood stork feeding activities in breeding and post-breeding seasons. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-5. Shorebirds: Continue to provide 

habitat for current populations of shorebirds, support Georgia DNR research of shorebirds, increase 

protection and monitoring efforts, and enhance ecosystem habitats for shorebirds.

Discussion: The refuge and the adjacent Altamaha Delta are listed as one of the top 500 Important 

Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy due to its importance for nesting shorebird and colonial 

beach-nesting birds. The refuge provides nesting habitat for Wilson's plovers, American 

oystercatchers, and willets. Wilson's plovers and American oystercatchers are both species of 

significant conservation concern, listed as High and Extremely High Priority Species, respectively, in 

the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). Willets are listed as Moderate Priority 

in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000) but are still worthy of consideration. 

Predators such as raccoons are present on Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg islands but are not considered 

to be a conservation issue. 

Strategies: 

y Minimize disturbance to nesting shorebirds by posting signs at key locations. 

y Monitor predation of shorebird nests by raccoons to determine if predator control measures 

are necessary. 

y Monitor nesting shorebird use of the refuge by implementing nesting season surveys of 

appropriate habitat. 

y Coordinate with the Georgia DNR to complement existing surveys. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-6. Wintering and Breeding Marshbirds 

and Songbirds: Provide habitat for marshbirds and songbirds and survey and monitor habitat 

enhancement on the refuge while working with partners throughout the ecosystem to increase 

monitoring and habitat enhancement efforts. 

Discussion: Upland habitat, excluding dunes and beaches, is limited to the small strip of maritime 

forest on Egg Island and the dredge spoil deposition areas on the back side of Wolf Island. The 

maritime forest is dominated by oaks, cedar, pine, and shrub species. Dredge spoil deposition areas 

are primarily covered with wax myrtle and cedar. These areas provide limited habitat for landbirds 

during winter, migration, and breeding. The area has not been monitored for landbird use, but it is 

likely several pairs of painted buntings are nesting annually in the maritime forest of Egg Island. 
42 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

There are nearly 5,000 acres of wetlands inside the boundary of Wolf Island NWR. These wetlands 

are primarily emergent estuarine marshes dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). 

Other wetland types include a small amount of higher marsh and open salt marsh habitat. During 

winter, coastal cordgrass marsh is critically important for saltmarsh sharp-tailed and Nelson's sharptailed sparrows. A small amount of habitat for black rails is available on Wolf and Egg islands. A 

specific monitoring protocol has been developed for secretive marshbirds as part of the National 

Marshbird Monitoring Program. There is also a centralized database where survey results are 

compiled and stored. 

Strategy: 

y Monitor marshbird use of salt marshes by implementing winter and breeding surveys at Wolf, 

Egg, and Little Egg Islands. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management Objective A-7. Reptiles and Amphibians: Continue 

to provide habitat for reptiles and amphibians, and within 5 years of CCP approval, begin to monitor 

presence and conduct habitat management for reptiles and amphibians on the refuge while working 

with partners throughout the ecosystem to increase monitoring and habitat enhancement efforts.

Discussion: Very little is known about the herpetofauna on the refuge. With the complete inundation 

of Little Egg Island, reptiles are probably non-existent there. Wolf Island has a few hammocks of 

shrub-scrub habitat, and reptiles may be present but probably in low numbers. Egg Island (with its 

presence of a small maritime forest) is said to have a high number of eastern diamondback 

rattlesnakes, but no inventories or surveys have been done. If rattlesnakes are present, we suspect 

other species of snakes and lizards would also be there. Nothing is known about the presence or 

absence of amphibians. 

Strategies: 

y Initiate an inventory of the herpetofauna, especially for diamondback terrapin nests on the 

refuge. 

y Reduce the raccoon population on the refuge. 

y Encourage the implementation of the Georgia DNR proposal to list terrapins as “Unusual” 

species on their protected species list. 

y Encourage the Georgia DNR to require the most efficient excluder device on all crab traps in 

the Altamaha Basin. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal B. Habitat Management: Manage, protect, enhance, and, as needed, restore a structurally 

diverse coastal island habitat. 

Discussion: Wolf Island is closed to public use, and there is currently no active management 

conducted on the refuge. Nevertheless, some need for active management may occur in the future 

to control invasive species or, if necessary, restore heavily eroded beaches. Primary needs related to 

wilderness as well as for endangered species and other priority fauna would be to ensure high water 

quality and Class I Air Quality standards. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Habitat Management Objective B-1. Salt Marsh: Within 5 years of CCP approval, map, protect, 

and maintain salt marsh on the refuge and enhance habitat quality while working with partners within 

ecosystem to eliminate threats to salt marsh. 

Discussion: Wolf and Egg islands are both primarily (75%) composed of estuarine, emergent 

wetlands dominated by smooth cordgrass. During high tide, the wetlands can be completely 

inundated. As the water level rises in the marsh, it carries with it aquatic organisms including fish, 

crustaceans, and other invertebrates. Estuarine wetlands are very important as nursery habitat for 

juvenile fish, crabs, and shrimp that take refuge among the vegetation for protection from predators. 

When the tide recedes, these organisms often remain in the marsh. They are trapped in pools of 

water at lower elevations until the next high tide. Such pools provide excellent foraging 

opportunities for birds, as the aquatic organisms may be highly concentrated within these pools. 

The wide variety of organisms supported by estuarine marshes is linked to the range of salinities 

that occur there. When rain falls upstream in the Altamaha River drainage, it flows downstream 

and discharges into the estuaries surrounding Wolf and Egg islands. This fresh water temporarily 

lowers the salinity in the estuaries, which makes them habitable for organisms that prefer lower 

salinity water. Alternatively, when rainfall is limited and salinity levels rise in the estuaries, more 

saline-tolerant species can move in from the Atlantic Ocean, and those intolerant of high salinity 

migrate upstream into the river system. 

Strategy: 

y Implement a water quality (including salinity) monitoring project. 

Habitat Management Objective B-2. Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars: Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, map, protect, maintain, and enhance these habitats on the refuge while working with 

partners within the ecosystem to eliminate threats to these habitats. 

Discussion: Because of dredging operations up the coast in the Savannah River Delta, the barrier 

islands in the Altamaha Delta are sand-starved. Littoral drift occurs from north to south. Therefore, 

sand that historically came out of the Savannah harbor drifted south to deposit along the barrier 

islands including Wolf Island. This sand is now dredged from the river and deposited on upland 

disposal sites, which robs the system of its sand supply. Wolf Island has been eroding for the past 

70–80 years, which is evident by its change in size and shape. 

Strategies: 

y Work with partners to influence the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to change deposition sites 

from confined disposal areas and offshore ocean sites to nearshore sites in order to increase 

the amount of sand traveling down the coast. 

y Study the possibility of erosion control measures to keep sand from leaving Wolf Island. 

y Initiate studies of distribution, abundance, and limiting factors for benthic invertebrates. 

Habitat Management Objective B-3. Maritime Forest and Shrub-Scrub: Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, map, protect, and maintain these habitats on the refuge, and enhance habitat quality while 

working with partners within the ecosystem to eliminate threats to these habitats. 
44 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: This maritime forest provides habitat of superior quality for many species of wildlife. Due 

to the remoteness of Egg Island and difficulty in gaining access to the higher elevations on the island, 

the maritime forest provides sanctuary particularly for species that are sensitive to human disturbance 

or are pursued by the public. Wading birds nest undisturbed around the small pond within the forest, 

and many species of neotropical birds utilize the resources of the maritime forest during migration 

and nesting. Egg Island has a local reputation as one of the few remaining areas where large 

diamondback rattlesnakes can be found. Refuge law enforcement officers have received reports of 

snakes being removed from the refuge for the purpose of entering local rattlesnake roundups. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain the maritime forest in a natural state, excluding the use of prescribed fire. 

y Conduct annual inspections of the forest community for the presence of noxious or invasive 

species, e.g., feral hogs, tallow trees, etc. 

y Coordinate with the Georgia DNR to document the activity of the wading bird nesting colonies 

annually. 

y Add an additional refuge law enforcement officer, obtain needed equipment, and increase 

patrols to protect the wildlife and maritime forest habitat. 

y Conduct call recognition surveys for nesting birds during May–June on maritime forest and 

shrub-scrub habitats of Egg Island. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal C. Resource Protection: As a designated wilderness area, work with private landowners, 

agencies, and other partners to restore eroded beach habitat, provide law enforcement, protect 

cultural resources, and continue to protect wildlife and habitat using a variety of land protection efforts 

including easements and acquisitions. 

Discussion: Resource protection through easements and acquisitions is often a consideration in 

refuge management, and to that end, there have been discussions about protecting Queen Island 

and gaining a determination regarding the legal status of the emerging “Wolf Island Bar.” Another 

important aspect of resource protection for the Wolf Island NWR complex is beach protection and 

restoration. 

Resource Protection Objective C-1. Invasive Species Management: Within 3 years of CCP 

approval, conduct a survey of invasive species to begin control while working with partners within the 

ecosystem to abate threats. 

Discussion: No control is considered necessary at this time. However, saltcedar and Chinese tallow 

stands are present on nearby islands and may spread to the refuge. 

Strategy: 

y Conduct periodic surveys of the refuge to determine if the noted invasives appear. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

Resource Protection Objective C-2. Beach Restoration Activities: Coordinate efforts with other 

partners in the ecosystem and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to change current dredge 

deposition procedures in the Savannah area in order to reverse the present beach erosion rates in 

coastal Georgia. 

Discussion: Besides trying to change standard operating procedures conducted by the Corps of 

Engineers that could reverse present beach erosion rates, there are no plans for beach restoration at 

this time. However, the beach is presently highly erodible, and if severity increases, then this position 

may need to be reevaluated. 

Resource Protection Objective C-3. Contaminants/Water Quality: Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, in cooperation with partners, collect sediment and water samples for the Altamaha Delta 

and examine contaminants associated with potential upstream discharges. 

Discussion: Developmental pressure has been impacting and will continue to impact the Altamaha 

Delta in a variety of ways. One of the most significant is water quality (as discussed more fully in 

Chapter III, Plan Development). 

Strategies: 

y Collect sediment and water samples for the Altamaha Delta. 

y Obtain potential list of contaminants from the Service’s Ecological Services office in 

Brunswick. 

Resource Protection Objective C-4. Air Quality: Continue to utilize air quality monitoring data for 

Class I Air Quality from Okefenokee NWR to characterize the air quality status of the Wolf Island 

NWR Wilderness Area. Continue commenting on new permit applications and changes to existing air 

quality permits that could impact Class I Air Quality standards while working with the Georgia DNR to 

characterize Wolf Island NWR’s air quality by utilizing data from the Sapelo Island NADP (National 

Atmospheric Deposition Program) site. 

Discussion: Very recent threats of increasing emissions near Wolf Island highlight the need to 

maintain high air quality with the designation of Class I Air Quality (Highest Pollution Threat). 

However, actual monitoring of Wolf Island would be very difficult to conduct consistently. Present 

monitoring from Okefenokee NWR or from the Sapelo Wildlife Management Area may be more 

appropriate. Regardless, the aerial deposition of mercury should be checked, especially in and 

around Wolf Island. 

Strategies: 

y Utilize monitoring data from Okefenokee NWR or from the Sapelo Wildlife Management Area. 

Consider establishing a monitoring station on Blackbeard Island NWR. 

y Aerial deposition of mercury should be checked in and around Wolf Island. 

Resource Protection Objective C-5. Land Acquisition and Protection: Seek to augment 

protected land area by expanding the refuge’s authorized acquisition boundary and work with 

partners to increase the area of protected lands within the ecosystem. 
46 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: As mentioned in Chapter III, Plan Development, there was, and continues to be, 

discussion regarding protection of Queen Island. In addition, the deed transferring Wolf Island to the 

Service states that everything above mean low tide was included in the refuge, and this may impact 

the status of Wolf Island Bar. Regardless of its status within the National Wildlife Refuge System, the 

Wolf Island Wilderness Area boundary would not extend to Wolf Island Bar. 

Strategies: 

y Determine the feasibility and desirability of protecting Queen Island through easement, fee 

title, etc. 

y Initiate discussions with the State of Georgia to seek concurrence that Wolf Island Bar is a 

part of the refuge. 

Resource Protection Objective C-6. Restricting Public Access: Within 5 years of CCP approval, 

replace existing boundary signs; install authorized “Wilderness Area” signs and three large “Area 

Closed” signs; increase law enforcement presence to an average of two additional patrols per week 

during the nesting and beach seasons; and increase cooperation with the Georgia DNR on patrols 

and offsite education. 

Discussion: Much concern was expressed over the likely increase in public use to Wolf Island in the 

next few years. The biological review team recommended as the most critical need clearly posting 

Wolf Island as closed to public access. 

All refuge boundary signs are faded and in need of replacement. In addition, there are no signs that 

currently identify the refuge as a wilderness area. Although the refuge is closed to the public, no 

“Closed Area” signs are posted on the refuge boundary. The public is currently accessing Wolf Island 

at two points, which are on the north and south ends of the beach. Large “Closed Area” signs should 

be placed at these access points, and the signs should have large enough lettering to be read from a 

minimum distance of 40 yards. Additional information could be placed on the signs in smaller 

lettering to explain the basis for closure. 

Strategies: 

y Replace all existing refuge boundary signs with new signs, and investigate the possibility of 

getting better quality, fade-resistant signs. 

y Add “Wilderness Area” signs on the same posts that refuge boundary signs are placed. 

y Contract the construction of three large “Island Closed” signs, and install these at the north 

and south ends of Wolf Island. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal D. Visitor Services: Develop and implement (within the parameters of the refuge’s wilderness 

designation and the need for no public access) a quality and compatible wildlife-dependent public use 

program that leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife values. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

Discussion: Wolf Island is coming under increasing recreational pressures. The role of wilderness 

areas and the rationale for no public access need to be explained to the public. Posting is necessary 

now before a clientele becomes established. 

Visitor Services Objective D-1. Environmental Education: Continue educational efforts including 

participation in the Georgia Coastal Education Group; the posting of information on the Wolf Island NWR’s 

website; and distribution of educational pamphlets. Initiate outreach programming and development of 

offsite interpretive exhibits while working with nongovernmental conservation organizations and local civic 

organizations and governments throughout the ecosystem to raise public awareness of the wilderness 

values and the role the refuge plays in the ecosystem. Facilitate partnerships with educational institutions 

and organizations to provide limited onsite field study programs. 

Discussion: Public outreach about the importance of wilderness areas and the rationale for no public 

access on Wolf Island can go a long way toward developing public awareness of the refuge and the 

techniques necessary for its protection. 

Strategies: 

y Explain why the refuge is closed to the public. 

y Work with the state to incorporate a message on wilderness areas and no public access to 

Wolf Island, with future outreach efforts coordinated with the planned Darien Interpretative 

Center within the Altamaha Wildlife Management Area. 

Visitor Services Objective D-2. Wildlife Observation and Photography: Continue to allow 

visitors to view and photograph the refuge and its wildlife from a safe distance.

Discussion: Wildlife observation and photography can be allowed from boats at recommended 

distances (marked by buoys off the islands under a state lease agreement) from foraging and nesting 

birds, while still maintaining the viability and importance of the need for no public access. 

Strategy: 

y Incorporate message with the future planned Darien Interpretative Center within the Altamaha 

Wildlife Management Area. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal E. Refuge Administration: Secure and enhance staffing, resources, and facilities to manage 

the integrity of habitats and wildlife resources on Wolf Island NWR and fulfill the refuge purposes. 

Discussion: Wolf Island NWR is unstaffed and unfunded. The nearest staff and equipment is 

stationed at Harris Neck NWR, which also staffs Blackbeard Island NWR. However, in addition to the 

need for a greater law enforcement presence, there is a need for at least one additional biological 

technician that would also have duties associated with the Harris Neck and Blackbeard Island 

national wildlife refuges. 
48 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Administration Objective E-1. State Relationships and Coordination: Over the life of 

the CCP, continue the positive working relationship between the refuge and the Georgia DNR; ensure 

that this relationship is maintained through time as personnel change within all organizations; and 

develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for resource management within 3 years of CCP 

approval that covers the entire ecosystem. 

Discussion: The relationship between the refuge and the Georgia DNR has been excellent. The 

establishment of the Altamaha Delta as a part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Program was possible only through the cooperative efforts of personnel from the refuge, the Georgia 

DNR, and Little St. Simons Island. These cooperative efforts and positive working relationships 

should be maintained through time as personnel change within all organizations. 

Strategies: 

y Work with all parties to accomplish common goals, e.g., water quality monitoring, fisheries 

assessment, migratory bird assessment, research and protection, etc. 

y Conduct an annual meeting to establish priority needs and strategies for related projects. 

Refuge Administration Objective E-2. Staffing and Budget: Add one full-time equivalent (FTE) 

law enforcement officer and one FTE biological technician and associated support resources.

Discussion: As noted above, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is unstaffed and unfunded. 

Strategies: 

y Add an additional law enforcement position (that would also serve the Harris Neck and 

Blackbeard Island national wildlife refuges). 

y Add at least one biological technician position (that would also serve the Harris Neck and 

Blackbeard Island national wildlife refuges). 

y Baseline resources should be established to support boats, fuel, signage, and the associated 

labor necessary to do at least the minimum necessary to protect resources at Wolf Island. 

Refuge Administration Objective E-3. Volunteers and Friends: Within 5 years of CCP approval 

and staffing, develop a volunteer corps and share these volunteers with ecosystem partners. 

Discussion: Active public participation in promoting the refuge’s wilderness values can be greatly 

enhanced through volunteer and friends programs. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. Congress has distinguished a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national 

wildlife refuges. National wildlife refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation 

of the nation’s fish and wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects 

emphasize the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife first and foremost, but considerable 

emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, this chapter identifies the projects; 

resource and personnel needs; volunteers; partnership opportunities; step-down management plans; 

a monitoring and adaptive management plan; and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated Refuge Operating Needs 

(RONS) costs for fish and wildlife population management, habitat management, resource protection, 

visitor services, and refuge administration over the next 15 years. This list reflects the priority needs 

identified by the public, the planning team, and the refuge staff based upon available information. 

These projects were generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. 

The primary linkages of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

The overall goal for fish and wildlife population management at Wolf Island NWR is to maintain 

healthy and diverse populations of native fish and wildlife, with a focus on threatened and 

endangered species and species of concern. 

Refuge personnel plan to partner with state agencies and local universities in a variety of monitoring 

programs. Examples include the overfishing of adjacent waters and water quality monitoring for 

pollutants such as toxic discharges from industry and coastal development. 

Because Wolf Island NWR has been designated as a national wilderness area that also prohibits 

public access, efforts will be made to reduce human disturbance on the refuge. This will be 

accomplished through projects such as the posting of signs (readable from offshore) to inform the 

public that no public access is allowed, and other projects that work with state agencies and 

conservation groups to preserve the pristine nature of the Altamaha River System in which the refuge 

is dependent on. 

In order to monitor the success of protecting the health of the refuge’s fauna, refuge personnel (as 

resources and staffing levels will allow) will initiate specific species monitoring programs to: 

 

y monitor use of the refuge by piping plovers and evaluate the distribution and abundance of 

food resources for the piping plover; 
50 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

y conduct surveys of wood stork feeding activities; 

y monitor predation of shorebird and sea turtle nests by raccoons; 

y monitor marshbird use of refuge salt marshes; and 

y initiate an inventory of refuge herpetofauna (especially the diamondback terrapin). 

Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle and Other Sea Turtles: Monitoring efforts indicate that Wolf Island 

NWR averages five sea turtle nests per year, with most, if not all, of the nests destroyed from tidal 

inundation or depredation by predators. Nest protection is currently not practical because of the low 

number of nests and the logistical problems associated with the location of the refuge. However, 

working in partnership with state and federal agencies, refuge personnel can and will work to protect 

water quality in waters adjacent to the refuge. This is an important role in the protection of sea 

turtles, because these waters are an important feeding ground for many sea turtle species. Another 

important aspect in water quality and associated habitat protection is the reduction and/or elimination 

of fishing gear (nets, fishing lines, etc.) that could cause entanglement and drowning of sea turtles. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

West Indian Manatee: Refuge personnel will cooperate with partners to maintain habitat quality for 

any manatees that occur in waters adjacent to the refuge. As above, this activity will focus on 

adjacent refuge water quality. Refuge personnel will coordinate the collection of water quality data 

with the University of Georgia and Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to ensure that 

critical parameters are tested. This effort will strengthen the Service’s position on preserving and 

protecting the environmental quality of the Altamaha River System. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

Piping Plover: Overwintering of piping plover is one of the most critical conservation issues for this 

species. Piping plover migrate through and/or winter along the Atlantic coast, making the Altamaha 

Delta a designated critical habitat for this species. Refuge personnel will monitor use of the refuge by 

overwintering piping plover and minimize disturbance to foraging and roosting birds by posting signs 

that are readable from offshore at key landing points on Wolf Island to deter human use. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

Wood Stork, Bald Eagle, and Other Protected Species: The endangered wood stork feeds in the 

refuge’s marshes and tidal creeks. Although these storks do not nest on the refuge, the refuge is 

within the feeding range of several coastal Georgia wood stork colonies. Bald eagles nest on 

Blackbeard Island NWR, 10 miles north of Wolf Island, and can be seen perched in the trees of Egg 

Island or on the beach at Wolf Island. 

The Altamaha River System is relatively unaltered by human actions as compared to other river 

systems within the U.S. and is still comparatively healthy and productive as a feeding ground for 

wood storks, other wading birds, and species such as the bald eagle. The refuge will work with other 

federal and state agencies and conservation groups to preserve the pristine nature of the Altamaha 

River System that the refuge is dependent on. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Shorebirds: The refuge and the adjacent Altamaha Delta are listed as one of the top 500 Important 

Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy due to their importance for nesting shorebird and 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

colonial beach nesting birds. The refuge will work to continue this legacy by minimizing disturbances 

to nesting shorebirds; monitor raccoon predation of shorebird and sea turtle nests; monitor nesting 

shorebird use of the refuge; and coordinate with the Georgia DNR to complement existing surveys. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Wintering and Breeding Marshbirds and Songbirds: Upland habitat, excluding dunes and 

beaches, is limited to a small strip of maritime forest on Egg Island and dredge spoil areas on the 

leeward side of Wolf Island. These areas provide limited habitat for landbirds during winter, 

migration, and breeding seasons. The estuarine marshes at Wolf Island NWR provide critical habitat 

for the salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrow and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow. Monitoring marshbird use 

of salt marshes on the refuge will help determine the habitat health for these species. A specific 

monitoring protocol has been developed for secretive marshbirds as part of the National Marshbird 

Monitoring Program and will be implemented. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Reptiles and Amphibians: Very little is known about the herpetofauna on the refuge. With the 

complete inundation of Little Egg Island, reptiles are probably nonexistent there. Wolf Island has a 

few hammocks of shrub-scrub habitat that may provide habitat for reptiles. Egg Island, with its small 

maritime forest, is said to have a high number of rattlesnakes. Nothing is known about the presence 

or absence of amphibians. 

Science-based inventories and monitoring of these populations will serve as the basis for developing 

habitat management plans and will influence refuge management activities. A systematic inventory 

and monitoring program will enable the refuge to make informed management decisions and valuable 

long-term contributions to national and regional objectives for waterfowl, shorebirds, forest-breeding 

birds, and wintering forest and scrub-shrub birds, as well as reptiles and amphibians. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

The overall goal for habitat management at Wolf Island NWR is to manage, protect, enhance, and, as 

needed, restore a structurally diverse coastal island habitat. To achieve this goal, refuge personnel 

will map, protect, and maintain the refuge’s salt marsh and maritime forest ecosystems. This 

protection will include annual inspections of the forest community for the presence of invasive 

species. Another important project necessary to assure conformance with this goal is to work in 

partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to encourage studies and modeling to determine if 

current dredge deposition procedures in the Savannah area should be changed, in order to reverse 

the present beach erosion rates on Wolf Island. 

Salt Marsh: Wolf and Egg islands are both primarily composed of estuarine, emergent wetlands 

dominated by smooth cordgrass. Estuarine wetlands are very important as nursery habitat for 

juvenile fish, crabs, and shrimp that take refuge among the vegetation for protection from predators. 

When the tide recedes, these organisms often remain in the marsh, trapped in pools of water; this, in 

turn, provides excellent foraging opportunities for birds. Water quality is critical for such habitats, and 

an important effort by refuge personnel will be to monitor water quality to identify changes in water 

quality that may require refuge management action. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 
52 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars: Because of dredging operations up the coast in the Savannah 

River Delta, the barrier islands in the Altamaha Delta are sand-starved. Littoral drift occurs from north 

to south. Therefore, sand that historically came out of the Savannah River harbor drifted south to 

deposit along the barrier islands including Wolf Island. This sand is now dredged from the river and 

deposited on upland disposal sites, which robs the system of its sand supply. Part of the future plans 

for the refuge requires partnering within the ecosystem to eliminate threats to refuge habitats. This 

will include discussions and studies with the Corps of Engineers to determine what can be done to 

reverse the trend in erosion at the refuge. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $10.0K Special Project Cost: 

 

Maritime Forest and Shrub-Scrub: The maritime forest on Egg Island provides habitat of superior 

quality for many species needing sanctuary from human disturbance. The small shrub-scrub habitat 

provided by the refuge is an important habitat for a variety of species. Maintaining, protecting, and 

enhancing these habitats is an important objective for the refuge. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $10.0K Special Project Cost: 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

As a designated wilderness area, the goal of this refuge in the category of resource protection is to 

work with private landowners, agencies, and other partners to restore eroded beach habitat; provide 

law enforcement; protect cultural resources; and continue to protect wildlife and habitat using a 

variety of land protection efforts, including easements and acquisitions. 

In order to protect the resource, studies are needed to determine if such things as water quality 

inputs are impacting the Altamaha Delta. One study will be to collect sediment samples in order 

to examine potential contaminants associated with upstream discharges. Air quality is another 

important resource, and refuge personnel plan to work with the Georgia DNR to characterize the 

Wolf Island NWR’s air quality by utilizing data from the Sapelo Island National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program sample site. 

Beyond the resource protection activities noted above, another planned program is to augment the 

protected land area by expanding the refuge’s authorized acquisition boundary. Another way to 

protect the refuge from disturbance will be to increase law enforcement presence to an average of 

two additional patrols per week during nesting and beach seasons. 

Key to the protection of refuge resources to date has been the positive working relationship between 

refuge personnel and the Georgia DNR. One planned long-term activity is to ensure that this 

relationship is maintained through time as personnel change within all organizations. 

Invasive Species Management: While no control is considered necessary at this time, saltcedar 

and Chinese tallow stands are nearby and may spread to the refuge. Therefore, within three years of 

CCP approval, refuge personnel will conduct surveys of invasive species and, if necessary, begin 

controls to abate such ecosystem threats. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $60.0K Special Project Cost: 

Beach Restoration Activities: As noted elsewhere in this CCP, beach erosion was changing the 

geography of the three islands that make up the refuge long before the refuge was created. Attention 

is currently directed to dredge activities by the Corps of Engineers as an aggravating impact to that 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

erosion rate, and also as a possible method to reverse this erosion trend. Over the life of this CCP, 

the refuge will coordinate efforts with other partners in the ecosystem and with the Corps to change 

the current dredge deposition procedures in the Savannah area, in order to reverse the present 

beach erosion rates in coastal Georgia. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $10.0K Special Project Cost: 

Contaminants/Water Quality: Developmental pressure has been impacting and will continue to 

impact the Altamaha Delta in a variety of ways, one of which is water quality. One of the refuge’s 

objectives is to work with partners to collect sediment and water samples to examine contaminants 

associated with potential upstream discharges. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $10.0K Special Project Cost: 

Air Quality: Wolf Island NWR is classified as a Class I Air Quality Area requiring additional levels of 

compliance from activities that may impact air quality. Recent threats of increasing emissions near 

Wolf Island highlight the need to assure enforcement of air quality regulations. Over the life of this 

CCP, the refuge will continue to utilize air quality monitoring data for Class I Air Quality from 

Okefenokee NWR to characterize the status of air quality on Wolf Island. The refuge staff will 

continue to review and comment on new air quality permit applications and proposed changes to 

existing air quality permits that could impact the refuge. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $0.0 Special Project Cost: 

 

Land Acquisition and Protection: There continues to be discussion regarding the protection of 

Queen Island, possibly as an expansion of the refuge’s protected land area. The refuge will continue 

efforts to augment protected land areas by expanding the authorized refuge boundary and work with 

partners to increase protected land areas within the Altamaha Delta Ecosystem. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Restricting Public Access: As a designated wilderness area that does not allow public access, human 

disturbances of the refuge must be minimized. Currently, all refuge boundary signs are faded and in need 

of replacement. In addition, no “Closed Area” signs are posted on the refuge boundaries. It is the intent 

of refuge personnel to replace the existing signs, install “Wilderness Area” signs, install “Area Closed” 

signs, and increase law enforcement presence in order to reduce human disturbance. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Due to its status as a wilderness area, no public use facilities are planned on the refuge. Although 

the salt waters surrounding the refuge are open to a variety of recreational activities such as fishing 

and crabbing, all beach, marsh, and upland areas are closed to the public. Wildlife observation and 

photography are possible from boats. 

Environmental Education: Wolf Island NWR is coming under increasing recreational pressures. 

The role of a wilderness area and the rationale for no public access need to be explained, and these 

require public outreach. The refuge will continue its educational efforts by participating in the Georgia 

Coastal Education Group; posting information on the Wolf Island Refuge’s website; and distributing 

educational pamphlets. Further, Service personnel at the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex will 
54 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

participate in the initiation of outreach programming and development of offsite interpretive exhibits 

while working with nongovernmental conservation organizations, local civic organizations, and other 

governments throughout the ecosystem. These efforts will raise public awareness of the wilderness 

values and the role the refuge plays in the ecosystem. On a limited basis, the refuge will make efforts 

to partner with educational institutions and organizations to support onsite field study programs.

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Wildlife Observation and Photography: Wildlife observation and photography can be done from boats 

at recommended distances from foraging and nesting birds while still maintaining the viability and 

importance of the need for no public access. Therefore, the refuge will continue to allow visitors to view 

and photograph the refuge and its wildlife from a safe distance that is marked with buoys offshore. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $10.0K Special Project Cost: 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Wolf Island NWR is one of seven refuges administered by the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex. This 

chain of national wildlife refuges extends from Pinckney Island NWR near Hilton Head, South Carolina, to 

Wolf Island NWR near Darien, Georgia. Within this chain lies the Savannah NWR (the largest unit in the 

complex) and the Wassaw, Tybee, Harris Neck, and Blackbeard Island national wildlife refuges. Together 

they span a 100-mile coastline and total over 56,000 acres. The Savannah Coastal Refuges are 

administered from a headquarters office located in Savannah, Georgia. 

State Relationships and Coordination: Key to the current success in maintaining the ecosystem 

habitat of the refuge has been the positive working relationship between refuge personnel and the 

Georgia DNR. The refuge will make every effort to ensure that this relationship is maintained through 

time as personnel change within all organizations. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $15.0K Special Project Cost: 

Staffing and Budget: This refuge is unstaffed and unfunded (i.e., no base budget). In order to 

implement refuge changes over time and restrict wildlife disturbance, there is a need for one full-time 

equivalent (FTE) law enforcement officer and one FTE biological technician and associated support 

resources. Securing these refuge needs is an important target for the future of the refuge. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $300.0K Special Project Cost: 

Volunteers and Friends: Active public participation in promoting the refuge’s wilderness values can 

be greatly enhanced through volunteer and friends programs. Therefore, within 5 years of CCP 

approval and staffing, the refuge will develop a volunteer corps and share these volunteers with its 

ecosystem partners. 

RONS Recurring Costs: $30.0K Special Project Cost: 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Table 1 lists the proposed projects and their associated costs and staffing. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Table 1. Summary of projects and their associated costs and staffing needs. 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL 

COST 

STAFF (FTE’S) 

 WATER QUALITY MONITORING $0 $10.0K 

 AIR QUALITY MONITORING $0 $0 

 WILDLIFE INVENTORY SURVEY $15.0K $15.0K 

MONITOR REFUGE USE BY 

WILDLIFE $15.0K $15.0K 

 MONITOR NEST PREDATION $0 $0 

 STUDY DREDGE DEPOSITION $10.0K $10.0K 

 INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL $5.0K $5.0K 

 LAND ACQUISITION $0 $0 

 RESTRICTING PUBLIC ACCESS $7.5K $7.5K 

 MOA WITH GEORGIA DNR $5.0K $5.0K 

 STAFFING AND BUDGET $300.0K $300.0K 

 PUBLIC OUTREACH $10.0K $25.0K 

DEVELOP VOLUNTEER AND 

FRIENDS PROGRAMS $15.0K $30.0K 

PARTNERSHIP AND VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) is to establish partnerships with local 

volunteers, landowners, private organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In 

the immediate vicinity of the refuge, opportunities exist to establish partnerships with sporting clubs, 

elementary and secondary schools, universities, and community organizations. At regional and state 

levels, partnerships may be established or enhanced with organizations such as the Georgia DNR, 

Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Society, etc. The goals and objectives outlined 

in this CCP need the support and partnerships of federal, state, and local agencies; nongovernmental 

organizations; and private citizens. This broad-based approach to managing the refuge’s fish and 

wildlife resources extends beyond social and political boundaries and requires a foundation of 

support from many stakeholders. The refuge will continue to seek creative partnership opportunities 

to achieve its vision for the future. 
56 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. A step-down management 

plan provides specific guidance on activities such as habitat, fire, and visitor services management. 

These step-down management plans (Table 2) are also developed in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires public review and comment prior to their 

implementation. 

Table 2. Step-down management plans, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Step-down Plan Completion Date

Biological Inventory and Monitoring Plan 2012 

Law Enforcement Plan 2015 

Sign Plan 2012 

Animal Control Plan 2011 

Invasives Management Plan 2011 

Habitat Management Plan 2012 

Visitor Services Management Plan 2012 

Master Plan N/A 

Public Outreach Plan 2012 

Water Quality Monitoring Plan 2012 

Air Quality Monitoring Plan 2012 

Beach Erosion Plan 2011 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluation results indicate 

undesirable effects for target and nontarget species and/or communities, then alterations to the 

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

monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. It 

will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when conditions 

change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological conditions or a 

major refuge expansion. The final plan will be augmented by detailed step-down management plans 

to address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. 

Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans will be made available for public review 

and comment, in accordance with the requirements National Environmental Policy Act. 
58 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 59

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Act). The Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans 

(CCPs) for all refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP/EA, a final 

decision will be made by the Service that will guide the management direction of Wolf Island NWR over 

the next 15 years; provide public understanding about the refuge and its management activities; and 

incorporate information and suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft CCP (Section A) proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a 

set of goals, objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP addresses current management issues; 

provides long-term management direction and guidance for the refuge; and satisfies the legislative 

mandates of the Act. While the CCP provides general management direction, subsequent step-down 

plans will provide more detailed management direction and actions. 

The EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to 

support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative 

presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no 

significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or if 

the alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD). Following public review and 

comment, the Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge in the final CCP. 

This CCP is needed to address current management issues, provide long-term management direction 

for the refuge, and satisfy the legislative mandates of the Act, which requires the preparation of a 

CCP for all national wildlife refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to establish and implement management direction for Wolf Island 

NWR for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and 

to describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 
60 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a range 

of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected Alternative C 

(Ecosystem Management) as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the 

planning team, Alternative C is the best approach to guide the refuge’s future direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of 

the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Service will select an alternative to 

implement the CCP for Wolf Island NWR. The finalized CCP will include a FONSI, which is a 

statement that explains why the selected alternative will not have a significant effect on the quality of 

the human environment. This determination is based on an evaluation of the mission of the Service 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established, and 

other legal mandates. Assuming that no significant impact is found, implementation of the plan will 

begin, and the plan will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge consists of a long narrow strip of oceanfront beach backed by a 

broad band of salt marsh. Over 75% of the refuge's 5,126 acres are composed of saltwater marshes 

(see Figure 1). It is located in McIntosh County, Georgia, 12 miles east of Darien. 

This EA will identify management on refuge lands as well as those lands proposed for protection by 

the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service has developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

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

NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance with NEPA through the involvement of the public and 

the incorporation of an EA in this document. The EA describes the alternatives that were considered 

and analyzes the environmental consequences each alternative (Chapters III and IV in this section). 

When fully implemented, the plan will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Wolf Island NWR. 

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

The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the purposes of the 

refuge. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service 

allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or 

does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Act), states that national wildlife refuges must be protected 

from incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy refuge lands and 

waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be found to 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 61

be compatible. The Act defines a compatible use as one that “... will not materially interfere with or 

detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In 

addition, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are 

compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the Refuge System as listed in 

the Act. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation. However, as noted within this Draft CCP/EA, Wolf Island 

NWR is a designated wilderness area with no public access, and as such, there will be limited 

compatible uses. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been an important factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP for 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. The plan has been written with input and assistance from 

interested citizens, conservation organizations, and representatives of other federal, state, and local 

agencies. The participation of these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting 

the management direction for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Preplanning activities began in May 2006 with the formation of a biological review team, which 

conducted a wildlife and habitat management review of the refuge. A brief visitor services review was 

also included as part of the biological review. In June 2006 the CCP planning team reviewed the 

recommendations of the biological review team and visitor services experts, and conducted a 

comprehensive review of the refuge’s habitats, fish and wildlife resources, and public use programs. 

It also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary schedule, a mailing list, and 

plans for public involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan for the 

refuge was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2006. 

The planning team then held an open house and public scoping meeting on January 24, 2007, at The 

Nature Conservancy’s Georgia Conservation Office near Darien, Georgia. Five citizens attended this 

meeting. Two of the attendees submitted their comments at the meeting, and one additional 

comment was received through e-mail. These public scoping comments are summarized in Appendix 

D, Public Involvement. 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities from both the public and internal scoping were 

identified and addressed during the planning process. All public and advisory team comments were 

considered; however, some issues that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the 

Service’s authority and cannot be addressed within this planning process. The planning team did 

consider all issues that were raised throughout this planning process, and has developed a plan that 

attempts to balance the refuge’s management priorities based on best management practices, best 

available information, and the competing opinions regarding important issues. 

Summaries of these issues and concerns, as well as more detailed information about the planning 

process and the identification of issues, are provided in Chapter III, Plan Development, in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
62 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 63

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, please refer to Chapter II, Refuge Overview, in the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Section A). 
64 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 65

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision and the goals identified in the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP), the goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and the mission of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, 

concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three alternatives identified and evaluated here represent different approaches to provide 

permanent protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and 

other resources. Refuge staff assessed the biological conditions and analyzed the external 

relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed to the development of the refuge’s 

goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, each alternative presents 

different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was evaluated based on how 

much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues related to fish and 

wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, visitor services, and 

refuge administration. A summary of the three alternatives is provided in Table 3. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the NWRS. Goals are desired conditions or 

outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into three alternatives. 

These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the refuge over a 15-

year time frame while still meeting the refuge purposes and goals. The three alternatives are 

summarized below. A comparison of alternatives follows the general description. 

ALTERNATIVE A: CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

Wolf Island NWR is part of the Altamaha River ecosystem and is an important part of the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. As such, the refuge is of significant importance to migrating 

and wintering shorebirds and has been designated as part of the critical habitat for the Great Lakes 

population of the endangered piping plover. Under Alternative A, the “No Action” alternative, present 

management of the refuge would continue at its current level of participation in these initiatives 

throughout the 15-year duration of the CCP. Current approaches to managing wildlife and habitats, 

to protecting resources, and disallowing public use would remain unchanged. 

Wolf Island NWR, as a designated national wilderness area, provides protection for endangered and 

threatened species including the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. Due to its status as a 

wilderness area, no public use facilities exist or are planned on the refuge. Although the waters 

surrounding the refuge are open to a variety of recreational activities, all beach, marsh, and upland 

areas are closed to the public. Under this alternative, none of the above would change. The refuge’s 

current management practices, which are primarily custodial in nature, would continue to be pursued 

over the 15-year life of the CCP. 
66 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERNATIVE B: INTENSIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative B, the refuge would strive to optimize its biological program, recognizing that there 

may be tradeoffs and opportunity costs between the various elements of the biological programs 

envisioned. In other words, it might not be possible to equally pursue and achieve all objectives 

simultaneously because of budgetary and staffing constraints or because of intrinsic conflicts 

between certain objectives. Hence, Alternative B stresses the principle of optimization rather than 

maximization of wildlife and habitat outputs. 

The refuge would conduct baseline inventories and monitoring programs with several partners to 

provide a solid foundation of the current condition of refuge habitat and wildlife. The refuge would 

continue to furnish benefits to migratory birds and resident wildlife species. The Service would aim to 

increase the refuge’s knowledge base about shorebirds by developing and implementing monitoring 

programs while continuing to provide habitats for the benefit of migratory birds. The refuge would 

also continue to furnish benefits to federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as the 

loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. 

Land acquisition and resource protection efforts at Wolf Island NWR would be intensified. Efforts to 

control invasive species would commence and efforts would be made to reduce beach erosion. In 

the Service’s Private Lands Program, the refuge staff would work with private landowners of adjacent 

properties to manage and improve habitats. The staff would also explore opportunities with partners 

to expand land and habitat protection efforts. 

The refuge would develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). 

Until the time the CRMP is completed and implemented, the refuge would follow the Service’s 

standard protocol and procedures in conducting cultural resource surveys by qualified professionals, 

in consultation with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) and Georgia’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

ALTERNATIVE C: ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Under Alternative C, the proposed action alternative, the refuge would practice ecosystem 

management, recognizing the ecological role of Wolf Island NWR within the interrelated Altamaha 

River basin and coastal barrier island ecosystem. Human activities and natural processes within 

these ecosystems influence Wolf Island NWR in a variety of ways. Alternative C explicitly commits 

the Service to acknowledge these influences and cooperate with other stakeholders in ways that will 

ensure the continued protection and enhancement of the ecosystem’s natural resources. 

As with Alternative B, the refuge would strive to optimize its biological program, recognizing that there 

may be tradeoffs and opportunity costs between the various elements of the biological programs 

envisioned. In other words, it might not be possible to equally pursue and achieve all objectives 

simultaneously because of budgetary and staffing constraints or because of intrinsic conflicts 

between certain objectives. However, Alternative C emphasizes a broader ecosystem approach than 

Alternative B, which is narrowly focused on the refuge. 

The refuge would conduct baseline inventories and monitoring programs with several partners to 

investigate threats and opportunities within the ecosystem as they may impact refuge goals and 

objectives. The Service and its partners would continue to furnish benefits to the ecosystem’s native 

flora and fauna under Alternative C. The refuge would also continue to furnish benefits to federally 

listed threatened and endangered species such as the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 67

Under Alternative C, land acquisition and resource protection within the ecosystem would be 

intensified. Control of invasive species would commence and efforts would be made to reduce beach 

erosion. Service staff would work with partners to manage and improve habitats within the 

ecosystem. The staff would also explore opportunities with partners to expand land and habitat 

protection efforts. 

The refuge would develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP). 

Until the time the CRMP is completed and implemented, the refuge would follow the Service’s 

standard protocol and procedures in conducting cultural resource surveys by qualified professionals, 

in consultation with the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer (RHPO) and Georgia’s State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the three alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. Each 

of the three alternatives have the following features in common: 

y Public access to the refuge would be excluded under all three alternatives. 

y Water quality and air quality monitoring would be utilized as a tool to determine refuge health. 

y The excellent working relationship with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) 

would be maintained. 

As a result of input from the public, internal scoping, and the experience of the review team for this 

Draft CCP/EA, five focus goals were established for Wolf Island NWR. Each of these focus areas 

was given a goal statement, as follows: 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management (Goal A): Maintain healthy and diverse populations of 

fish and wildlife endemic to the Georgia coastal barrier islands. 

Habitat Management (Goal B): Manage, protect, enhance, and, as needed, restore a structurally 

diverse coastal island habitat that also provides a refuge for migratory birds as a part of the Western 

Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 

Resource Protection (Goal C): As a designated wilderness area, Service personnel will work with 

agencies and other partners to restore eroded beach habitat, protect cultural resources, and continue 

to protect wildlife and habitat using a variety of land protection efforts including easements and 

acquisitions. In addition, the Service would work to provide law enforcement. 

Visitor Services (Goal D): In cooperation with partners, develop and implement a quality and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public education and interpretive program that leads to a greater public 

understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s designated wilderness, the National Wilderness 

System, and fish and wildlife values. 

Refuge Administration (Goal E): As a part of the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, secure and 

enhance staffing, resources, and facilities to fulfill refuge goals and manage habitats and wildlife 

resources on Wolf Island NWR. 
68 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

Within each focus area, objectives were established to fulfill the above-noted goals. A comparison 

was made between the three alternatives to determine how they would address the objectives of 

each goal. This comparison is provided in Table 3. 

Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wolf Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. 

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management (Goal A) – Maintain healthy and diverse populations of 

native fish and wildlife, with a focus on threatened and endangered species and species of concern. 

Atlantic Loggerhead Sea 

Turtle and Other Sea 

Turtles 

Continue to rely on 

Georgia DNR for 

inventory of nesting 

with aerial overflights. 

Protect and monitor 

the environment of the 

refuge for the 

protection of sea 

turtles. 

Protect and monitor 

the environment 

adjacent to the refuge 

and throughout the 

ecosystem for the 

protection of sea 

turtles. 

West Indian Manatee Continue to report 

sightings of manatees 

on or near the refuge 

and continue to 

collaborate with 

Georgia DNR on 

outreach and 

educational programs. 

Cooperate with 

partners to maintain 

habitat quality for any 

manatees that occur in 

waters adjacent to the 

refuge. 

Cooperate with 

partners to maintain 

habitat quality for any 

manatees that occur 

in waters adjacent to 

the refuge and the 

ecosystem of the 

refuge. 

Piping Plover Continue to contribute 

to the recovery of the 

piping plover by 

providing undisturbed 

high quality foraging 

and roosting habitat. 

Build on Alternative A 

with the addition of a 

monitoring program to 

quantify help in the 

recovery. 

Build on Alternative B 

with the addition of 

monitoring water 

quality and its impacts 

on food sources for 

piping plover.

Wood Stork, Bald Eagle, 

and Other Protected 

Species 

Continue to protect 

habitat for these 

species. 

Continue to protect 

habitat for these 

species, and within 5 

years of CCP 

approval, begin 

monitoring efforts 

within the refuge. 

Continue to protect 

habitat for these 

species, and within 5 

years of CCP 

approval, coordinate 

with partners to 

increase monitoring 

efforts within the 

ecosystem. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 69

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Shorebirds Continue to provide 

habitat for current 

populations of 

shorebirds, and 

support Georgia 

DNR’s research and 

monitoring of 

shorebirds. 

In addition to the 

efforts of Alternative A, 

increase protection 

and monitoring efforts, 

and enhance habitat 

for shorebirds. 

In addition to the 

efforts of Alternative 

B, initiate water quality 

monitoring and 

coordinate all 

monitoring efforts with 

partners. 

Wintering and Breeding 

Marshbirds and 

Songbirds 

Provide habitat for 

marshbirds and 

songbirds. 

In addition to efforts in 

Alternative A, begin 

surveying, monitoring, 

and habitat 

enhancement. 

In addition to 

Alternative B, work 

with partners to 

increase monitoring 

and habitat 

enhancement efforts. 

Reptiles and Amphibians Continue to provide 

habitat for reptiles and 

amphibians. 

In addition to efforts in 

Alternative A, within 5 

years of CCP approval, 

begin to monitor 

presence and conduct 

habitat management 

for reptiles and 

amphibians. 

In addition to efforts in 

Alternative B, work 

with partners to 

increase monitoring 

and habitat 

enhancement efforts. 
70 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Habitat Management (Goal B) – Manage, protect, enhance, and, as needed, restore a structurally 

diverse coastal island habitat. 

Salt Marshes Continue with passive 

management of this 

habitat. 

Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, map, protect, 

and maintain salt

marshes and enhance 

habitat quality. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B, work with 

partners to eliminate 

threats to salt marshes.

Beaches, Dunes, and 

Sand Bars 

Continue with passive 

management of this 

habitat. 

Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, map, protect, 

and maintain these 

habitats and enhance 

habitat quality. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B, work with 

partners to eliminate 

threats to these 

habitats. 

Maritime Forest and 

Shrub-Scrub 

Continue with passive 

management of this 

habitat. 

Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, map, protect, 

and maintain these 

habitats and enhance 

habitat quality. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B, work with 

partners to eliminate 

threats to these 

habitats. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 71

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Resource Protection (Goal C) – As a designated wilderness area, work with agencies and other 

partners to restore eroded beach habitat, protect cultural resources, and continue to protect wildlife 

and habitat using a variety of land protection efforts including easements and acquisitions. In 

addition, provide law enforcement. 

Invasive Species 

Management 

Continue no active 

management of 

invasive species. 

Within 3 years of CCP 

approval, conduct 

survey of invasive 

species to begin 

control. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B, work 

with partners to abate 

threats from invasive 

species 

 

Beach Restoration 

Activities 

Continue negotiations 

with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) to change 

current dredge 

deposition procedures 

in the Savannah area 

in order to reverse 

present beach erosion 

rates. 

Cooperate with the 

Corps to encourage 

studies and modeling 

to determine if current 

dredge deposition 

procedures in the 

Savannah area should 

be changed in order to 

reverse present beach 

erosion rates on Wolf 

Island. 

Over the life of the 

CCP, coordinate efforts 

with other partners in 

the ecosystem and 

with the Corps to 

change current dredge 

deposition procedures 

in the Savannah area 

in order to reverse 

present beach erosion 

rates in coastal 

Georgia. 

Contaminants/Water 

Quality 

Continue no active 

efforts at assessing or 

reducing contaminants 

and protecting water 

quality in waters near 

the refuge. 

Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, in 

cooperation with 

partners, collect 

sediment and water 

samples for the 

Altamaha Delta, and 

examine contaminants 

associated with 

potential upstream 

discharges in order to 

assure enforcement of 

environmental laws 

and regulations. 

Same as Alternative 

B. 

Air Quality Continue to utilize air 

quality monitoring data 

for Class I Air Quality 

from Okefenokee NWR 

to characterize air 

In addition to 

Alternative A, work 

with Georgia DNR to 

characterize Wolf 

Island NWR air quality 

Same as Alternative B. 
72 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

quality status of Wolf 

Island NWR 

Wilderness Area, and 

continue commenting 

on new permit 

applications and 

changes to existing air 

quality permits that 

could impact Class I 

Air Quality. 

by utilizing data from 

Sapelo Island NADP 

(National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program) 

to assure enforcement 

of environmental laws 

and regulations. 

Land Acquisition and 

Protection 

Continue to maintain 

existing land base. 

Seek to augment 

protected land area by 

expanding authorized 

refuge acquisition 

boundary. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B, work with 

partners to increase 

area of protected lands 

within the Altamaha 

ecosystem. 

Restricting Public Access Continue minimum 

boundary posting and 

occasional law 

enforcement patrols. 

Within five years of 

CCP approval, replace 

existing boundary 

signs, install 

authorized 

“Wilderness Area” 

signs, and three large 

“Area Closed” signs, 

and increase law 

enforcement presence 

to an average of two 

additional patrols per 

week during the 

nesting and beach 

seasons. 

In addition to steps in 

Alternative B and 

increase cooperation 

with Georgia DNR on 

patrols and off-site 

education. 

State Relationships and 

Coordination 

Continue the positive 

working relationship 

between refuge 

personnel and the 

Georgia DNR and 

ensure that this is 

maintained through 

time as personnel 

change within all 

organizations. 

Expand on Alternative 

A by developing an 

MOA for resource 

management on the 

refuge within three 

years of CCP approval. 

Expand on Alternative 

B by developing this 

MOA to cover the 

entire ecosystem. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 73

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Visitor Services (Goal D) – Develop and implement (within the parameters of a Wilderness 

Designation and No Public Access) a quality and compatible wildlife-dependant public use program 

that leads to a greater understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife values. 

Environmental Education Continue educational 

efforts including 

participation in the 

Georgia Coastal 

Education Group, Wolf 

Island website, and 

distribution of 

educational 

pamphlets. 

Expanding on 

Alternative A, in 

partnership with state 

agencies, initiate 

outreach programming 

and development of 

off-site interpretive 

exhibits. 

In addition to 

Alternative B, work with 

non-governmental 

conservation 

organizations, local 

civic organizations, and 

governments 

throughout the 

ecosystem to raise 

public awareness of 

the wilderness values 

and the role the refuge 

plays in the ecosystem.

Wildlife Observation and 

Photography 

Continue to allow for 

visitors to view and 

photograph the refuge 

and its wildlife from a 

safe distance. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 
74 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Issues Alternative A: 

Current Management

(“No Action” 

Alternative) 

 Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource 

Management 

 Alternative C: 

Ecosystem 

Management 

(Proposed 

Alternative) 

Refuge Administration (Goal E) – Secure and enhance staffing, resources, and facilities to manage 

the integrity of habitats and wildlife resources on Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge and fulfill the 

purposes. 

Staffing and Budget Continue custodial 

management using 

Savannah Coastal 

Refuges Complex staff 

and budget. 

Add one full-time (FTE) 

law enforcement officer 

and one FTE biological 

technician and 

associated support 

resources. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Volunteers and Friends Continue to operate 

without any dedicated 

volunteers or Friends 

group. 

Within 5 years of CCP 

approval and staffing, 

develop volunteer 

corps. 

In addition to 

Alternative B, share 

volunteers with 

ecosystem partners. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternative development process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is designed to allow consideration of the 

widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. During the alternative 

development process for Wolf island NWR, many different solutions were considered. The following 

alternative was considered, but was not selected for detailed study in this Draft CCP/EA due to the 

reasons described. 

ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS 

Maximizing public use over other mandates deviates from Service policy. The fundamental mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System is wildlife conservation. Thus, wildlife must come first in the 

management of refuges. The Service will allow and provide for public use of a refuge—to the extent 

possible—as long as these uses are compatible with the Service’s mission and the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. In the development of public use opportunities, appropriate and 

compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses will be emphasized. However, public use must be at 

a level where wildlife populations and habitat are unharmed. After a careful review of the potential 

environmental impacts of public access to the many species of concern that utilize the refuge, it was 

determined that the potential of this alternative for environmental harm outweighs any general public 

benefits. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 75

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can 

be reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the three alternatives. For each alternative, 

the expected outcomes are portrayed through the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation 

plan (CCP). 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations,” was signed by President Bill Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The order 

directed federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this EA will disproportionately place any adverse 

environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and environmental education is 

anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The U.S. Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring federal agencies with 

land management responsibilities under its direction to consider the potential impacts of climate 

change as part of their long-range planning endeavors. 

The expected rise in the sea level (resulting from the melting of polar ice), combined with the effects 

of storm surges, will have a profound effect on coastal systems, with the most dramatic being wetland 

loss, loss of productivity in the estuaries, changes to the barrier islands, and increased vulnerability to 

coastal erosion and flooding. The possible increase in the intensity of coastal storms would increase 

this vulnerability along the Gulf and South Atlantic coastal margins. Independently or combined, sea 

level rise and more intense storms foreshadow extensive changes. 

Tidal marshes such as those found on Wolf Island NWR are among the most susceptible ecosystems 

to climate change, especially accelerated sea level rise. The sea level is predicted to increase by 30 

to 100 centimeters by the year 2100, based on the International Panel on Climate Change’s Special 
76 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Report on Emissions Scenarios (Meehl et al. 2007). Rising sea level may result in tidal marsh 

submergence (Moorhead and Brinson 1995) and habitat migration as the salt marshes transgress 

landward and replace tidal freshwater and brackish marsh (Park et al. 1991). 

Sea level rise will have several negative effects on these fragile systems, including changes in salinity 

throughout the estuaries, altered flushing rates, changes to the natural hydrology of the estuaries, 

and wetland loss. Coastal wetlands (such as those along the coast that are inundated by water 

during high tide and exposed to the air during low tide) are a particularly vulnerable component of the 

estuaries. As the sea level rises, some coastal wetlands are being “drowned in place,” because the 

constant submersion does not allow for the below-water/above-water cycle (associated with tidal 

changes) that is necessary for wetland development. Without this wet/dry cycle, the characteristic 

plants and animals that inhabit the areas die off. While some wetlands naturally maintain suitable 

bottom elevation through the deposition of sands and sediments, many others do not. 

Coastal wetlands are critical to the health of marine wetland-dependent species, including numerous 

endangered species. For example, the loss of intertidal breeding areas has a negative effect on 

breeding populations of horseshoe crabs. Consequently, species such as the redknot (a biological 

indicator bird species) that depend on the horseshoe crabs will also decline. Coastal wetlands also 

serve as strong defenses against coastal flooding and damage associated with coastal storms. As 

learned from Hurricane Katrina, the loss of these defenses will jeopardize our Nation’s infrastructure. 

The projected rise in sea level would have a direct impact to Wolf Island NWR and other sensitive 

habitats throughout the Atlantic coast. Projecting the amount of sea level rise is beyond the scope of 

this CCP. However, the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts could be profound. 

Breeding and nesting habitats for many sensitive species would be impacted. In addition, many 

areas immediately inland of the barrier islands are under heavy development pressure. These 

manmade developments are susceptible to damage from sea level rise. All of these issues must be 

addressed through intergovernmental cooperation, as well as input from a variety of stakeholders. 

Climate change presents significant new challenges for coastal refuge personnel that must make 

complex management decisions, often with uncertain or incomplete information. While climate 

change experts have predicted global increases in temperature, sea level, storm intensity and 

frequency, and changes in regional precipitation patterns, in most cases they have not scaled these 

predictions down to a level usable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for making specific, local 

resource-management decisions. In addition, as climate predictions continue to be refined, the 

Service’s management decisions will need to adapt to the new information and analyses. 

Resource management decisions made at the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex rely heavily on a 

mix of scientific, historic, economic, cultural, and human preference information. With the changing 

climate, the Service will find that, in many instances, the historic record associated with many of these 

factors is less reliable and in some cases invalid. Resource managers will need to rely instead on 

predictions of sea level, temperature, moisture, and the human and biotic responses to those new 

climate conditions and to management responses. As the effects of climate change progress, the 

uncertainties of managing in changing conditions will require a new decision model or framework for 

refuge managers to use when making decisions. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral resources; utility lines and easements; soils, water, and air; and historical and archaeological 

resources would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, any existing and 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 77

future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge would be managed 

identically under each of the alternatives. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary of Wolf 

Island National Wildlife Refuge would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ mitigation programs, and/or 

donations from conservation and private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can be 

used to obtain the minimum interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives, if the refuge staff can 

adequately manage uses of the areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate 

management agreements with local, state, and other federal agencies and accept conservation 

easements. Some tracts within the refuge acquisition boundary may be owned by other public or 

private conservation organizations. The Service would work with interested organizations to identify 

additional areas needing protection and provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of 

private lands is entirely contingent on the landowners and their willingness to participate. Thus, land 

acquisition would be handled the same under each of the alternatives. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. In most cases, these 

management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist in consultation 

with the State of Georgia’s Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular action within an 

alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an ongoing process that would occur during 

the planning stages of every project. 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation Office and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust 

and avoid any adverse effects whenever possible. 

Land acquisition by the Service, within the current acquisition boundary, would provide some degree 

of protection to significant cultural and historic resources. If acquisition of private lands does not 

occur and these lands remain under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for 

protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to 

destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for 

cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to McIntosh County, Georgia, would continue at the same 

rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments would 

increase accordingly. 
78 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water 

quality and quantity; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous materials; 

waste management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. This is due to 

the fact that under each alternative, the refuge’s wilderness status would be maintained, as well as 

the decision to not allow public access. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following sections describe the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Table 4 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues and is organized by broad issue categories. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Under Alternative A, current management practices would remain in place. The refuge will continue 

to be an integral part of the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network. It will remain as a 

critical habitat for the Great Lakes population of the endangered piping plover. Alternative A would 

continue to rely on passive population management and denial of public access in reducing 

disturbance stress to wildlife populations. There would be little in the way of active population 

management and continued species monitoring at current levels. Reaction to any new population 

stresses would require some delay in marshalling personnel and material to address any specific 

management need. 

Alternative B would strive to optimize the refuge’s biological program within the constraints of budget 

and staffing. Baseline inventories and monitoring programs would be implemented with several 

partners to provide a solid foundation upon which to manage refuge wildlife. With increased 

monitoring activity, any new environmental stresses to wildlife populations would be more quickly 

identified and response to those stresses would be initiated in a more timely fashion. 

Alternative C would expand on Alternative B by taking a broader approach to wildlife population 

management. This approach recognizes that many environmental stresses to the refuge come from 

outside refuge boundaries. This ecosystem approach requires monitoring of environmental 

parameters throughout the Altamaha Delta to gauge impacts to the refuge. 

HABITAT 

Under Alternative A, current levels of custodial habitat management would continue. Efforts would be made 

to identify negative habitat impacts, such as human disturbance and encroachment of invasive species. 

Alternative B would use data from baseline inventories and monitoring programs to determine ways to 

improve habitat and then implement programs to affect these habitat improvements. 

Alternative C would expand on Alternative B by working with partners to promote programs that strive to 

address environmental inputs outside the refuge boundaries that might negatively impact refuge habitat. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 79

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Under Alternative A, current management practices in resource protection (that are primarily custodial 

in nature) would continue. 

Alternative B would approach resource protection in a proactive fashion with efforts at expanding 

inventories, surveys, and land acquisition within the existing refuge boundary. 

Alternative C would expand on Alternative B through research and cooperation with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers to determine how to best address the lack of beach sand replenishment that is 

slowly eroding the beaches of the refuge, and to investigate other possible influences affecting the 

refuge from outside the refuge boundary. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Under all three alternatives, access on the refuge by the general public would not be allowed. This is 

necessary to protect habitat and reduce the disturbance of sensitive species that use the refuge. 

Alternative B would be proactive in addressing increasing pressures by the public accessing the 

island. This would be done through increased signage and increased law enforcement patrols. 

Alternative C would expand on Alternative B by increasing public outreach on the importance of 

protecting the pristine nature of the refuge. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Under Alternative A, the current level of custodial refuge management and administration would 

continue. 

Both Alternatives B and C would implement more active refuge administration with the addition of two 

full-time equivalent (FTE) positions (one biological technician and one law enforcement officer). 
80 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts can 

“accumulate” spatially when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can also 

accumulate over the course of time from actions in the past, the present, and the future. Occasionally, 

different actions counterbalance one another and partially cancel out each other’s effect on a resource. 

But more typically, multiple effects add up with each additional action contributing an incremental impact 

on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the sum of the individual 

effects, such as when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of reproductive 

sustainability and threatens to extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum. There are virtually always some other actions that have affected that 

resource in some way in the past, are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. Thus, any assessment of a specific action’s effects must be made with 

consideration of what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will 

likely happen to it. 

The primary concern from cumulative impacts will come from increased regional developmental 

pressures on the Altamaha Watershed. Any upstream negative environmental inputs to the region’s 

natural resources will have negative impacts downstream on the refuge’s overall environmental 

quality (i.e., its water quality, air quality, etc.); therefore, negative cumulative impacts to the refuge 

can be expected to occur. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

 

All of the alternatives are intended to maintain and/or improve the refuge’s biological resources. The 

biological integrity of the refuge would be protected under the proposed alternative and the refuge 

purpose would be achieved. The combination of the Service’s management actions with those of 

other organizations could result in significant, beneficial cumulative effects by (1) increasing 

protection and management for federal- and state-listed threatened or endangered species; (2) 

protecting habitats that are regionally declining; and (3) reducing habitat disturbance from increasing 

recreational pressures. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The Service expects none of the alternatives to have significant adverse cumulative impacts on the 

cultural resources in Georgia. Beneficial impacts would accrue at various levels, depending on the 

alternative, because of the refuge’s proposed environmental education and interpretation programs 

and increased field surveys to identify and protect any sites discovered. 

Under all of the alternatives, management practices on the refuge would consider potential historical 

resources. Because of its designation as a wilderness area, projects requiring excavation are not 

anticipated. However, should such activities be planned, site inspections of the affected area would 

occur before work begins. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle and Other Sea Turtles 

y Continue to rely on “No 

Public Access” and custodial management to protect these sea turtles. 

y Monitor refuge water quality 

for pollutants that might harm sea turtles.

y Protect refuge waters from 

over-fishing and harvesting of food items important to sea turtles.

In addition 

y Expand 

monitorAltamahfor polludischargspills, aharm an

y Work w

eliminatcould ha

y Work w

monitor develop

y Becaus

can lead mortalitdestrucobservedredges refuge. 
82 Wolf Island Na

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

West Indian Manatee y Continue to report sightings 

of manatees on or near the refuge and continue to collaborate with Georgia DNR on outreach and educational programs for this species. 

In addition to Alternative A: 

y Cooperate with partners to 

maintain habitat quality for any manatees that occur in waters adjacent to the refuge. 

In addition 

y Expand 

partnersmaintaithroughEcosyst

y Coordin

samplinUniversGeorgia Natural ensure existing critical ptested. 

y Coordin

DNR anagencieposition protectiRiver S
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Piping Plover y Continue to contribute to the 

recovery of the piping plover by providing undisturbed high quality foraging and roosting habitat. 

y Look for banded piping 

plovers among the wintering population. 

In addition to Alternative A: 

y Minimize disturbance to 

foraging and roosting birds by posting signs readable from offshore at three key landing points on Wolf Island to deter human use.

In addition 

y Monitor 

piping pmonthly through 

y Coordin

DNR to currentl

y Evaluat

abundaresourcby initiainvertebquality s

Wood Storks, Bald Eagles, and Other Protected Species 

y Continue to protect habitat 

for these species. 

In addition to Alternative A: 

y Within 5 years of CCP 

approval, begin monitoring efforts within the refuge.

In addition 

y Coordin

increase beyond the surr

y Work w

state agconservpreservof the ASystem refuge i

y Conduc

stork feduring bbreedin
84 Wolf Island Na

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Shorebirds y Continue to provide habitat 

for current populations of shorebirds, and support Georgia DNR research and monitoring of shorebirds.

In addition to Alternative A: 

y Increase protection and 

monitoring efforts and enhance refuge habitat for shorebirds. 

y Minimize disturbance to 

nesting shorebirds by posting signs at key locations. 

y Monitor predation of 

shorebird nests by raccoons and implement predator control measures if necessary. 

y Monitor nesting shorebird 

use of the refuge by implementing nesting season surveys of appropriate habitat. 

y Coordinate with Georgia 

DNR to complement existing surveys. 

y Increase law enforcement 

patrols during the critical nesting period.

In addition 

y Increas

monitorenhancfor shor

y Coordin

monitor the Altaas it relaand the

y Coordin

and modiversity shorebi
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Wintering and Breeding Marshbirds and Songbirds 

y Relying primarily on 

custodial management, and continue to provide habitat for marshbirds and songbirds.

y Begin surveying, 

monitoring, and habitat enhancement on the refuge for these birds.

In addition 

y Work w

throughincrease habitat 

y Monitor 

salt maimplemebreedinEgg, an

Reptiles and Amphibians y Continue to provide habitat 

for reptiles and amphibians.

In addition to Alternative A: 

y Begin to monitor 

presence, and conduct habitat management for reptiles and amphibians on the refuge. 

In addition 

y Work w

throughincrease habitat 

y Reduce 

populat

y Encoura

implemeGeorgia list terraspecies species 

y Encoura

require excludetraps in 
86 Wolf Island Na

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Salt Marsh y Continue with passive 

management of this habitat. 

y Map, protect, and maintain 

salt marsh on the refuge, and enhance habitat quality. 

In addition 

y Work w

ecosystthreats 

y Implem

(includinmonitor

Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars 

y Continue with passive 

management of this habitat. 

y Map, protect, and maintain 

beaches, dunes, and sand bars on the refuge, and enhance habitat quality. 

In addition 

y Work w

ecosystthreats and san

y Work w

influencchange from coareas asites to order to amount down th

y Initiate s

distributlimiting inverteb
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Maritime Forest and ShrubScrub y Continue with passive management of this habitat. y Map, protect, and maintain maritime forest and shrubscrub habitat on the 

refuge and enhance habitat quality. 

In addition 

y Work w

ecosystthreats 

y Maintai

in a natthe use 

y Conduc

of the fothe presspeciestallow tras appr

y Add an 

enforceneeded increase the wildforest h

y Conduc

surveys during Mmaritimscrub h

Invasive Species Management 

y There will be no active 

management of invasive species on the refuge under this alternative. 

y Conduct surveys of invasive 

species, and begin control as needed.

In addition 

y Work w

the ecothreats. 
88 Wolf Island Na

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Beach Restoration Activities y Continue negotiations with 

the Corps to change current dredge deposition procedures in the Savannah area in order to reverse present beach erosion rates.

y Cooperate with the Corps to 

encourage studies and modeling to determine if current dredge deposition procedures in the Savannah area should be changed in order to reverse present beach erosion rates on Wolf Island.

y Coordin

partners and with change depositSavannreverse erosion Georgia

Contaminants/Water Quality y Under this alternative, there 

will be no active efforts at assessing or reducing contaminants and protecting water quality in waters near the refuge. 

y In cooperation with 

partners, collect sediment and water samples for the Altamaha Delta, and examine contaminants associated with potential upstream discharges in order to determine possible impacts. 

In addition 

y Obtain 

contamBrunswdevelop contam

Air Quality y Continue to utilize air quality 

monitoring data for Class I Air Quality from Okefenokee NWR to characterize air quality status of Wolf Island NWR Wilderness. 

y Continue commenting on 

new permit applications and changes to existing air quality permits that could impact Class I Air Quality. 

In addition to Alternative A:y Work with Georgia DNR to 

characterize Wolf Island NWR air quality by utilizing data from Sapelo Island NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program).

In addition 

y Utilize 

OkefenBlackbWildlife 

y Aerial 

mercucheckeWolf IspossibI area. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Land Acquisition and Protection 

y Continue to maintain existing 

land base. 

In addition to Alternative A:

y Seek to augment 

protected land area by expanding authorized refuge acquisition boundary. 

In addition 

y Work w

increalands ecosys

y Determ

and deQueen 

y Initiate 

State oconcurIsland refuge

Restricting Public Access y Continue minimum boundary 

posting and occasional law enforcement patrols. 

y Replace existing boundary 

signs, install authorized “Wilderness Area” signs and three large “Area Closed” signs. 

y Increase law enforcement 

presence to an average of two additional patrols per week during the nesting and beach seasons. 

In addition 

y Increas

Georgia off-site 

y Replace 

boundasigns, apossibilquality, 

y Add “W

to all pobounda

y Contrac

and instisland cinstall thsouth e
90 Wolf Island Na

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

State Relationships and Coordination 

y Continue the positive 

working relationship between refuge personnel and the Georgia DNR, and ensure that this relationship is maintained through time as personnel change within all organizations. 

y Expand on Alternative A by 

developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for resource management on the refuge within 3 years of CCP approval. 

y Expand 

developcover th

y Work w

accompe.g., wamonitorassessmassessmprotecti

y Conduc

to estaband straprojects

Environmental Education y Continue educational efforts, 

including participation in the Georgia Coastal Education Group, Wolf Island website, and distribution of educational materials. 

y Expand on Alternative A, 

through partnerships with state agencies, to initiate outreach programming and development of off-site interpretive exhibits. 

y Develop off-site 

presentation programs that explain why the refuge is closed to the public.

y In addit

work wiconservlocal civand govthroughraise puthe wildthe role the eco

y Partner 

private to condecology studies. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A: 

Current Management 

(No Action) 

Alternative B: 

Intensive Biological 

Resource Management 

A

Ecosys

(Propo

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

y Continue to allow visitors to 

view and photograph the refuge and its wildlife from a safe distance. 

y Same as Alternative A. y Same a

Staffing and Budget y Continue custodial 

management using Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex staff and budget. 

y Add one FTE law 

enforcement officer and one FTE biological technician and associated support resources. 

In addition 

y Add an 

enforcserving Blackb

y Add at 

technicserving Blackb

y Baselin

be estaboats, associto do anecessresour

Volunteers and Friends y Continue to operate without 

any dedicated volunteers or Friends group. 

y Within 5 years of CCP 

approval and staffing, develop volunteer corps. 

In addition 

y Share 

ecosys

y Includ

in a FrSavanRefug
92 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

HUMAN RESOURCES 

As a designated wilderness area with no public access allowed, direct human impacts are not 

expected to have any direct cumulative impacts on the refuge. As stated above, the concern for 

cumulative human impacts will come from developmental pressures throughout the Altamaha 

ecosystem. Industrial, commercial, and increased residential discharges to the region’s air and water 

will have a cumulative adverse impact. Refuge efforts to mitigate such regional ecosystem impacts 

will come from monitoring the developmental activities and assuring enforcement of environmental 

regulations. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

This section evaluates the relationship between local, short-term uses of the environment and the 

maintenance of long-term productivity of the environment. “Long-term” means the impact would 

extend beyond the 15-year planning horizon of this Draft CCP/EA. “Short-term” means the impact 

would occur in less than 15 years. 

All of the alternatives strive to maintain or enhance the long-term productivity and sustainability of the 

refuge’s natural resources. To varying degrees, they propose actions that promote watershed- or 

ecosystem-wide partnerships aimed at identifying and protecting important maritime forest and 

coastal wetland habitats. The alternatives strive to protect the Service’s federal trust species and the 

habitats they depend on, evidenced by the exclusion of public access to the refuge. Environmental 

education and interpretation are priorities in each alternative in order to develop an understanding in 

the community for the need to deny public access and the reasoning for this important technique in 

environmental stewardship. 

All of the alternatives propose stepped-up outreach and enforcement to prevent inappropriate and 

incompatible uses. Their purpose is to reduce the impacts on wildlife and habitats and enhance the 

long-term productivity of those sites. While the intent is the same for all alternative management 

strategies outlined in this CCP/EA, Alternatives A and B would not provide the staffing or resource 

levels to ensure that those incompatible uses can be eliminated. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

WATER QUALITY 

Passive management of the refuge will dominate refuge management techniques under all 

alternatives. As a wilderness area, the intent is to allow natural processes to be the determinant in 

maintaining the natural resources of the refuge. None of the alternatives propose any strategies that 

would have unavoidable negative impacts to the refuge. The more proactive alternatives (B and C) 

could potentially have a positive impact on the two major water quality issues affecting the refuge: 

regional developmental pressure with its attendant discharges to the Altamaha River system, and the 

lack of upstream sediment necessary to replenish beach erosion. Regardless of the alternative 

chosen, the refuge cannot positively address these negative impacts without regional help through 

partnerships and cooperation. 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use of the refuge, regardless of 

the activity involved. While some activities such as wildlife observation and photography may be less 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 93

disturbing than others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative will be 

planned to avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

No public access on the refuge will be allowed due to the sensitive nature of the refuge habitats; 

however, for environmental education purposes, limited field study visits may be authorized by permit. 

General, offshore wildlife observation and photography may result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. 

If refuge personnel determine that impacts from the expected additional visitor uses are above the 

levels that are acceptable, those uses will be discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less 

sensitive areas. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Again, with passive management of the refuge, natural processes will control any refuge 

management decision. One exception is the control of invasive species. All alternatives call for 

monitoring the refuge for invasive plant species. Alternatives B and C both call for proactive control 

of invasives if their appearance on the refuges poses a threat to native habitat. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

On a permit basis, limited field study visits by educational entities may be authorized; otherwise, no 

public access to the refuge is allowed under any of the alternatives. Because of this, no user group 

conflicts are expected. If for any unforeseen reason a conflict should occur, programs will be altered 

to eliminate or minimize any public use issues. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of lands 

adjacent to the refuge. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, less 

intrusion of invasive plants, and increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent lands due to increased enforcement of the refuge’s “No Public Access” policy. To minimize 

this potential impact, the refuge will provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries, 

use law enforcement, and provide increased educational efforts in the region. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition and protection efforts by the Service and its partners could lead to changes in land 

use and recreational use patterns. However, most of the non-Service-owned lands adjacent to the 

refuge are currently undeveloped. If these lands are acquired as additions to the refuge or placed in 

a protected status, they would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife 

populations, and opened to wildlife-compatible public uses, where feasible. 

POTENTIAL IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 

Except perhaps in the extreme long term or under unpredictable circumstances, irreversible 

commitments of resources cannot be undone. One example is an action that contributes to the 

extinction of a species. Once a species becomes extinct, it can never be replaced. 

By comparison, irretrievable commitments of resources can be reversed, given sufficient time and 

resources. However, they represent a loss in production or use for a period of time. One example is 
94 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

the maintenance of forest and shrub lands as open fields and grasslands. If for some reason 

grasslands no longer were an objective, they would gradually revert to shrub land and forest, or 

plantings could expedite that process. 

None of the alternatives propose any actions on the core refuge area that would irreversibly commit 

resources. The refuge’s wilderness area designation will be maintained, as will the decision not to 

allow public access on the refuge. With this designation and management decision in place, any 

refuge management action would be designed to protect the natural character of the refuge. 

One potential refuge action, land acquisition or protection, could cause a long-term commitment of 

area resources. Alternatives A, B, and C all call for a study into the potential to acquire or protect 

additional land adjacent to the refuge. If these lands were to become part of the refuge, their 

reversion to private ownership is unlikely. However, once placed in public ownership in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System or in a protected status through a partner, they would provide a new set of 

benefits to a much broader group of people. Those benefits include watershed protection, wildlife 

conservation, the preservation of the natural character of the coast, and the expansion of wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance but still are 

reasonably foreseeable. 

No negative direct and/or indirect effects or impacts are anticipated from the proposed alternative. 

One potential effect would be the active control of raccoons on the refuge to reduce nest predation. 

In such a case, the obvious direct effect would be a reduction in the refuge’s population of raccoons, 

with an anticipated indirect effect of an increase in survival of young that utilize ground nests. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions. The key to protecting and 

ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where public uses do not degrade 

or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The plans proposed under the proposed alternative 

have been carefully conceived to achieve that threshold. Therefore, implementing the proposed 

alternative would lead to long-term benefits for wildlife protection and land conservation that far 

outweigh any short-term impacts. 
Section B. Environmental Assessment 95

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative, which are presented in this Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). 

The Draft CCP/EA for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge was written with the participation and 

assistance of refuge and Service staff, a contracted consultant from the Mangi Environmental Group, 

a representative from The Nature Conservancy’s Georgia Conservation Office, and the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. The comprehensive planning process began in June 2006 with 

the formation of a refuge planning team. A Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was 

published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2006.

In May 2006, in preparation for the CCP process, the Service established a team of biologists to 

conduct a comprehensive review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat management programs. A brief 

visitor services review was also incorporated as part of this biological review. The members of the 

biological review team were drawn from the refuge and the Service as well as the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources. Subsequently, the refuge hosted an open house and public 

scoping meeting on January 24, 2007 in Darien, Georgia, and began an outreach campaign through 

various media to collect ideas, comments, and concerns from all stakeholders. Please refer to 

Chapter III, Plan Development, of the Draft CCP (Section A) for more information on the public 

scoping process. 

CCP PLANNING TEAM 

The CCP Planning Team for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge consisted of the following 

members: 

y Jane Griess, Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y W. Shaw Davis, Deputy Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

y John Robinette, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y Debra Barnard, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y Randy Williams, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (Service contractor) 

BIOLOGICAL REVIEW TEAM 

Several individuals supported the planning process through their participation on the biological review 

team and other special topic discussions. Their comments and suggestions were useful in 

developing the wildlife and habitat management objectives found in this plan. Some members 

internal to the Service provided additional policy guidance in developing the plan, as well. 

y Chuck Hunter, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Planning and Resource 

Management Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta Georgia 
96 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

y Stefani Melvin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Southeast Regional 

Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

y Brad Winn, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Brunswick, Georgia 

y Debra Barnard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuges, Harris Neck 

National Wildlife Refuge, Townsend, Georgia 

y John Robinette, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, 

Savannah, Georgia 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW CONTRIBUTORS 

Two individuals with expertise in the Service’s public use and outreach programs contributed 

comments and recommendations on the refuge’s visitor services program. 

y Pat Metz, Visitor Services Manager, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Savannah, Georgia 

y Garry Tucker, Chief, Visitor Services and Outreach Division, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia 

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 

In addition to the above-listed CCP planning team, biological review team, and visitor services 

experts, other individuals and groups contributed to the plan. These included local citizens and 

agencies as well as nongovernmental organizations like The Nature Conservancy. These 

contributors participated in the scoping meeting or provided input at various stages of the planning 

process. 

y Richard Kanaski, Southeast Regional Archeologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Savannah, 

Georgia 

y Fred Hay, Sapelo Island Research Manager, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 

Darien, Georgia 

y Aimee Gaddis, Stewardship Coordinator, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research 

Reserve, Darien, Georgia 

y Jeff Spratt, The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Conservation Office, Darien, Georgia 

y Scott Gilje, Refuge Operations Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Harris Neck National 

Wildlife Refuge, Townsend, Georgia 

y Robert Brooks, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Ecological Services Office, 

Brunswick, Georgia 
Section C. Appendices 97

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Glossary 

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

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results help 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

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

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

water. 

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

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

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

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

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

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

freshwater to breed. 

Best Management 

Practices: 

A practice or combination of practices that industry generally accepts 

as the most effective and advanced means to maintain a superior level 

of environmental performance and which advances environmental 

leadership. 

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

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1.12B). 

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

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Class 1 Airshed These areas include all international areas and National Parks greater 

than 6000 acres, and national wildernesses greater than 5000 acres, 

that existed on August 7, 1977. This class provides the most protection 

to pristine lands by severely limiting the amount of additional manmade air pollution, which can be added to these areas. 

Climax community: The final stage of plant succession, in which vegetation reaches a state 

of equilibrium with the environment. The community is selfperpetuating, except that changes may occur very slowly and over a 

time-scale that is extensive compared with the rapid and dramatic 

changes during the early stages of succession. 
98 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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

use of a National Wildlife Refuge that, based on sound professional 

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

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

National Wildlife Refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

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

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

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

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

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

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

Concern: See Issue. 

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

Critical habitat: A specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the 

conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may 

require special management and protection. Critical habitat may 

include an area that is not currently occupied by the species but that 

will be needed for its recovery.

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

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

part of the National Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service 

Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

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

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

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

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

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

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

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

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

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

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

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 
Section C. Appendices 99

Endemic: A species, disease, etc. that is only found within a specific geographic 

region. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

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

evidence and analysis of the impacts to determine whether to prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact 

(40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

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

National Environmental Policy Act. It analyzes the environmental 

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

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

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

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

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an Environmental Assessment, that briefly 

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

human environment and for which an Environmental Impact Statement, 

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

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

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

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

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

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Herpetofauna: Reptiles and amphibians. 

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

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

action that they actually oppose. 

Invasive species: A species, not endemic to an area, that is introduced to that new area 

and causes environment or economic harm or harm to human health.
100 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

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

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

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

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

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

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

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA 

with other planning requirements and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making (40 CFR 

1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes 

the six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

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

the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of 

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

United States for the benefit of present and future generations of 

Americans. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife including species 

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

administered by the Secretary as National Wildlife Refuges; areas for 

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened 

with extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management 

areas; and waterfowl production areas. 
Section C. Appendices 101

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

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

the System. 

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

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared and 

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

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

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

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

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

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

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and to the public health. 

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

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

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

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Make objectives attainable, timespecific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Opportunity costs: The loss of time, resources, and/or opportunity (timing) of doing one 

activity or decision over another. 

Pelagic: Open ocean. 

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

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

Preferred (or 

Proposed) Alternative: 

This is the alternative determined [by the decision-maker] to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the 

National Wildlife Refuge System mission, addresses the significant 

issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management. 

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

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). They may be from natural 

ignition or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources believes require protective measures and/or management 

guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. 
102 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

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

organizations an opportunity to become informed about and to express 

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

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in Service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

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

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

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

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

Congressionally designated Wilderness, the purposes of the 

Wilderness Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 

602 FW 106 S). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

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

pursuant to NEPA that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

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

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

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

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Scoping: Determining the sum total of all of a project’s products and their 

requirements and features. 

Sound/best 

professional judgment: 

Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge 

of refuge resources, refuge’s role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, 

and best available science including consultation with others both 

inside and outside the Service. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

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

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

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 
Section C. Appendices 103

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

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

U). 

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

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

the currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge expansion 

areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

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

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

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

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

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

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

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission, specific 

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

for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of 

the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of 

each refuge and the Refuge System; and other mandates (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6Z). 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

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

following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

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

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation. 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition 
104 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3). 
Section C. Appendices 105

ACRONYMS AND ABBRIEVIATIONS 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

Delta Altamaha River Delta 

DNR Department of Natural Resources 

DOE Department of Energy 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FTE full-time equivalent 

GA Georgia 

MAREX Marine Extension Service 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

NABCI North American Bird Conservation Initiative 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System (also Refuge System) 

PL Public Law 

RHPO Regional Historic Preservation Officer 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

SC South Carolina 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, USFWS) 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

TDF Tierra Del Fuego 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WHSHRN Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network 

WMA Wilderness Management Area 

WRD Wildlife Resources Division 
106 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 107

Appendix B. References and Literature Cited 

Boyce, S.G. 1951. Source of atmospheric salts. Science 113:620-621. 

Boyce, S.G. 1954. The salt spray community. Ecological Monographs 24:29-67. 

Byrd, H.J., D.G. Aydelott, D.D. Bacon and E.M. Stone. 1961. Soil Survey of McIntosh County, 

Georgia. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 98 pp. 

Caldwell, D.K., ed. 1959. The loggerhead turtles of Cape Romain, South Carolina. Bulletin of the 

Florida State Museum 4(10):309-318. 

Carter, H.S. 1967. Climatic Summaries of Resort Areas: The Golden Isles of Georgia. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Climatography of the United States No. 21-9-2. 4 pp. 

Carter, H.S. 1970. Georgia Tropical Cyclones and their Effect on the State. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, ESSA Technical Memo EDSTM 14. 33 pp. 

Caudill, James and Andrew Laughland. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002. Division of Economics, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 118 pp. 

Cowles, H.C. 1899. The ecological relations of the vegetation on the sand dunes of Lake Michigan. 

Botanical Gazette 27:95-117, 167-202, 281-308, 361-391. 

Gibson, C.D. 1948. Sea Islands of Georgia. University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia. 73 pp. 

Giles, R.T. 1966. River, beach and dune sands of the southeastern Atlantic coast of the United 

States. Pages 71-76 in J. Hoyt, V.J. Henry, Jr. and J.D. Howard, eds., Pleistocene and 

Holocene Sediments, Sapelo Island, Georgia and Vicinity. Geological Society of the 

American Southeast, Section Guidebook for Field Trip No. 1. 

Giles, R.T. and O.H. Pilkey. 1965. Atlantic beach and dune sediments of the southern United States. 

Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 35(4):900-910. 

Helle, J.R. 1958. Surf statistics for the coasts of the United States. Beach Erosion Board, Technical 

Memo No. 108. 22 pp. 

Hoyt, J.H. and V.J. Henry, Jr. 1964. Development and geologic significance of soft beach sand. 

Sedimentology 3:44-51. 

Hunter, W.C., J. Collazo, B. Noffsinger, B. Winn, D. Allen, B. Harrington, M. Epstein and J. Saliva. 

2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan: Southeastern Coastal Plains, Caribbean Region 

Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 27 pp. 

Johnson, A.S., H.O. Hillestad, S.F. Shanholtzer and G.F. Shanholtzer. 1974. An Ecological Survey 

of the Coastal Region of Georgia. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

Scientific Monograph Series No. 3. Washington, D.C. 
108 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Levy, I.S. 1968. Suspended Sediment Distribution of Doboy Sound, Georgia. M.S. Thesis, 

University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 102 pp. 

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. 

Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.C. Zhao. 

2007. Global climate projections. Pages 747-845 in S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, eds., Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Moorhead, K.K. and M.M. Brinson. 1995. Response of wetlands to rising sea level in the lower 

 coastal plain of North Carolina. Ecological Applications 5:261-271. 

National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Recovery Plan for U.S. 

Population of Loggerhead Turtles. Washington, D.C. 

Oosting, H.J. 1945. Tolerance to salt spray of plants of coastal dunes. Ecology 26(1):85-89. 

Oosting, H.J. and W.D. Billings. 1942. Factors effecting vegetational zonation on coastal dunes. 

Ecology 23(2):131-142. 

Park, R.A., J.K. Lee, P.W. Mausel and R.C. Howe. 1991. Using remote sensing for modeling the 

 impacts of sea level rise. World Resources Review 3:184-220. 

Tanner, W.E. 1960. Florida coastal classification. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of 

Geological Societies 10:259-266. 

U. S. Department of Energy. 1999. Carbon Sequestration and Development. U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U. S. Department of the Interior. 2003. 2003 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife 

Associated Recreation. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Federal Aid, Washington, D.C. 

U. S. Department of the Interior. 2007. Banking on Nature 2007: The Economic Benefits to Local 

Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. U. S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Washington, D.C. 

Worth, John E. 1995. The Struggle for the Georgia Coast: An Eighteenth-Century Spanish 

Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of 

Natural History, Number 75. 
Section C. Appendices 109

Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and 

Executive Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal 

agencies with respect to identification of information to be made 

public; publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance 

of records; attendance and notification requirements for specific 

meetings and hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency 

actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins as well as monuments or 

objects of antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United 

States. The Act authorizes the President to designate as National 

Monuments objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on 

lands owned or controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

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

and exercise their traditional religions including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Intended to prevent discrimination of and make American society 

more accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires 

reasonable accommodations to be made in employment, public 

services, public accommodations, and telecommunications for 

persons with disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal interest 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contribute up to 50 percent as the federal share of the cost 

of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish 

are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended 

This act strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

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

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

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 
110 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

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

reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, as 

amended 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 

of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

Coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the Act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal expenditures, 

and minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

federal expenditures that encourage development within the 

CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA, expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean and established “Otherwise Protected Areas” (OPAs). 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with federal agencies that propose spending federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

Act (1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a National coastal wetlands 

grant program. 
Section C. Appendices 111

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring, 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

This Act authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal 

to import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at National Wildlife Refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

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

encouraging the establishment of state programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of endangered and threatened 

species and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires 

refuge managers to perform internal consultation before initiating 

projects that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

This Act established the Office of Environmental Education within 

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relates to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries.. 
112 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This Act creates a federal interagency council that includes the 

Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army 

for Civil Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

The Act contains several provisions that contribute to wetland 

conservation. The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who 

convert wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the 

law are ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also 

established the Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect 

wetlands through easements and restoration of the functions and 

values of wetlands on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

The purpose of this Act is to minimize the extent to which federal 

programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to 

nonagricultural uses. Federal programs include construction 

projects and the management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the federal government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, 

nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory 

unless otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the 

public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

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

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

Federal-aid Highways Act of 

1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the 

use of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority to designate 

plants as noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, state, 

and local agencies; farmers associations; and private individuals in 

measures to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of 

such weeds. The Act requires each federal land-managing agency 

including the Fish and Wildlife Service to designate an office or 

person to coordinate a program to control such plants on the 

agency’s land and implement cooperative agreements with the 

states including integrated management systems to control 

undesirable plants. 
Section C. Appendices 113

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry; 

the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, 

enjoyment, and betterment; and to maintain and increase public 

opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources. 

Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-game bird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

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

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

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

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 

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 Administration 

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

Secretary to accept gifts and bequests of real and personal 

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

of volunteers on Service projects and appropriations to carry out 

volunteer programs. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100th

anniversary of the System, coordinate activities to celebrate that 

event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. The commission is also responsible for developing a 

long-term plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the System, and improve public use 

programs and facilities. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 
114 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard U.S. crop production from harmful foreign 

species. This Act prohibits interstate and international transport 

and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plant taken in violation of 

domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America 

of foreign species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This Act provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus 

federal land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to states for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act established a federal 

responsibility to conserve marine mammals with management 

vested in the Department of Interior for sea otter, walrus, polar 

bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of Commerce is 

responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than the walrus. 

With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a moratorium 

on the taking and importation of marine mammals as well as 

products taken from them. 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

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

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

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

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 
Section C. Appendices 115

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the 

U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for 

the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export, or import any 

migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

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

phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-ways over federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

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

provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this Act establishes the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

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

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for 

environmental impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors 

to be considered in Environmental Impact Statements and requires 

that federal agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in 

related decision-making and develop means to ensure that 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration along 

with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as 

amended 

It establishes a National Register of Historic Places and a program 

of matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

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

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic, and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

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

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

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

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

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
116 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act amends the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. This Act defines the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, establishes the legitimacy and 

appropriateness of six priority “wildlife-dependent” public uses, 

establishes a formal process for determining “compatible uses” of 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible 

for managing and protecting the System, and requires the 

development of a CCP for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, U.S., and Mexico. North 

American Wetlands Conservation Council is created to recommend 

projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended for 

up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer 

refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational 

use when such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary 

purposes. It authorizes construction and maintenance of 

recreational facilities and the acquisition of land for incidental fish 

and wildlife oriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging fees for public 

uses. 
Section C. Appendices 117

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist the 

state fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities 

for conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no 

more that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at 

least 1/3 state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

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

establishment of Service areas. 

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

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

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

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

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted 

by the Corps. Service concerns include contaminated sediments 

associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Department of the Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the U.S. It requires the 

secretary of each military department to use trained professionals 

to manage the wildlife and fishery resource under his jurisdiction, 

and requires federal and state fish and wildlife agencies be given 

priority in management of fish and wildlife activities on military 

reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

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

particular value for migratory birds or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 
118 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, 

energy, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The 

Act also established a grant program to assist states in 

participating in the development of related comprehensive water 

and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This Act selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable 

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

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

and protects their local environments. 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

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

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

roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and to recommend suitability of each such area. 

The Act permits certain activities within designated wilderness 

areas that do not alter natural processes. Wilderness values are 

preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which 

requires refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, 

equipment, and facilities necessary for administering the areas. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

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

hatcheries, and research stations. 
Section C. Appendices 119

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect the archaeological or historic 

sites, the Service will consult with federal and state 

Historic Preservation Officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

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

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

federal agencies from contributing to the “adverse 

impacts associated with occupancy and modification 

of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect support of 

floodplain development.” In the course of fulfilling their 

respective authorities, federal agencies “shall take 

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

impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare; 

and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

values served by floodplains”. 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and take action to minimize the destruction, loss of 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

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

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 
120 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003), 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and Tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to CCP planning is the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS), which is adopted 

standards for vegetation mapping. Using NVCT 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational 

fishing opportunities in cooperation with states and 

Tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs federal agencies 

to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their 

associated resources important to our history, culture, 

and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with Tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

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

introduction of invasive species, detect, and respond 

rapidly to, and control populations of such species in a 

cost effective and environmentally sound manner, 

accurately monitor invasive species, provide for 

restoration of native species and habitat conditions, 

conduct research to prevent introductions and to 

control invasive species, and promote public 

education on invasive species and the means to 

address them. This EO replaces and rescinds EO 

11987, Exotic Organisms (1977). 
Section C. Appendices 121

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in the Partners 

in Flight Bird Conservation Plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
122 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 123

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

An open house and public scoping meeting was held on January 24, 2007, at The Nature 

Conservancy’s Georgia Conservation Office near Darien, Georgia, to solicit comments from the public 

regarding the development of the comprehensive conservation plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife 

Refuge. The meeting provided information about the refuge’s current management programs and the 

comprehensive conservation planning process. Five citizens attended the meeting. 

Comment forms were made available at the public scoping meeting and at the refuge headquarters. 

In addition, periodic refuge planning updates were posted on the Wolf island NWR website to provide 

the public with information on the progress of the plan and upcoming milestones. Individuals could 

also sign their names for inclusion on the refuge’s mailing list in order to obtain information via regular 

mail. 

A total of three public comments were received, two from the public scoping meeting and one that 

was submitted after the meeting by e-mail. These public comments are summarized below. All 

comments were supportive of the refuge and its management actions. 

y There should be controlled access to the refuge for the public for environmental education 

purposes. 

y The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ dredge material should be used to replenish beach 

erosion. 

y The refuge should remain a sanctuary and not be opened to hunting. 

The public comments, along with the comments collected through internal scoping, were used by the 

planning team to help guide the development of the refuge’s goals, objectives, and strategies, which 

are found in Chapter IV, Management Direction, of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(Section A). 
124 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 125

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If a proposed use is not appropriate, it will 

not be allowed and a compatibility determination will not be undertaken. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses: As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, 

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

determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still determine if these uses 

are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under state regulations: States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. §668dd-668ee. This law provides 

the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, including the authority to 

prohibit certain harmful activities. The Act does not authorize any particular use, but rather authorizes 

the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are compatible and “under such regulations 

as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain public uses that, when compatible, are 

legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. The law states “... it is the policy of the 

United States that ... compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general 

public use of the System ...compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority general 

public uses of the System and shall receive priority consideration in refuge planning and 

management; and ... when the Secretary determines that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity should be facilitated ... the Secretary shall ... 

ensure that priority general public uses of the System receive enhanced consideration over other 

general public uses in planning and management within the System ...” The law also states “in 

administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to take the following actions: ... issue 

regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the standards set in the Act by providing 

enhanced consideration of priority general public uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere 

with the refuge’s ability to provide quality, wildlife-dependent recreational uses. 
126 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k. This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 

“ ... administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation when in his judgment 

public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.” While this law authorizes the 

refuge manager to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission 

and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other statutes that establish refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. The Service must comply with Executive Order 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Further, Executive 

Order 11989 requires the Service to close areas to off-highway vehicles when it is determined that 

the use causes or will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or 

cultural or historic resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use. A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions: 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under state regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in Section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

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

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

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

resources and the Service’s role in managing and protecting these resources. 
Section C. Appendices 127

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

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

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge involving 

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

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge – Special Designations 

Wolf Island NWR has been designated as a wilderness area and further designated as a refuge with 

no public access. Due to these two designations, there are no appropriate uses that would allow 

access to the island other than essential wildlife and habitat management activities. 

Of the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses (as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997), only two may be allowed in the waters near the refuge: fishing and wildlife 

observation/photography. Another wildlife-dependent recreational use, environmental education and 

interpretation, may be done offsite. 

Two uses were determined to be compatible with the special designations described above, and 

access to the refuge for these two uses will be allowed: 

y Scientific research, studies, and surveys 

y Invasive and nuisance species control 
128 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ______Wolf Island NWR__________ 

Use: ____Scientific Research, Studies, and Surveys_____ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__ 

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Section C. Appendices 129

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: ______Wolf Island NWR__________ 

Use: _______Invasive and Nuisance Species Control_________ 

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described in a

refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? x 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? x 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive orders and Department and Service policies? x 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? x 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

x 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

x 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? x 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? x 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

x 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

x 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use (“no” to (a)), there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe (“no” to (b), (c), or (d)) may not be found appropriate. If 

the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _x__ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

Not Appropriate_____ Appropriate __X__ 

Refuge Manager: __________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________________________ Date: _____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
130 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 131

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

WOLF ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

Introduction: The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the 

comprehensive conservation planning process for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. The 

descriptions and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, the 

Uses through Public Review and Comment sections and the Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

section apply to each use. If one of these uses is considered outside of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Wolf Island, then those sections become part of that compatibility 

determination. 

Uses: The following uses were evaluated and found to be compatible with the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the purposes of the refuge: (1) scientific research, studies, and surveys; 

(2) invasive species control; (3) wildlife observation and photography (offsite); (4) environmental 

education and interpretation (offsite); and (5) fishing. 

Refuge Name: Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

Date Established: April, 3, 1930. 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority(ies): Executive Order No. 5316. 

Refuge Purpose: The refuge was established as a sanctuary for migratory birds. 

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

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Public Review and Comment: 

Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge’s compatibility determinations are being made available for 

public review and comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the refuge’s Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA). Public 

comments on these compatibility determinations are invited and are due by the deadline stated on 

the cover of the Draft CCP/EA. 

The methods being used to solicit public review and comment include a Notice of Availability for 

public review of the Draft CCP/EA published in the Federal Register; notices posted at the refuge 

headquarters; news releases sent to area newspapers; public service announcements sent to local 

radio stations; and copies of the Draft CCP/EA distributed to adjacent landowners, the general public, 

and local, state, and federal agencies. 
132 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Scientific Research, Studies, and Surveys

Lack of refuge staffing may not permit conducting all the surveys, studies, and research that would be 

desirable. Permitting qualified groups and individuals to conduct scientific research, studies, and 

surveys on the refuge that would increase the knowledge base of species, systems, and processes 

on, around, and affecting the refuge and its animals, habitats, and activities would be a benefit. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Routine administrative 

activities to implement, document, and monitor and permit these various activities. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: Normal routine maintenance of any refuge equipment used. 

Monitoring costs: Routine administrative activities associated with refuge-permitted activities and the 

permitting processes. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: With refuge control of the timing and extent of any approved surveys, animal 

disturbance would be minimal and any impacts would be short-term. Permitting qualified groups and 

individuals to conduct scientific research, studies, and surveys on the refuge that would increase the 

knowledge base of species, systems, and processes on, around, and affecting the refuge. This 

knowledge base would be expected to benefit refuge decision-making. 

Long-term impacts: Any long-term impacts would be benificial in nature because a better knowledge 

base of systems affecting the refuge and its surrounding ecosystem would provide information that 

would benefit long-term decision-making. 

Cumulative impacts: The cumulative impacts expected from acting on an increased knowledge base 

can be expected to improve overall ecosystem management and thereby improve habitat conditions 

on the refuge. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Memorandums of Understanding with the 

researchers that their activities will be performed under the direction and or approval of the Refuge 

Manager and the research supports the long-term goals of the refuge. 

Justification: The activity supports the refuge’s goals and objectives. 
Section C. Appendices 133

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

______ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________________ 

Description of Use: Invasive Species Control 

Control of invasive species such as Chinese tallow tree by application of chemical pesticides. All 

chemicals used will be approved through normal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service procedures. 

This use will be implemented throughout the refuge as needed and throughout the year or as 

indicated on label information. To augment force account application, contract applicators would be 

hired to apply pesticides according to chemical label instructions. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Preparation of pesticide use 

proposal documentation required by the Service. Contract documentation as needed. Chemicals 

and equipment would be refuge-owned for force account work and contractor-supplied, unless 

stipulated otherwise in the contract agreement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: Refuge has necessary 

equipment. Chemicals are purchased as needed. 

Maintenance costs: Normal maintenence on equipment. 

Monitoring costs: Monitoring costs would be incidental to other field tasks. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: The station’s Pesticide Use Proposals would describe use and impacts. 

Long-term impacts: Control invasive species to protect native habitats. 

Cumulative impacts: Control invasive species to protect native habitats. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 
134 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All control methods are approved by the Refuge 

Manager and any pesticide/herbicide use is compatible with the protection of the refuge environment. 

Justification: The activity supports the refuge’s goals and objectives. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

______ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________________ 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses, provided they are 

compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established. 

Wildlife photography, including other image-capturing activities such as videography, has occurred at 

the refuge since its inception. Wildlife observation and photography can occur anywhere on the 

refuge from watercraft at an appropriate distance offshore. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Minor amount of personnel 

time associated with administration, management, and law enforcement. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Some staff time in administrating this program would be required. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: The refuge provides habitat for resident and migratory wildlife. As a result of 

these activities, individual animals may be disturbed by human contact to varying degrees. Examples 

of potential disturbance include flushing of birds from feeding, resting, or nesting areas. Disturbances 

to trust species are expected to be minimal. 

Long-term impacts: Current utilization of these uses is incidental to overall refuge programs and no 

long-term adverse impacts have been experienced. 
Section C. Appendices 135

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are anticipated. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Visitors are required to abide by all refuge 

regulations which limit impacts on plant and wildlife populations by only allowing this activity offshore. 

Justification: Visitors have the opportunity to view and photograph many species of wildlife with 

relative ease by boat. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________________ 

Description of Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation (both onsite and offsite)

Environmental education and interpretation are identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 as priority public uses provided they are compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage 

understanding in citizens of all ages to develop land ethics, foster public support, increase visibility, 

and improve the image of the Service. 

The refuge would participate in regional environmental education and interpretation programs to 

inform the public as to why the refuge is off-limits to public access. In partnership with institutes of 

higher learning, onsite field studies may be conducted on a permit basis. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Minor amount of personnel 

time. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: None 

Offsetting revenues: None 
136 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: There would be no direct impacts to the refuge because all interpretive and most 

environmental education activities would be conducted offsite. Periodically, onsite educational 

programs would be permitted, but impacts would be negligible due to the controls delineated during 

the permit process. Access points and times would be limited, as would the number of program 

participants. 

Minor impacts to vegetation from foot traffic could be expected, but the short duration of field studies, 

under closely supervised conditions, would assure minimal disturbance to flora and fauna. 

Long-term impacts: There would be no direct impacts to the refuge because all interpretive and most 

environmental education activities would be conducted offsite. 

Cumulative impacts: Increased public education can be expected to reduce the incidence of 

unintended public access to the refuge, and this will reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: None 

Justification: Environmental education is an important activity in assuring long-term positive public 

awareness of the Refuge System. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

__X__ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: ____________________________ 
Section C. Appendices 137

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing was a traditional recreational use of the waters in and around the refuge prior to its inclusion 

into the National Wildlife Refuge System. Fishing continues to be a recreational pursuit with the 

public. Fish populations currently support a sustainable harvest under a regulated fishing program. 

Fishing is identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as a priority 

wildlife-dependent use, provided it is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was 

established. 

Fishing, as well as shell fishing, is permitted in the waters within the refuge. The use is conducted 

year-round. Fishing is conducted subject to regulations established by the Georgia Department of 

Natural Resources. Fishing is further restricted on the refuge by regulations which prohibit 

commercial fishing on the refuge and prohibit the use of certain fishing methods. 

Availability of Resources: 

Resources involved in the administration and management of the use: Personnel time associated 

with administration, management, and law enforcement are required to control and administer fishing 

on the refuge. 

Special equipment, facilities, or improvements necessary to support the use: None 

Maintenance costs: None 

Monitoring costs: Some law enforcement time. 

Offsetting revenues: None 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

Short-term impacts: Minor impacts such as litter and gasoline contamination could occur but not at a 

level that would cause serious concern. There may be some erosion from powered boat wakes. 

Long-term impacts: Fishing, as regulated, should not have any long-term negative impacts on the 

refuge. 

Cumulative impacts: No cumulative impacts are known to occur. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Commercial fishing is prohibited. Recreational 

fishing using commercial gear is allowed by obtaining a permit from the state. Shell fishing is also 

allowed, with approved equipment. 

Justification: Fishing is probably one of the most popular forms of outdoor recreation in the state. 

The refuge has the opportunity to provide limited fishing to the public, which is a priority use. Certain 
138 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

state and refuge regulations limit the impacts to wildlife and fish populations on the refuge while 

providing a safe and rewarding experience for the refuge visitor. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

______ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

______ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

______ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10- or 15-year Re-evaluation Date: _____________________________ 
Section C. Appendices 139

APPROVAL OF COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
140 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 141

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 
142 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 143

Table 2. Project impacts to listed/proposed species/critical habitat. 
144 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 145
146 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 147

Appendix H. Refuge Biota 

 

BIRDS 

This list contains those species of birds thought to occur on lands owned by the Wolf Island NWR 

according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Loons 

Common Loon (Gavia immer) 

Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) 

Grebes 

 Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) 

 Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) 

Shearwaters and Petrels 

 Greater Shearwater (Puffinus gravis) 

Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus) 

 Audubon's Shearwater (Puffinus iherminieri) 

 Wilson's Petrel (Oceanites oceanicus) 

Pelicans, Cormorants, and Related Species 

 American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) 

 Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

 Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

 Anhinga (Anhinga anhinga) 

 Gannet (Morus bassanus) 

 Magnificent Frigate-bird (Fregata magnificens) 

Bitterns, Herons, and Egrets 

 American Bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) 

 Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) 

 Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 

 Green Heron (Butoroides virescens) 

 Little Blue Heron (Efretta caerulea) 

 Louisiana Heron (Hydranassa tricolor) 

 Black-crowned Night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

 Yellow-crowned Night-heron (Nyctanassa violacea) 

 Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) 

 Reddish Egret (Dichronranassa rufrscens) 

 Snowy Egret (Egretta thula) 

 Common Egret (Casmerodius albus) 

Ibises and Spoonbills 

 Wood Ibis (Mycteria americana) 

 White Ibis (Eudocimis albus) 

 Glossy Ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) 

 Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia) 
148 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Waterfowl and Related Species 

Whistling Swan (Olor columbianus) 

 Blue Goose (Chen caerulescens) 

 Snow Goose (Chen caerulescens) 

 Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) 

 Brant (Branta bernicla) 

 Fulvous Tree Duck (Dendroocygna bicolor) 

 Gadwall (Anus strepera) 

 American Black Duck (Anus rubripes) 

 Mallard (Anus platyrhynchos) 

 Mottled Duck (Anys fulvigula) 

 Blue-winged Teal (Anus discors) 

 Northern Shoveler (Anus clypeata) 

Northern Pintail (Anus acuta) 

 Green-winged Teal (Anus crecca) 

 European Widgeon (Mareca penelope) 

 American Widgeon (Mareca americana) 

 Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) 

 Canvasback (Aythya valisineria) 

 Redhead (Aythya americana) 

 Ring-necked Duck (Aythya collaris) 

 Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) 

 Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) 

 Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) 

 Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) 

 Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) 

 King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) 

 White-winged Scoter (Melanitta deglandi) 

 Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) 

 Common Scoter (Oidemia nigra) 

 Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) 

 Common Merganser (Mergus merganser) 

 Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) 

 Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) 

Hawks, Eagles, Kites, and Related Species 

 Marsh Hawk (Circus cyaneus) 

 Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) 

 Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 

 Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) 

 Rough-legged Hawk (Buteo lagopus) 

 Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 

 Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) 

 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

Swallow-tailed Kite (Elanoides forficatus) 

 Mississippi Kite (Ictinia mississippiensis) 

 Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 

 Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) 
Section C. Appendices 149

True Falcons 

 Pigeon Hawk (Falco columbanius) 

 American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) 

 Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Gallineaceous Birds (Quail, Turkey, and Allies) 

 Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) 

 Wild Turley (Meleagris gallopava) 

 Chachalaca (Ortalis vetula) 

Rails, Gallinules, Coots, and Cranes 

 King Rail (Rallus elegans) 

 Virginia Rail (Rallus limicola) 

 Sora Rail (Porzana carolina) 

 Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris) 

 Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) 

 Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis) 

 Purple Gallinule (Porphyrula martinica) 

 American Coot (Fulica americana) 

 Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) 

 Whooping Crane (Gnus americana) 

 Limpkin (Aramus guarauna) 

Plovers, Oystercatchers, and Related Species 

 American Golden-plover (Pluvialis dominica) 

 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) 

 Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) 

 Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) 

 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) 

 Black-bellied Plover (Squatarola squatarola) 

 Upland Plover (Bartramia longicauda) 

 American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates) 

 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) 

 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) 

 Common Snipe (Capella gallinago) 

 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) 

 Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) 

Avocets, Sandpipers, and Related Species 

 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) 

 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) 

Greater Yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca) 

 Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) 

 Solitary Sandpiper (Tringa solitaria) 

 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia) 

 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda) 

 Semipalmated Sandpiper (Caladris pusilla) 

 Western Sandpiper (Caladris mauri) 

 Least Sandpiper (Caladris minutilla) 

 Pectoral Sandpiper (Caladris melanotos) 

 Stilt Sandpiper (Calidris himantopus) 
150 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

 Purple Sandpiper (Erolia maritime) 

 White-rumped Sandpiper (Erolia fuscicollis) 

 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) 

 Willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus) 

 Dunlin (Caladris alpine) 

 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) 

 Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius) 

 Northern Phalarope (Lobipes lobatus) 

 Short-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus griseus) 

 Long-billed Dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) 

 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) 

 Sanderling (Crocethia alba) 

 Knot (Calidris canutus) 

 Parasitic Jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus) 

 Pomarine Jaeger (Stercorarius pomarinus) 

Gulls, Terns, and Skimmers 

 Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus) 

 Iceland Gull (Larus glaucoides) 

 Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) 

 Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla) 

 Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia) 

 Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis) 

 Herring Gull (Larus argentatus) 

 Sabine's Gull (Xema sabini) 

 Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) 

 Forster’s Tern (Sterna forsteri) 

 Least Tern (Sterna antillarum) 

 Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) 

 Sooty Tern (Sterna fuscata) 

 Bridled Tern (Sterna anaethetus) 

 Gull-billed Tern (Gelochelidon nilotica) 

 Royal Tern (Thalasseus maximus) 

 Sandwich Tern (Thalasseus sandvicensis) 

 Noddy Tern (Anous stolidus) 

 Black Skimmer (Rhynchops nigra) 

 

Pigeons and Doves 

 Rock Dove (Columbia livia) 

 Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 

 White-winged Dove (Zenaida asiatica) 

 Common Ground Dove (Columbina passerine) 

Cuckoos 

 Black-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus erthropthalmus) 

 Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

 
Section C. Appendices 151

Owls 

 Barn Owl (Tyto alba) 

 Eastern Screech-Owl (Otus asio) 

 Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 

 Barred Owl (Strix varia) 

 Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) 

 Snowy Owl (Nyctea scandiaca) 

Swifts and Hummingbirds 

 Chimney Swift (Chaeura pelagica) 

 Ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris) 

Nightjars 

 Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) 

 Chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis) 

 Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferous) 

Kingfishers 

 Belted Kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) 

 

Woodpeckers, Flickers, and Sapsuckers 

 Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) 

 Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 

 Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) 

Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erthrocephalus) 

 Red-bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) 

 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) 

 Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 

 

Kingbirds, Flycatchers, and Related Species 

Eastern Kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) 

 Gray Kingbird(Tyrannus dominicensis) 

 Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) 

 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher (Muscivora forficata) 

 Great Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus) 

 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (Empidonax flaviventris) 

 Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus rubinus) 

 Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) 

 Eastern Phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) 

 Eastern Wood Peewee (Contopus virens) 

 

Shrikes 

 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Vireos 

 White-eyed Vireo (Vireo griseus) 

 Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons) 

 Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) 

Philadelphia Vireo (Vireo phidelphicus) 

 Red-eyed Vireo (Vireo olivaceus) 
152 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Jays and Crows 

 Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) 

 American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 

 Fish Crow (Corvus ossigragus) 

Martins and Swallows 

 Purple Martin (Progne subis) 

 Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) 

 Barn Swallow (Hirundia rustica)

 Northern Rough-winged Swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) 

 Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) 

 Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) 

Chickadees 

 Carolina Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis) 

Nuthatches 

 Red-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 

 White-breasted Nuthatch (Sita carolinensis) 

 Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla) 

Creepers 

 Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) 

Wrens 

Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus) 

 House Wren (Troglodytes aedon) 

 Long-billed Marsh Wren (Telmatodytes palustris) 

 Short-billed Marsh Wren (Cistothorus platensis) 

 Winter Wren (Troglodytes troglodytes) 

Kinglets and Gnatcatchers 

 Golden-crowned Kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

 Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula) 

 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) 

Thrushes 

 Gray-cheeked Thrush (Catharus minimus) 

 Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) 

 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) 

 Wood Thrush (Hylocichia mustelina) 

 Robin (Turdus migratorius) 

 Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis) 

 Veery (Catharus fuscescens) 

Mockingbirds and Thrashers 

 Northern Mockingbird (Minus polyglottos) 

 Gray Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 

 Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) 
Section C. Appendices 153

Starlings 

 European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 

Pipits 

 Water Pipit (Anthus spinoletta) 

 Sprague's Pipit (Anthus spragueii) 

Waxwings 

 Cedar Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulous) 

Tanagers 

 Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) 

 Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea) 

Blackbirds, Orioles, and Related Species 

 Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula) 

 Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 

Boat-tailed Grackle (Cassidix mexicanus)

Yellow-headed Blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus)

Common Grackle (Quiscalus quiscula) 

 Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magnus) 

 Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurious) 

 Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) 

 Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus) 

Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus)

Warblers 

 Blue-winged Warbler (Vermivora pinus) 

 Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera) 

 Orange crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata) 

 Tennessee Warbler (Vermivora peregrine) 

 Bachman's Warbler (Vermivora bachmanii) 

 Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca) 

Blackpoll Warbler (Dendroica striata) 

Black-throated Blue Warbler (Dendroica caerulescens) 

 Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens) 

 Chestnut-sided Warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica) 

Magnolia Warbler (Dendroica magnolia) 

Palm Warbler (Dendroica palmarum) 

Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus) 

Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor) 

Yellow-throated Warbler (Dendroica dominica) 

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) 

Cape May Warbler (Dendroica tigrina) 

Myrtle Warbler (Dendroica coronata) 

Kirtland's Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) 

 Black-and White Warbler (Mniotilta varia) 

 American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla) 

 Prothonotory Warbler (Protonotaria citrea) 

 Worm-eating Warbler(Helmitheros vermivorus) 

 Swainson’s Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) 
154 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

 Louisiana Waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) 

 Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) 

 Northern Waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis) 

 Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus) 

 Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) 

 Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) 

 Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrine) 

 Northern Parula (Parula americana) 

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 

New World Finches 

 Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 

 Blue Grosbeak (Passerina caerulea) 

 Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 

 Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) 

Old World Finches 

 Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus) 

 American Goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) 

Pine Siskin (Carduelis pinus) 

 Evening Grosbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus) 

Sparrows and Related Species 

Rufous-sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus)

 Chipping Sparrow (Spizella passerine) 

 Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla) 

 Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus) 

 Lark Sparrow (Chondestes grammacus) 

 Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis) 

 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

 Le Conte's Sparrow (Passerherbulus caudacutus) 

 Henslow’s Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) 

 Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) 

 Lincoln’s Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) 

 Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 

 Swamp Sparrow (Melospiza georgiana) 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow (Ammospiza caudacuta) 

 Seaside Sparrow (Ammospiza maritima)

 White-crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 

 White-throated Sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) 

Slate-colored Junco (Junco hyemalis)

 Lapland Longspur (Calcarius lapponicus) 

Lark Bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys)
Section C. Appendices 155

MAMMALS 

This list contains those species of mammals thought to occur on lands owned by the Wolf Island 

NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Opossums 

 Opossum (Dedelphis marsupialis) 

Shrews 

 Least Shrew (Cryptotis parva) 

 Short-tailed Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) 

Moles 

 Eastern Mole (Scalopus aquaticus) 

Bats 

 Red Bat (Lasiurus borealis) 

 Seminole Bat (Lasiurus seminolus) 

 Yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius) 

 Big Brown Bat (Eptesicus fuscus) 

Southern Myotis (Myotis austroriparius) 

 Eastern Pipistrel (Pipistrellus subflavus) 

Rabbits 

 Eastern Cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) 

 Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustrus) 

Squirrels 

 Eastern Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 

 Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) 

 Southern Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys volans) 

Pocket Gophers 

 Cumberland Island pocket gopher (Geomys cumberlandius) 

Old World Rats and Mice 

 Roof Rat (Rattus rattus) 

 Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) 

 House Mouse (Mus musculus) 

Mice, Rats, Voles 

Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis) 

 Old Field Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus)

 Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus) 

 Hispid Cotton Mouse (Sigmodon hispidus) 

 White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus luecopus) 

 Eastern Woodrat (Neotoma floridana) 

 Marsh Rice Rat (Oryzomys palustris) 

 Pine Vole (Pitymys pinetorum) 
156 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Nutria 

 Nutria (Myocactor coypus) 

Foxes 

 Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) 

Raccoons 

 Raccoon (Procyon lotor) 

Weasels, Skunks 

 Mink (Mustela vison) 

 River Otter (Lutra canadensis) 

 Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) 

Cats 

 Bobcat (Lynx rufus) 

Deer 

 White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) 
Section C. Appendices 157

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

This list contains those species of reptiles and amphibians thought to occur on lands owned by the 

Wolf Island NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

 

Alligators 

 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) 

Snapping Turtles 

 Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina) 

Mud Turtles 

 Mud Turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum) 

Box and Water Turtles 

 Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina) 

 Diamondback Terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin) 

 Yellow-bellied Turtle (Pseudemys scripta) 

 Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) 

 Chicken Turtle (Deirochelys reticularia) 

Sea Turtles 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) 

 Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) 

 Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

Anoles and Fence Lizards 

 Green Anole (Anolis carolinensis) 

 Northern Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulates hyacinthinus) 

Racerunners 

 Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus) 

Skinks 

 Ground Skink (Scincella lateralis) 

 Broadhead Skink (Eumeces laticeps) 

Five-lined Skink (Eumeces fasciatus) 

Southeastern Five-lined Skink (Eumeces inexpectatus) 

Glass Lizards 

 Eastern Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus ventralis) 

 Island Glass Lizard (Ophisaurus compressus) 

Snakes 

 Banded Water Snake (Natrix fasciata) 

 Black Racer (Coluber constrictor) 

 Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) 

 Ribbon Snake (Thamnophis sauritus) 

 Greenish Rat Snake (Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata) 

 Corn Snake (Elaphe guttata) 

 King Snake (Lampropeltis getulus) 
158 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

 Coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum) 

 Scarlet Snake (Cemophora coccinea) 

Rough Green Snake (Opheodrys aestivus) 

Vipers 

 Cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus) 

 Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus adamanteus) 

Amphiumas 

 Two-toed Amphiuma (Amphiuma means) 

Newts 

 Newt (Notophthalmus viridescens) 

Toads 

Eastern Spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki) 

 Oak Toad (Bufo quercicus) 

 Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris) 

Treefrogs and Peepers 

Grass Frog (Limnaoedus ocularis) 

 Southern Chorus Frog (Pseudacris nigrita)

Pine Woods Tree Frog (Hyla femoralis)

Green Treefrog (Hyla cinerea) 

 Squirrel Treefrog (Hyla squirella) 

Narrowmouth Toads 

 Eastern Narrowmouth Toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis) 

True Frogs 

Pig Frog (Rana grylio)

 Southern Leopard Frog (Rana sphenocephala) 

FISH 

This list contains those species of fish thought to occur in waters on and down to a depth of 10 

meters near the Wolf Island NWR according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Jawless Fishes 

 Sea Lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) 

Sharks 

Sand Shark (Odontaspis taurus) 

 White Shark (Carcharodon carcharius) 

 Basking Shark (Cetorhinus maximus) 

 Thresher Shark (Alopias vulpinus) 

 Nurse Shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) 

 Finetooth Shark (Aprionodon isodon) 

 Blacknose Shark (Carcharhinus acronotus) 

 Bull Shark (Carcharhinus leucus) 
Section C. Appendices 159

 Small Blacktip Shark (Carcharhinus limbatus) 

 Sandbar Shark (Carcharhinus milberti) 

 Tiger Shark (Galeocerdo cuvieri) 

 Smooth Dogfish (Mustelis canis) 

 Lemon Shark (Negaprion brevirostris) 

 Atlantic Sharpnose Shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) 

 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini) 

 Bonnet Shark (Sphyrna tiburo) 

 Smooth Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna zygaena) 

 Spiny Dogfish (Squalus acanthias) 

Skates and Rays 

Smalltooth Sawfish (Pristis pectinata) 

 Atlantic Guitarfish (Rhinobatos lentiginosus) 

 Clearnose Skate (Raja eglanteria) 

 Southern Stingray (Dasyatis americana) 

 Roughtail Stingray (Dasyatis centroura) 

 Stingaree (Dasyatis sabina) 

 Bluntnose Stingray (Dasyatis sayi) 

 Smooth Butterfly Ray (Gymnura micrura) 

 Spotted Eagle Ray (Aetobatus narinari) 

 Eagle Ray (Myliobatis freminvillei) 

 Cownose Ray (Rhinoptera bonasus) 

 Atlantic Manta (Manta birostris) 

 

Sturgeons 

Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) 

 Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) 

Gars 

Longnose Gar (Lepisosteus osseus) 

 Florida Gar (Lepisosteus platyrhincus) 

Tarpons 

 Ladyfish (Elops saurus) 

 Tarpon (Megalops atlantica) 

 Bonefish (Albula vulpes) 

Eels 

 American eel (Anguilla rostrata) 

 Conger eel (Conger oceanicus) 

 Speckled Worm eel (Myrophis punctatus) 

 Shrimp eel (Ophichthus gomesi) 

 Spotted Snake eel (Ophichthus ocellatus) 

 Striped Cusk-eel (Rissola marginata) 

Herrings, Shads and Related Species 

 Blueback Herring (Alose aestivalis) 

 Hickory Shad (Alosa mediocris) 

 American Shad (Alosa sapidissima) 

 Yellowfin Menhaden (Brevoortia smithi) 

 Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) 
160 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

 Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

 Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense) 

 Scaled Sardine (Harengula pensacolae) 

 Atlantic Thread Herring (Opisthonema oglinum) 

 Spanish Sardine (Sardinella anchovia) 

Anchovies

 Cuban Anchovy (Anchoa cubana) 

 Striped Anchovy (Anchoa hepsetus) 

 Dusky Anchovy (Anchoa lyolepis) 

 Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) 

Lizardfish 

 Inshore Lizardfish (Synodus foetens) 

Catfish 

 White Catfish (Ictalurus catus) 

 Gafftop Sail Catfish (Bagre marinus) 

 Sea Catfish (Arius fells) 

Toadfish 

 Oyster Toadfish (Opsanus tau) 

Clingfish

 Skilletfish (Gobiesox strumosus) 

Frogfish 

Singlespot frogfish (Antennarius radiosus) 

 Sargassumfish (Histrio histrio) 

Batfish 

Longnose Batfish (Ogcocephalus vespertilio) 

Hakes 

 Southern Hake (Urophycis floridanus) 

 Spotted Hake (Urophycis regius) 

Needlefish 

 Flat Needlefish (Ablennes hians) 

 Northern Needlefish (Strongylura marina) 

 Houndfish (Tylosurus crocodilus) 

Killifish

 Sheepshead Killifish (Cyprinodon variegatus) 

 Golden Topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus) 

 Marsh Killifish (Fundulus confluentus) 

 Mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) 

 Striped killifish (Fundulus majalis) 

 
Section C. Appendices 161

Livebearers 

 Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) 

 Least Killifish (Heterandria formosa) 

 Sailfin Molly (Poecilia latipinna) 

Siiversides 

Rough Silverside (Membras martinica) 

 Tidewater Silverside (Menidia beryllina) 

 Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia) 

Pipefish

 Key Dusky Pipefish (Syngnathus floridae mckayi) 

 Chesapeake Dusky Pipefish (Syngnathus floridae hubbsi) 

 Northern Pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus) 

 Chain Pipefish (Syngnathus louisianae) 

 Bull Pipefish (Syngnathus springeri) 

 Whitenose Pipefish (Corythoichthys albirostris) 

Sea Bass 

 Rock Sea Bass (Centropristis philadelphica)

Black Sea Bass (Centropristis striata) 

 Sand Perch (Diplectrum formosum) 

 Aguavina (Diplectrum radiale) 

 Striped bass (Morone saxatilis) 

Sunfish 

Flier (Centrarchus macropterus) 

 Warmouth (Lepomis gulosus) 

 Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 

 Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

Snappers 

 Red Snapper (Lutfanus campechanus) 

mangrove snapper (Lutfanus griseus) 

Snook 

 Snook (Centropomus undecimalls) 

Mojarras

 Irish pompano (Diapterus olisthostomus) 

 Spotfin Mojarra (Eucinostomus argenteus) 

Silver Jenny (Eucinostomus gula) 

Grunts 

Tomtate (Haemulon aurolineatum) 

Pigfish (Orthopristis chrysoptera) 

Drums 

 Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysura) 

Spotted Seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) 

Silver Seatrout (Cynoscion nothus) 
162 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) 

Banded Drum (Larimus fasciatus) 

Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) 

Southern Kingfish (Menticirrhus americanus)

Gulf Kingfish (Menticirrhus littoralis) 

Northern Kingfish (Menticirrhus saxatilis) 

Atlantic Croaker (Micropogon undulates) 

Black Drum (Pogonias cromis) 

Red Drum (Sciaenops ocellata) 

Star Drum (Stellifer lanceolatus) 

Porgies 

Sheepshead (Archosargus probatocephalus) 

Whitebone Porgy (Calamus leucosteus) 

Pinfish (Lagodon rhomboids) 

Northern Porgy (Stenotomus chrysops) 

Sea Chubs 

 Yellow Chub (Kyphosis incisor) 

Bermuda Chub (Kyphosis sectatrix) 

Spadefish and Butterflyfish

Atlantic Spadefish (Chaetodipterus fabert) 

Spotfin Butterflyfish (Chaetodon ocellatus) 

Damselfish 

Sergeant Major (Abudefduf saxatilis) 

Mullets

 Striped Mullet (Mugil cephalus) 

White mullet (Mugil curema valenciennes) 

Wrasses 

Slippery Dick (Halichoeres bivittatus) 

Pearly Razorfish (Hemipteronotus novacula) 

Stargazers 

Southern Stargazer (Astroscopus y-graecum) 

Sand Stargazers (Dactyloscopus tridigitalus) 

Combtooth Blennies

 Striped Blenny (Chasmodes bosquianus) 

Crested Blenny (Hypleurochilus geminatus) 

Feather Blenny (Hypsoblennius hentzi) 

Freckled Blenny (Hypsoblennius ionthas) 

Sleeper

 Fat Sleeper (Dormitator maculatus) 
Section C. Appendices 163

Gobies

 Lyre Goby(Evorthodus lyricus) 

Violet Goby(Gobioides broussonneti) 

Darter Goby(Gobionellus boleosoma) 

Sharp Tail Goby(Gobionellus hastatus) 

Freshwater Goby(Gobionellus shufeldti) 

Emerald Goby(Gobionellus smaragdus) 

Naked Goby(Gobiosoma bosci) 

Seaboard Goby(Gobiosoma ginsburgi) 

Green Goby(Microgobius thalassinus) 

Cutlassfish

 Atlantic Cutlassfish(Trichiurus lepturus) 

Butterfish

 Southern Harvestfish(Peprilus alepidotus) 

Butterfish(Peprilus triacanthus) 

Searobins 

Northern Searobin(Prionotus carolinus) 

Leopard Searobin(Prionotus scitulus) 

Striped Searobin(Prionotus evolans) 

Bighead Searobin

(Prionotus tribulus) 

Lefteye Flounders 

Ocellated Flounder(Ancylopsetta quadrocellata) 

Spotted Whiff(Citharichthys macrops) 

Bay Whiff(Citharichthys spilopterus) 

Fringed Flounder(Etropus crossotus) 

Smallmouth Flounder(Etropus microstomus) 

Gray Flounder(Etropus rimosus) 

Gulf Flounder(Paralichthys albigutta) 

Summer Flounder(Paralichthys dentatus) 

Southern Flounder(Paralichthys lethostigma) 

 Broad Flounder(Paralichthys squamilentus) 

Windowpane(Scophthalmus aquosus) 

Soles

 Hogchoker(Trinectes maculatus) 

Tonguefish 

 Backcheek Tonguefish(Symphurus plagiusa) 

Spottail Tonguefish(Symphurus urospilus) 

Filefish 

Orange Filefish(Aluterus schoepfi) 

Planehead Filefish

(Monacanthus hispidus) 

Trunkfish 

Scrawled Cowfish(Lactophrys quadricornis) 
164 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Puffers 

 Smooth Puffer (Lagocephalus laevigatus) 

Northern Puffer (Sphoeroides maculatus) 

Florida Puffer (Sphoeroides nephelus) 

PLANTS 

This list contains those species of plants thought to occur on lands owned by the Wolf Island NWR 

according to various literature sources, surveys, and observations. 

Trees

Red Maple (Acer rubrum) 

 Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda) 

 Slash Pine (Pinus elliotti) 

 Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) 

 Pond Pine (Pinus serotina) 

 Juniper (Juniperus virginiana) 

 Wax Myrtle (Myrica cerifera) 

 Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) 

 Water Oak (Quercus nigra) 

 Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia) 

 Sweet Bay (Magnolia virginiana) 

 Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) 

 Red Bay (Persea borbonia) 

 Willow (Salix spp.) 

 Gum (Nyssa spp.) 

 Ash (Fraxinus spp.) 

 Cypress (Taxodium ascendens) 

Loblolly Bay (Gordonia lasianthus) 

Bushes 

Hercules'-club (Zanthoxylum clava-herculis) 

 Red buckeye (Aesculus pavia) 

 Sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboretum) 

 Devilwood (Osmanthus americana) 

 Beauty-berry (Callicarpa americana) 

Groundselbush (Baccharis halimifolia) 

 Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) 

Woody vines 

 Smilax (Smilax spp.) 

 Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia) 

 Grape (Vitis spp.) 

 Pepper-vine (Ampelopsis arborea) 

 Rattanvine (Berchemia scandens) 

 Yellow Jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens) 

 Coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens)

Railroad vine (Ipomoea stolonifera) 
Section C. Appendices 165

Shrubs and Sea Grasses 

Switchcane (Arundinaria tecta) 

 Sea Rocket (Cakile spp.) 

 Beach Hogwort (Croton punctatus) 

 Beach Sandspur (Cenchrus tribuloides) 

 Saltmeadow Cordgrass (Spartina patens) 

 Salt Wort (Salsola kali) 

 Sea-purslane (Sesuvium spp.) 

 Beach-spurge (Euphorbia polygonifolia) 

 Seahourse-elder (Iva imbricate) 

 Beach Pennywort (Hydrocotyle bonariensus) 

 Camphorweed (Herotheca subaxillaris) 

 Little Bluestem (Andropogon scoparius) 

 Prickley Pear (Opuntia spp.) 

 Seaside Goldenrod (Solidago humifusa) 

 

Submerged Vegetation 

 Bushy-pondweed (Najas spp.) 

 Fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana) 

 Coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) 

 Parrot's-feather (Myriophyllum brasiliense) 

Floating-leaved, rooted vegetation 

 Pondweed (Potamogeton spp.) 

 Water-shield (Brasenia schreberi) 

 Banana water-lily (Nymphaea mexicana) 

 White water-lily (Nymphaea odorata) 

 Yellow cow-lily (Nuphar luteum) 

Floating, not rooted vegetation 

 Mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana) 

 Duckweed (Lemna spp.) 

 Duckweed (Spirodela spp.) 

 Water-meal (Wolffia spp.) 

 Wolffiella (Wolffiella floridana) 

 Bladderwort (Utricularia spp.) 

Emergent vegetation 

 Cat-tail (Typha spp.) 

 Bulrush (Scirpus spp.) 

 Rush (Juncus spp.) 

 Sawgrass (Cladium spp.) 

 Pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata) 

 Arrow arum (Peltandra virginica) 

 Alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) 

 Arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) 
166 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge 
Section C. Appendices 167

Appendix I. List of Preparers 

y Jane Griess, Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y W. Shaw Davis, Deputy Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

y John Robinette, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

y Debra Barnard, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Stefani Melvin, Biologist, Migratory Bird Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Scott Gilje, Refuge Operations Specialist, Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

y Robert Brooks, Biologist, Georgia Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

y Pat Metz, Visitor Services Manager, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

y Brad Winn, Senior Wildlife Biologist, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

y Fred Hay, Sapelo Island Research Manager, Georgia Department of Natural Resources 

y Aimee Gaddis, Stewardship Coordinator, Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserve 

y Jeff Spratt, Georgia Conservation Office, The Nature Conservancy 

y Randy Williams, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (Service contractor) 

y Meghan Morse, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (Service contractor) 

y Jim Wood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Writer/Editor (Service contractor)