Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2009
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
BANKS LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Lanier County, Georgia
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2009
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 11
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 12
State Wildlife Action Plan .................................................................................................. 12
The Grand Bay–Banks Lake Ecosystem Site Conservation Plan ..................................... 15
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 23
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 23
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 24
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 24
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 27
Nonnative and Nuisance Species ..................................................................................... 31
Rare, Endangered and Threatened Species ..................................................................... 33
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 35
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 36
Human Population Growth and Associated Land Use Changes ....................................... 36
County Demographics and Economic Indicators .............................................................. 37
Statewide Wildlife-associated Activities ............................................................................ 38
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 38
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 38
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 39
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 43
ii Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 45
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 45
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 45
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 46
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 46
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 47
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 48
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 48
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 48
Public Review and Comment ..................................................................................................... 49
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 51
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 51
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 52
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 52
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 52
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 60
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 62
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 67
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 69
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 69
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 69
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 69
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 70
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 71
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 72
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 72
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................... 74
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 75
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 75
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 75
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 77
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 77
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ................................................................ 87
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................. 95
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 107
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 107
Summary of Public Comments and the Service’s Responses ................................................. 109
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 115
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 127
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 183
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 189
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 191
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 209
APPENDIX K. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 211
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 211
CCP Planning Team ....................................................................................................... 211
Wildlife and Habitat Management Review Team ............................................................ 211
Visitor Services Review Team ........................................................................................ 212
Wilderness Review Team ............................................................................................... 212
Intergovernmental Coordination Planning Team ............................................................. 213
APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 219
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................ 219
Alternative B: Expanded Management by the Service (Preferred Alternative) ............... 221
Alternative C: Cooperative Administration with State Natural Resource Agencies ........ 223
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 224
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 225
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 225
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 225
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 225
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 226
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 226
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 226
Findings ................................................................................................................................... 228
Supporting References ............................................................................................................. 229
Document Availability ............................................................................................................... 229
APPENDIX M. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 231
iv Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lanier County, Georgia. ...................... 10
Figure 2. Peninsular Florida ecosystem. .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 3. Georgia and Florida area conservation lands. ................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Grand Bay–Banks Lake ecosystem. ................................................................................. 16
Figure 5. Carolina bays within the Grand Bay–Banks Lake ecosystem. .......................................... 21
Figure 6. Soils of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................... 22
Figure 7. Georgia ecoregions. .......................................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. Vegetation of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge. ......................................................... 28
Figure 9. Land status map of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent areas. ................ 41
Figure 10. Land ownership map with parcel identification numbers for Banks Lake
National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding area. ............................................................... 42
Figure 11. Proposed organizational chart for Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge. ........................ 73
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Temperature and precipitation data collected at Moody Air Force Base adjacent to
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. 18
Table 2. Selected water quality parameters for the Grand Bay–Banks Lake area ........................... 24
Table 3. Habitat types and sizes on Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 25
Table 4. Electrofishing summary for Banks Lake (CPUE = catch per unit effort) ............................. 29
Table 5. Nonnative species documented or potentially occurring on Banks Lake
National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 32
Table 6. Listed wildlife species documented or potentially occurring on Banks Lake
National Wildlife Refuge ..................................................................................................... 35
Table 7. State-listed plants likely to occur on Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge ........................ 35
Table 8. Regional county population data for Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge ........................ 37
Table 9. Demographics for Lanier County and neighboring counties ............................................... 40
Table 10. Fiscal year 2008 costs for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge to administer
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................. 44
Table 11. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 74
Table 12. Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans ................................ 75
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) to guide the management of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Lanier County,
Georgia. This CCP outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as
mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (Improvement Act) of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and habitat
management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the issues
the CCP should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from federal and
state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The refuge
staff held one public scoping meeting and a public meeting to solicit public reaction to the proposed
alternatives. Also, a 30-day public review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment was provided.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A was a proposal to maintain the
status quo. Under this “No Action Alternative,” current management would continue. Management
for listed species, migratory birds, and biodiversity would remain relatively low. Control of non-native
species would be nominal. The refuge would not initiate any efforts to improve its understanding of
the impacts of climate change on habitats and wildlife. Water quality and other resource protection
issue would not be significantly addressed. Visitor services would not be substantially enhanced.
The refuge would remain unstaffed and without a budget.
Alternative B proposed expanded management of the refuge by the Service. The primary focus
under Alternative B would be to expand management of all refuge resources. The refuge would
become fully staffed and would acquire its own budget. Monitoring efforts for listed species, general
fish and wildlife, habitats, and water quality would be increased in order to gain a better
understanding of their status and trends. Management of invasive species would increase, and the
refuge would work to better understand the impacts of climate change on its resources. The refuge
boundary would be surveyed. Additional surveys would be conducted to increase the understanding
and protection of cultural resources. Public use opportunities would be increased.
Alternative C proposed cooperative administration with state natural resource agencies. Alternative C
would have focused establishing partnerships for management of the refuge. Under this alternative,
most of the management of public uses would have been delegated to the state partner. All other
management would have been similar to what was proposed under Alternative B.
The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this CCP.
Alternative B is considered to be the most effective for meeting the purposes of the refuge by
protecting rare, threatened, and endangered species; maintaining biodiversity; and improving visitor
services.
2 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation
will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) described the Fish and Wildlife
Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and their effects on the
environment. This Draft CCP/EA were made available to state and federal government agencies,
conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment in June 2009. Comments from
each entity were considered in the development of this CCP, and substantive comments and the
Service’s responses can be found in Appendix D.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role that Banks Lake NWR will play in support of the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to provide long-term guidance to the
refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The CCP will:
 provide a clear statement of management direction for Banks Lake NWR;
 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 origins of the Service can also be traced 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.
4 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
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 the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitats, 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 (Improvement Act) of 1997 established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resource and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be administered to:
 fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 consider the needs of wildlife first;
 fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatibility of all uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The following are just 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 over-hunting, 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, so the refuges established during the Great Depression
focused on the protection of waterfowl production areas such as those that protected prairie wetlands
in America's heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes the 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.
Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges generate substantial economic activity. In fiscal year 2006,
34.8 million people visited refuges in the lower 48 states for recreation. Based on a study of the economic
impacts of refuges on local communities (Banking on Nature, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]
2006a), visitor expenditures generated almost $1.7 billion of sales in regional economies. As this
spending flowed through the economy, nearly 27,000 people were employed and $542.8 million in
employment income was generated. Approximately 82 percent of total expenditures were generated by
non-consumptive activities on refuges, while fishing accounted for 12 percent and hunting 6 percent.
Local residents accounted for 13 percent of expenditures while visitors coming from outside the local area
accounted for 87 percent. In addition, refuge recreational spending generated about $185.3 million in tax
revenues at the local, county, state, and federal levels (USFWS 2006a).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. During fiscal
year 2006, 36,169 volunteers donated 1,447,421 hours. The value of their labor was $26,111,475.
Using the independent sector’s current dollar value of $18.04, their in-kind services equaled the
equivalent of 696 full-time employees. Ten new “friends of the refuge” volunteer organizations were
established in fiscal year 2006, bringing the total of these groups to more than 200 (USFWS 2006b).
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife come first; that
ecosystem, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System should serve as a model for
habitat management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with appropriate tribes, federal, state, and local agencies, and adjacent private landowners and that
the Service should develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public
involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will
guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The
CCP will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal
mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and
planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
6 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND 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. Please refer to Appendix C for a complete list of relevant legal mandates.
These treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to natural, historical, and cultural resources and research and recreation on refuge
lands. They also provide a framework for cooperation between Banks Lake NWR and other partners,
such as Moody Air Force Base; the Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Lanier County; the city of
Lakeland; The Nature Conservancy; sport fishing organizations; and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates set forth in the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. These mandates are as follows:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses that benefit the conservation of fish and wildlife
resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that all uses are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the refuges are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans. This is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving purposes
of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. It provides for the consideration and protection
of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on the refuges and their
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address
regional environmental problems. 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 declining
trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The conservation plans and
initiatives described below, along with issues, problems and trends, were reviewed and integrated
where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative; North American
Waterfowl Management Plan; Partners in Flight Conservation Plan; U.S. Shorebird Conservation
Plan; North American Waterbird Conservation Plan; and the State of Georgia’s Wildlife Action Plan.
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 working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is
an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. Its goal is to return
waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the
United States signed the plan in 1986 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, non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals all
working to achieve 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. Banks Lake NWR lies in Waterfowl Conservation Region (WCR) 27, as identified in the
plan. These areas are the plan’s geographic units for prioritization at the regional scale. WCR 27
includes 13 duck species for which management targets have been determined (North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee 2004 and 2007).
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird
conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land
birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame land birds have been vastly underrepresented in
conservation efforts and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and
nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can
be most effective, rather than on rare and peripheral populations in localized areas of emphasis.
Banks Lake NWR lies in Physiographic Area 3 (South Atlantic Coastal Plain) and contains priority
habitats (and several associated bird species) also identified for conservation and management
planning, such as Carolina bays and non-alluvial swamps (Hunter et al. 2001).
8 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
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 self-sustaining
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; introduced
predators and invasive species; pollutants; mortality from fisheries and industries; disturbances; 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. Banks Lake NWR lies within the plan's Southeastern Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Region. For this region, long-legged wading birds, in particular, are identified as requiring
increased management attention. A key regional objective is the standardization of data collection
efforts and analytical procedures for all waterbirds (Kushlan et al. 2002).
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, 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. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife
refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and
sustainability of fish and wildlife in the State of Georgia.
The Georgia Wildlife Resources Division (GWRD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
(GDNR) is the state agency that is responsible for protecting and managing Georgia’s native plants
and wildlife. The GWRD owns wildlife management areas; regulates hunting, fishing, aquaculture,
and captive wildlife; and operates education centers. In April 1995, the GWRD began a Private
Lands Initiative to intensify efforts in promoting, encouraging, and providing technical assistance for
wildlife conservation on private lands in Georgia. In addition, the GWRD has developed a model
conservation easement program.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process has provided for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue, improving the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in the
State of Georgia. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Banks Lake NWR (3,559 acres or 1,440 hectares [ha]) is located in Lanier County near Lakeland,
Georgia (Figure 1). The refuge was established in 1985 under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. The refuge lies in the Grand Bay–Banks Lake
(GBBL) ecosystem, an area that comprises the second-largest freshwater wetland system in Georgia.
The GBBL area contains a number of unique ecological systems that support a variety of plants and
animals, including freshwater and terrestrial federal- and state-listed species.
The refuge’s most notable feature is Banks Lake, a shallow blackwater lake studded with cypress trees
that supports many fish species, as well as other aquatic animals. It was formed when the Carolina bay
that makes up most of the refuge was dammed over 150 years ago. The refuge contains a variety of
habitat types, including approximately 676 acres (273 ha) of cypress swamp, 582 acres (235 ha) of
freshwater marsh, and 634 acres (256 ha) of open water. Scattered through these wetland areas are
scrub/shrub, evergreen forest wetlands, and mixed forest habitats. Upland areas make up a very small
portion of the refuge’s total acreage. Many species of plants, fish, and wildlife are found on the refuge,
including state- and federal-listed species. The refuge’s habitat management activities include water level
management control and herbicidal spraying for aquatic vegetation control.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Banks Lake lies in an area that, historically, consisted of a natural Carolina bay, which was likely created
by tidal action of the ocean and then shaped by a more temperate climate prevailing thousands of years
ago. In the mid-1800s, Joshua Lee built a low-level dam across the drainage creek on his property. The
impounded water was utilized to power a grist mill to grind corn, wheat, and rice. The “mill pond” and
accompanying mill established the area as a trade center along the early stagecoach route between
Waycross and Thomasville, Georgia. In the 1920s, the E.D. Rivers family attempted to develop the area
around the lake for electric power and home development. Cypress was logged from the lake to provide
railroad crossties until the 1930s. In the early 1940s the dam was elevated, forming the existing Banks
Lake, and a water control structure/spillway was installed to maximize the water level at approximately
190 feet (58 meters) above mean sea level (MSL). In the 1970s, the E.D. Rivers Estate proposed to drain
the lake and harvest the “lightered stumps” and cypress trees. The proposal to drain the lake and remove
cypress trees never materialized. Instead, The Nature Conservancy purchased the land from the E.D.
Rivers Estate on March 14, 1980.
On April 16, 1980, the Service entered into a lease agreement with The Nature Conservancy to
manage approximately 3,559 acres (1,440 ha) of the Banks Lake/Grand Bay wetlands complex,
located in Lanier and Lowndes Counties in southeastern Georgia. The original intent of the lease
was to establish a national wildlife refuge. Changes in the emphasis of the land acquisition program
resulted in a lack of funds necessary to acquire the land. The area remained in a state of limbo
during 1982 and 1983, with the Service maintaining a caretaker position over Banks Lake. In 1984,
funds were added to the fiscal year 1985 budget for purchase of the site at a value of $356,000. The
refuge designation was authorized under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and funded through
provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1955, with strong local support from the
Lakeland community and the congressional delegation. The area became Banks Lake National
Wildlife Refuge on February 22, 1985.
10 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lanier County, Georgia
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
The refuge was established for the protection and conservation of a unique environment as well as
migratory and resident wildlife. The purposes of the refuge are:
"... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources ..." 16 U.S.C. Section 742f(a)(4) "... for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of
any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude ..." 16 U.S.C. Section 742f (b)(1)
(Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
"... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the protection of
natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened species ..." 16 U.S.C.
Section 460k-1 "... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such acceptance may
be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ..." 16
U.S.C. Section 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act [16 U.S.C. Section 460k-460k-4], as amended).
Current refuge objectives are to provide:
 Optimum habitat for a wide diversity of native fauna and flora.
 Optimum habitat and protection for threatened and endangered species.
 Opportunities for fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, interpretation, and education.
 A showcase outdoor recreational opportunity for the physically challenged.
 Quality fishing opportunities through a naturally sustained sport fishery.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Banks Lake NWR does not include any areas that have special designations.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The Service uses an ecosystem approach to more effectively fulfill its mission and serve as a better
partner in efforts to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats. An ecosystem approach generally
can be characterized as follows (Noss et al. 1995):
 The primary goal is conserving natural biological diversity and ecosystem integrity, while
supporting sustainable human use.
 Common goals are developed, and management decisions are made with the participation of
all internal and external stakeholders.
 Management decisions consider the full array of biological and socioeconomic parameters.
 Management decisions are made based on natural, ecologically defined boundaries.
 Managers recognize that ecosystems are dynamic and manage adaptively, in response to
changing biological and societal circumstances.
Banks Lake NWR is part of the Peninsular Florida ecosystem (Figure 2), one of the Service’s 52
designated ecosystems and watersheds (USFWS 1998). The refuge lies in the northern portion of
this ecosystem and in an area of Georgia that has dramatically changed through historical land use
practices, and more recently, development. The refuge is important in a regional ecosystem context
because it protects important aquatic and wetland habitats that are declining regionally (Dahl 2006).
Furthermore, it is located adjacent to Moody Air Force Base and The Nature Conservancy property,
effectively producing a large, relatively unfragmented area of land that will be managed to maintain
biological integrity and ecosystem function. Together with other federal and state lands, such a
12 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
network of conservation lands can help mitigate the effects of habitat loss, provide protection, and
serve as wildlife corridors. In addition, vegetated areas of the refuge reduce sedimentation and
improve water quality downstream. Another benefit of forested wetlands is that they can function as
water retention areas and minimize flood damage during times of excessive rainfall. Furthermore,
wetlands provide a valuable habitat for birds and other wildlife.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN
In 2001, Congress charged each state and territory with developing a statewide Comprehensive
Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) as part of the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program
and the State Wildlife Grants Program. These programs were designed to assist states by providing
annual allocations for the development and implementation of programs to benefit wildlife and their
habitats. The funding was intended to supplement, not duplicate, existing fish and wildlife programs,
and to target species in greatest need of conservation, species indicative of the diversity and health
of the states’ wildlife, and species with low and declining populations, as deemed appropriate by the
states’ fish and wildlife agencies.
The state wildlife conservation plans provide an essential foundation for the future of wildlife
conservation and a stimulus to engage the states, federal agencies, and other conservation partners
to think strategically about their individual and coordinate roles in prioritizing conservation efforts
across the nation. This includes the use of landscape-based conservation strategies to map existing
protected areas and to identify gaps and potential wildlife corridors. Figure 3 shows the Georgia and
Florida area conservation lands located in the vicinity of the refuge.
In December 2002, the GWRD began a process to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation
strategy. Through its Wildlife Conservation and Reinvestment Program, the GWRD made a
commitment to develop and begin implementation of this comprehensive wildlife conservation
strategy by October 1, 2005 (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005). Funding for this
planning effort came from a federal grant to GWRD through the State Wildlife Grant program, with
matching funds provided through Georgia’s Nongame Wildlife Conservation Fund. The goal of the
strategy is to conserve Georgia’s animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive measures
emphasizing voluntary and incentive-based programs on private lands, habitat restoration and
management by public agencies and private conservation organizations, rare species survey and
recovery efforts, and environmental education and public outreach activities.
The goals of Georgia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy are as follows:
 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.
 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.
 Facilitate restoration of important wildlife habitats through reintroduction of prescribed fire,
hydrologic enhancements, and vegetation restoration.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 2. Peninsular Florida ecosystem
14 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Georgia and Florida area conservation lands
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
 Conduct statewide assessments of rare natural communities and habitats that support species
of conservation concern
 Improve efforts to protect vulnerable and ecologically important habitats such as isolated
wetlands, headwater streams, and caves.
 Combat the spread of invasive/noxious species in high-priority natural habitats by identifying
problem areas, providing technical and financial assistance, developing specific educational
messages, and managing exotic species populations on public lands.
 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.
 Update the state protected species list and work with conservation partners to improve
management of these species and their habitats.
 Conduct targeted field inventories of neglected taxonomic groups, including invertebrates and
nonvascular plants.
 Continue efforts to recover federally listed species through implementation of recovery plans,
and restore populations of other high priority species.
 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.
 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.
THE GRAND BAY–BANKS LAKE ECOSYSTEM SITE CONSERVATION PLAN
The Grand Bay–Banks Lake (GBBL) area (Figure 4) comprises the second-largest freshwater
wetland system in Georgia and contains a number of unique ecological systems and globally
imperiled species. A voluntary, cooperative stewardship council comprised of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources (Wildlife Resources Division), Moody Air Force Base, The Nature
Conservancy (TNC, Georgia Field Office), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Banks Lake NWR) was
established to develop a management plan for the GBBL area that would ensure the integrity of the
ecosystem and long-term viability of native flora and fauna in the context of compatible human use.
The Nature Conservancy’s Site Conservation Planning (SCP) methodology was used to develop this
plan (The Nature Conservancy 2000).
The SCP process is based on five themes:
 Selected focal conservation targets structure the planning process and become the starting
point to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem function.
 An assessment of ecological integrity (called desired future conditions in this document), using
the best available ecological information, identifies the spatial and temporal ecological needs
of the focal conservation targets and provides the basis for measuring management success.
A biodiversity health assessment determines the current status of each target.
 Information on the human context, including the mission, stakeholders, and surrounding
communities, is integrated into the planning process. A detailed stakeholder analysis, as was
done in this plan, is sometimes conducted.
 Critical threats to targets structure the development of conservation strategies.
 The planning process is iterative and adaptive, incorporating adaptive management to
evaluate the success of conservation strategies.
16 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Grand Bay–Banks Lake ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
In addition to the state and GBBL plans, there are several other state and regional conservation and
resource protection plans, as listed below:
 Comprehensive Statewide Water Management Plan
 Department of Natural Resources Strategic Plan
 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
 State Preservation Plan
 Georgia Land Conservation Partnership Plan
 Georgia Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Human impacts and underlying threats to biological diversity on and off the refuge include:
 the introduction and spread of nonnative and nuisance species;
 ongoing wildlife disturbance due to development, military and other human activities;
 impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution and water quality degradation; and
 the effects of climate change on refuge resources.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Banks Lake NWR lies in the Georgia Coastal Plain, which has a humid, subtropical climate.
The summers are generally hot and humid, while the winters are typically cool and dry
(University of Georgia 2007).
Temperatures
Extremely low temperatures are infrequent due to the refuge’s southerly latitude and its close
proximity of the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico, which moderate the cold, continental air masses
that move southward in the winter months. Typically, the coldest month is January, with a record low
of 4 °F (-15.5 °C) documented in 1985. The average winter lows are approximately 47 °F (8.3 °C),
while winter highs around 63 °F (17.2 °C) are the norm (Table 1). The average number of days with
freezing temperatures is 17.
During spring the temperatures quickly rise, and the average May highs and lows are 85 °F (29.4 °C)
and 65 °F (18.3 °C), respectively. July is the hottest month with highs averaging 91 °F (32.8 °C) and
lows near 73 °F (22.8 °C). Although July is the warmest month on average, a record high
temperature of 105 °F (40.6 °C) was recorded in June 2007 (Moody Air Force Base 2007). Average
high temperatures rapidly decline to 63 °F (17.2 °C) in early December. The first frost generally
occurs in mid-November, and the last frost usually is in early April (University of Georgia 2007a).
Relative Humidity
Relative humidity is generally high in this part of Georgia with an annual average of 68 percent.
The highest daily humidity is recorded in the early morning with an average at dawn of 83
percent. The average humidity at midday in spring is generally less than 50 percent, and during
the rest of the year it averages 54 percent. The mean cloud cover is approximately 60 percent
during the summer and 50 percent in winter. On the average, some fog is encountered 185 days
per year (Moody Air Force Base 2007).
18 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Temperature and precipitation data collected at Moody Air Force Base adjacent to
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Mean Daily Temperature (°F / °C) Monthly Precipitation (in / cm)
Month Maximum Minimum Mean Maximum Minimum Mean
January 62 / 17 42 / 6 52 / 11 8.0 / 20.3 0.4 / 1.0 3.8 / 9.7
February 65 / 18 45 / 7 55 / 13 11.1 / 28.2 1.3 / 3.3 4.2 / 10.7
March 72 / 22 51 / 11 62 / 17 12.1 / 30.7 0.7 / 1.8 4.9 / 12.4
April 79 / 26 58 / 14 68 / 20 11.6 / 29.5 0.3 / 0.8 3.7 / 9.4
May 85 / 29 65 / 18 75 / 24 11.3 / 28.7 0.2 / 0.5 3.8 / 9.7
June 90 / 32 71 / 22 80 / 27 11.7 / 29.7 0.8 / 2.0 4.5 / 11.4
July 91 / 33 73 / 23 82 / 28 11.2 / 28.4 1.6 / 4.1 6.3 / 16.0
August 90 / 32 73 / 23 82 / 28 15.5 / 39.4 1.3 / 3.3 5.2 / 13.2
September 87 / 31 70 / 21 78 / 26 9.0 / 22.9 0.1 / 0.3 3.4 / 8.6
October 79 / 26 59 / 15 69 / 21 7.3 / 18.5 0.0 / 0.0 2.0 / 5.1
November 71 / 22 50 / 10 61 / 16 6.4 / 16.3 0.1 / 0.3 2.4 / 6.1
December 63 / 17 44 / 7 54 / 12 9.1 / 23.1 0.1 / 0.3 3.6 / 9.1
Annual Precipitation 124.3/315.7 7.5/16.0 47.8/121.4
Source: Moody Air Force Base 2007
Precipitation
The mean annual precipitation recorded in the vicinity of the refuge is 47.0 inches (119.4 cm) (Table 1).
This rainfall is well distributed throughout the year, although the summer is generally the wettest season
(averaging 5.3 inches/13.5 cm) and the fall is the driest (averaging 2.6 inches/6.6 cm). Summer rainfall is
often poorly distributed due to the localized nature of thundershower activity. During normal years,
showers will occur nearly every afternoon in July and August. An average of 58 thunderstorm days per
year is recorded in the immediate vicinity of the refuge. Extreme storm events, sometimes accompanied
by tornadoes, occur occasionally in the area. Tropical storm systems accompanied by several days of
heavy rains occur with a frequency of about one in five years. Maximum rainfall recorded at Moody Air
Force Base, located next to the refuge, in a 24-hour period is 8.6 inches/21.8 cm (Moody Air Force Base
2007). In 2007, Lanier County was in a Level 2 drought, with the year-to-date precipitation approximately
13 inches (33 cm) below the 30 year average, prompting various water restrictions and conservation
measures (University of Georgia 2007b).
Lightning
Lightning poses a hazard to refuge visitors and personnel and can cause infrastructure damage.
Lightning strikes are common in Georgia, and the state ranks among the top 10 in terms of lightning
casualties (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1997).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Wind
Although wind data is currently unavailable at the refuge, wind speed at nearby Moody Air Force
Base averages only 4.6 mph (7.4 kph), and a maximum wind speed of 74.8 mph (120 kph) has been
recorded. Wind direction is generally from the north during the winter, from the west during the spring
and early summer, and from the east during the late summer and fall (Moody Air Force Base 2007).
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Geology
Lanier County is located in the Coastal Terrace Region, and the geologic processes are typical of the
lower Coastal Plain of Georgia. This area was part of a large, shallow sea during the Late
Cretaceous (100-65 million years ago). Banks Lake NWR is located on the Claxton Terrace, a
generally flat area except where cross-cut by streams and lime sinks. Groundwater has dissolved the
underlying Tampa Formation limestone producing considerable areas of wetlands and numerous
sinks and ponds. Grand Bay is the largest swamp area on the Claxton Terrace and forms the south
end of Banks Lake. The Claxton Formation is of the middle Miocene age overlain by Pliocene age
deposits with most recent deposition of Pleistocene (1.8 million - 10,000 years before present) and
Holocene (10,000 before present to present) deposits located in the river valleys and swamps.
Topography
Geological processes have produced the varied topography found on the refuge. The once flat
seabeds are being cut by streams and groundwater erosion, producing a variety of geomorphic
formations, such as steep-sided stream valleys, lime sinks, creek swamps, open-water shallow lakes,
ponds, flatwoods, and an elevated hammock. Elevation in the area is approximately 200 ft (61 m)
above mean sea level.
A novel topographical feature of the refuge is Banks Lake. The lake averages 633 acres (256 ha)
and is less than 10 ft (3 m) in depth. Banks Lake was formerly a classic Carolina bay with a
sandy rim and an oval shape that is oriented from northwest to southeast. Because of the dam
on the northwest side, the sandy rim has been inundated and a ring of pond cypress has become
established. The GBBL ecosystem that includes the refuge contains several Carolina bays
(Figure 5). Carolina bays are small wetland depressions that are symmetrically oval in shape.
When seen from the air, they are very distinct and the long axis of the oval is always oriented
northwest to southeast. These wetlands occur only in the coastal plain regions of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia and vary in size from one to thousands of acres. Theoretical origins
of these unique topographic features include: meteor showers, ocean currents, and sinkholes
(Prouty 1952; Savage 1982). Regionally, Carolina bays have become rare due to conversion to
agriculture or urban areas.
SOILS
Banks Lake is situated on the Lakeland soil series, which consist of very deep, excessively drained,
rapid to very rapidly permeable soils (in uplands areas, see Figure 6). They formed in thick beds of
eolian or marine sands, typically submerged deposits that are of Pleistocene age. Slopes are
dominantly from 0 to 12 percent but can range to 85 percent in dissected areas. The lake bed is lined
with clayey sand, and on top of this is silty sand and a thick humus layer. The soils in the area are
low in fertility and organic matter and strongly acidic (USDA 2007).
20 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY
Groundwater
Groundwater occurs within two major water-bearing zones, the surficial aquifer system and the
Floridan aquifer system. Although groundwater is generally 10 to 20 feet (3-6 m) below the ground
surface, the main water-bearing formation underlying Banks Lake NWR is an artesian aquifer. The
surficial aquifer is composed of fine to coarse sands, gravels, silt, clayey silts, and clays. The
Floridan aquifer is the primary water-bearing unit in the area. The Floridan aquifer furnishes almost
all the local water for commercial, industrial, domestic, irrigation, and municipal use. The aquifer is
typically encountered at a depth of 150 feet (46 m) and is usually under artesian conditions (Moody
Air Force Base 2007).
Watersheds, Wetlands, and Drainage Patterns
Banks Lake NWR is located within the Suwannee River Basin, which discharges to the northeastern
Gulf of Mexico. Major drainages in this basin include the Withlacoochee River to the west and the
Alapaha River to the east. A major feature of this basin is the Grand Bay–Banks Lake wetland
complex, which includes Banks Lake NWR. Exclusive of the Okefenokee Swamp, the 13,000-acre
Grand Bay–Banks Lake wetland complex is the largest freshwater lake/swamp system in the coastal
plain of Georgia. This complex is composed of several broad Carolina bays (1 to 4 miles across) and
shallow lakes, interconnected by cypress-gum swamp. Banks Lake is the only major body of water
within this wetland complex.
The wetland system is recharged primarily by precipitation falling within the catchment basin,
although the bays may receive a portion of their recharge water from adjacent shallow groundwater
sources. Recharge by precipitation occurs mainly during the period December through March, when
rainfall is typically heavy and evapotranspiration is low. Although rainfall can be heavy during July
and August, summer storms generally are of short duration and a large part of the water is lost to
evapotranspiration and soil-moisture replenishment. In years when tropical weather systems move
through the area, heavy rainfall can result in significant recharge to the Grand Bay wetland complex.
Based on hydrological studies conducted within this wetland complex, it would take approximately
124 hours, or 5.2 days, to move the stored volume of water resulting from a significant rainfall event,
from Grand Bay into Dudley Bay (Moody Air Force Base 2007).
Surface water flow within and between the bays is driven by gravity. Grand Bay and Old Field Bay
have the highest elevations among the bays: 192.2 (58.6 m) and 191.0 ft (58.2 m) ASL, respectively.
The elevation of Banks Lake is the same as Old Field Bay, 191.0 ft (58.2 m) ASL. Essentially, Moody
Bay, Rat Bay, Dudley Bay, and Moccasin Bay each share the same approximate elevation, ranging
from 186.5 ft (56.8 m) to 186.8 ft (56.9 m) ASL. Based on the reported elevations, Grand Bay and
Old Field Bay would contribute flow into the other bays (Moody Air Force Base 2007).
Water flow through the Grand Bay wetland complex is generally southeastern and southward. Banks
Lake receives overland inflow from Copeland Creek and Darsey Creek, located on the eastern side of
the lake. The northern parts of Banks Lake and approximately one-third of the shrub/swamp area
known as Old Field Bay drain to the northeast via a water-control structure (flashboard riser) into Mill
Creek, which supplies Lake Irma, an artificial waterbody in Lakeland. Mill Creek is a tributary of Big
Creek, which discharges to the Alapaha River, and ultimately into the Suwannee River and the Gulf
of Mexico. Between Old Field Bay and Grand Bay lies a system of open marsh and creek swamp.
Watersheds from the two bays converge here to form Grand Bay Creek, the major surface water
collector for the wetlands complex. Southern parts of Banks Lake, and the remainder of Grand Bay,
drain to the southeast through Grand Bay Creek. Grand Bay Creek eventually flows into the Alapaha
River (Hicks and Clayton 2006).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 5. Carolina Bays within the Grand Bay–Banks Lake ecosystem
22 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 6. Soils of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
AIR QUALITY
The air quality on the refuge is generally good, and there are no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
nonattainment areas in Lanier County (EPA 2007). Areas of the country where air pollution levels
persistently exceed the national ambient air quality standards may be designated "nonattainment" by the
EPA. Occasionally, the air quality on the refuge may be affected by wildfires in the vicinity.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Water Quality
Water quality is a measure of the physical and chemical characteristics of water, and includes
parameters such as specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH (level of acidity), suspended
solids, and other dissolved chemicals. Numerous factors determine the natural water chemistry
of an area, such as the local climate, soil/rock types, and plant communities. All animals and
plants have certain water quality requirements, depending on their life history stages, the
season, and other attributes. Water quality can be negatively influenced by humans through
pollution from a variety of sources, including runoff containing fertilizers and pesticides, leaking
septic systems, oil spills, and other chemical releases.
Several water quality parameters were tested in the Grand Bay–Banks Lake area by Hicks and
Clayton from March until October 2006 (see Table 2), including specific conductance, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and temperature.
Specific conductance (conductivity) is a measure of how well water can conduct an electrical current
and is the reciprocal of specific resistance in ohms. It is typically reported in microsiemens per
centimeter (μS/cm) at 25 °C. Conductivity increases with increasing amount and mobility of ions.
These ions, which come from the breakdown of compounds, conduct electricity because they are
negatively or positively charged when dissolved in water. Therefore, specific conductance is an
indirect measure of the presence of dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate,
sodium, magnesium, calcium, and iron, and can be used as an indicator of water pollution. The
median specific conductance was 3.2 μS/cm in Banks Lake (Table 2).
The pH of water is a measure of the concentration of hydrogen ions. It ranges from 0 (highly acidic)
to 14 (very basic). Pure water has a pH of 7 and is considered to be neutral. The pH of natural
waters depends on the relative concentrations of carbonate ions, hydrogen carbonate ions, and
dissolved carbon dioxide. Rain water in southern Georgia is generally slightly acidic with a pH=5.7
(Hicks and Clayton 2006). Every aquatic organism is adapted to live within a certain pH range, and
typically invertebrate species with shells made of calcium (crayfish, snails, mussels) require higher pH
values (greater than 7 or more alkaline) than fish. In addition, fish eggs and larvae are generally
more sensitive to low pH values than adults. When pH values approach 4 (acidity of vinegar) most
fish die. Banks Lake had a median pH of 5.0 during the study period (Hicks and Clayton 2006).
Adequate dissolved oxygen (DO) is necessary for good water quality, as oxygen is a necessary
element to all forms of life. It is typically measured in milligrams per liter (mg/l). As DO levels in
water drop below 5.0 mg/l, aquatic life is put under stress. Oxygen enters the water column through
diffusion at the air-water interface, through aeration (mixing) and as a by-product of photosynthesis in
aquatic plants. DO can decrease through the decay of organic matter, and if oxygen levels remain
below 1-2 mg/l for a few hours large fish kills can result. Oxygen requirements differ among fish
species, with catfish and bowfin having lower DO needs than species such as bass and sunfish. The
median DO level for Banks Lake during the study period was 6.3 mg/l.
24 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Biological and chemical processes are dependent on water temperature. Temperature influences the
amount of dissolved gasses and DO concentrations are lower in warmer water. In addition, warm
water can stimulate the growth of algae, which consume oxygen during decomposition. Many fish
species are adapted to live in a specific temperature range, and this parameter is an important factor
in determining the distributions of fish species. The temperature range for Banks Lake during March
to October was 24 – 32 °C (75-89°F).
Table 2. Selected water quality parameters for the Grand Bay–Banks Lake area
Parameter Banks Lake Grand Bay Grand Bay Creek Shiner Pond
Specific Conductivity (μS/cm) 3.2 2.5 8.0 7.4
pH 5.0 5.0 4.3 5.8
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 6.3 1.2 <2.0 1.2
Temperature Range (°C) 24 - 32 24 - 32 22 - 26 24 – 32
Temperature Range (°F) 75 - 89 75 - 89 71 - 79 75 - 89
Source: Hicks and Clayton 2006
Water Quantity
Water availability on the refuge is governed predominantly by precipitation patterns within the
catchment basin. This means water levels are primarily controlled by the balance between
precipitation, evapotranspiration and anthropogenic modifications in the system. Banks Lake was
formed in circa 1830 by the construction of an earthen dam along the north-east portion of the refuge
(USFWS 1992). A flood breached the dam in 1921, after which most of the lake drained and
remained low until 1940 when the dam was repaired and the lake rose to its current level (TAI
Environmental Sciences 1994). Water levels generally fluctuate less than a foot (30 cm) up or down
annually and can be controlled through the flashboard riser at the north-east end of the lake. Four
lake drawdowns have been conducted to control nuisance aquatic vegetation, during which the lake
level was lowered 6 feet (1.8 m) or more (USFWS 2007a).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Banks Lake NWR encompasses a variety of habitat types, open water, freshwater marshes, hardwood
swamps, and upland areas that are typical of the Tifton Uplands ecoregion (GDNR 2005) found in
southcentral Georgia (Figure 7). Habitat descriptions are based on the vegetation types outlined in
“Current and Historic Land Cover of Grand Bay–Banks Lake (GBBL) Ecosystem in Lanier and Lowndes
Counties, Georgia” (Squire et al. 2006). Table 3 lists habitat types and sizes found on the refuge while
Figure 8 displays the vegetation map for the refuge. On Figure 8, approximately 26 acres of refuge lands
remain unclassified in terms of habitat type because the vegetation data layer does not cover the latest
refuge boundary layer in its entirety. Also noteworthy is that the habitat sizes were calculated for the
areas within the latest refuge boundary (ownership) dataset, which totals 2,981 acres (1,206 ha).
Presently, the refuge’s known acquisition acreage comprises 3,559 acres (1,440 ha). For additional
details regarding refuge-owned lands and the acquisition boundary, please refer to Chapter IV,
Management Direction, under the section “Resource Protection.” The definition of “acquisition boundary,”
as it applies to national wildlife refuges, is provided in the Glossary (Appendix A).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 3. Habitat types and sizes on Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Type Acres / Hectares
Cypress-Gum Swamp 676 / 273
Open Water 634 / 256
Herbaceous Marsh 582 / 235
Scrub/Shrub 580 / 235
Evergreen Forested Wetland 440 / 178
Mixed Forest 29 / 12
Clear-cut Wetland 10 / 4
Pine Plantation 3 / 1
Total 2,954 / 1,196
Cypress-Gum Swamp
The margins of the marshes and areas of the lake are dominated by black gum-cypress forests, with
significant amounts of red maples, tupelos (Nyssa spp.), gums (Liquidambar spp.), sweetbay, cypress
and other wetland trees. These swamps have a moderate to dense understory layer, consisting of
heaths (Family Ericaceae), redbay (Persea borbonia), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), cinnamon fern
(Osmunda cinnamomea), and greenbriers (Smilax rotundifolia). Many of the hardwood swamps on
the refuge have succeeded or are succeeding toward denser and less diverse shrub vegetation as a
result of long-term maintenance of artificially high water levels and the resultant lack of periodic fires.
Open Water
Within the refuge, there are areas of open water, the largest of which is Banks Lake. These areas
are typically characterized by their dark acidic water resulting from an accumulation of tannic and
humic acids in the system. Open water areas contain typical aquatic plants, including water lily
(Nymphaea odorata), water shield (Brasenia schreberi), fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), water
hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and other associated emergents. A prominent tree found scattered
throughout the lake is pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), most of which support Spanish moss
(Tillandsia usneoides) and other epiphytic plants. Throughout the GBBL and especially in the Eagle’s
Neck area which includes a section of the refuge, open water has been transitioning to herbaceous
marsh. Likewise, open water is declining in size on the refuge, and over the last 20 years, at least 25
percent of open water has been replaced by wetlands (Squire et al. 2006).
Herbaceous Marsh
Marshes are a type of wetland which is subject to frequent or continuous inundation. These habitats
are dominated by emergents such as reeds (Phragmites spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), and rushes
(Scirpus spp.). Other taxa that make up this habitat include: chain fern (Woodwardia virginica),
pitcher plants (Sarricenia spp.), swamp loosestrife (Decodon verticillatus) and paint root (Lacnanthes
tinctoria). On the refuge, marshes are found primarily in the Old Field Bay.
26 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Georgia ecoregions
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Scrub/Shrub
The scrub/shrub community exists as a transition area between the herbaceous marsh and evergreen
forested wetlands. Scrub/shrub areas are nonforested areas dominated by woody shrubs, seedlings, and
saplings averaging less than 20 feet in height. These wetlands intergrade with forested wetlands,
nonforested emergent wetlands, and open water. The scrub/shrub areas are dominated by sweetbay
(Magnolia virginiana), white titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), Virginia sweetspire (Clethra
alnifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum), and stunted pond pine (Pinus serotina).
Evergreen Forested Wetland
This community includes bay shrubs and wet pine species such as slash (Pinus elliottii). The evergreen
"bay" shrubs include black titi (Cliftonia monophylla), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), and blaspheme-vine (Smilax
laurifolia). On the refuge, these areas are typically surrounded by scrub/shrub.
Mixed Forest
Only a small percentage of the refuge comprises this vegetation type. On the refuge, it generally
consists of a combination of deciduous and coniferous trees and is found on elevated “islands”
among the cypress-gum swamp.
Clearcut Wetlands, Pine Plantation, and Urban Areas
Several very small areas of cleared cypress/gum exist on the refuge. A small portion of formerly
forested area on the refuge was converted to pine plantation prior to acquisition. The “urban” areas
consist primarily of the roads, buildings, and parking lots on the public access areas at the northeast
portion of the lake and make up less than one acre.
WILDLIFE
The lands and waters of Banks Lake NWR provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including fish,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds (Appendix I). Several representative species from each
taxonomic category are described below.
Fishes
A fish survey was completed for Banks Lake, Grand Bay, Grand Bay Creek, and Shiner Pond (Vives
2003) with a total of 23 species encountered. Common species included largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and sunfish (Enneacanthus and
Lepomis spp.). Other species captured were yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), chain and redfin
pickerel (Esox niger and E. americanus), line topminnows (Fundulus lineolatus), and eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki). At least two state-listed species of concern were documented,
the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea) and golden topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus).
The fishery dynamics were studied for Banks Lake by Herrington et al. (2005), using electrofishing catch
per unit effort data (Table 4). Based on these findings, the fish assemblage structure appeared stunted
and persistent, with little species turnover and changes in species abundance over the 12-year study
period. Sportfish dynamics indicated that bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) and largemouth bass
populations exhibited poor relative weights. The authors concluded that bluegills were stunted due to
overcrowding caused by low predation by largemouth bass. The weedy conditions were believed to
hinder efficient feeding by bass on bluegill, and lake drawdowns and other aquatic vegetation control
techniques were suggested to improve the fishery. The GDNR’s Division of Wildlife Resources stocked
the lake with bluegill and largemouth bass fingerlings in 2002, following a lake drawdown and
replacement of a 1940s water control structure (USFWS 2002).
28 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 8. Vegetation of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Table 4. Electrofishing summary for Banks Lake (CPUE = catch per unit effort)
Species Jun
1992
Oct
1994
Nov
1995
Nov
1996
Dec
1997
Nov
1999
Sept
2001
Dec
2005
Dec
2006
Chain Pickerel 3.14 2.43 6.5 7.71 7.67 11.14 8.57 10.15 4.57
Bluegill 28.14 57 170.25 57.57 18.33 38.43 12 41.23 14.57
Largemouth
Bass 15.29 30.71 35.25 18.71 15.33 15 13.57 16 11.86
Lake
Chubsucker 8.43 9.29 50.5 0.43 3.67 51.14 8.86 32 10.29
Gar 7.29 3.86 10.75 5.57 1 7.86 2.86 13.85 1.14
Warmouth 2.43 2 9.75 4.86 4.67 7.71 2.57 19.38 3.14
Golden Shiner 6.14 65.86 1.5 0.71 1.17 5.14 2.86 6.77 0.14
Black Crappie 0 0 21.75 0.57 1.83 1.57 0 38.15 2.57
Bowfin 0.71 2.14 27 3.29 1.83 4.71 0.43 32.92 5.71
NOTES: In November 2001, a new water control structure was installed, followed by a drawdown during
which the lake drained further than anticipated, resulting in a fish kill. Subsequently, 421,000 bluegill
fingerlings were released in February 2002 by GADNR, followed by 30,000 largemouth bass fingerlings in
April 2002.
Amphibians
Amphibians have not been intensively surveyed on the refuge, but at least 24 species have been
documented on the adjacent Moody Air Force Base (Palis 2003) and many of these will likely be
present on the refuge. They include several frogs such as American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),
green frogs (R. clamitans), pig frogs (R. grylio), and southern leopard frogs (R. sphenocephala), and
spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). Six treefrog species (Hyla spp.) have the potential to be found
on the refuge. Southern toads (Bufo terrestris) are likely to be found in upland areas of the refuge.
Salamanders documented on the refuge include the more aquatic eastern newt (Notophthalmus
viridescens), greater siren (Siren lacertina), and two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), while the
mole salamander (Ambystoma talpoideum) is primarily a terrestrial species. The dwarf siren
(Pseudobranchus striatus), a state-listed species, has not been documented on the refuge, nor was it
found during a rare-species survey on Moody Air Force Base (Geo-Marine, Inc., 2004). In addition, a
survey on Moody Air Force Base for the federally threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum) did not encounter this species (Palis 2005), and it has not been documented on the
refuge. Flatwoods salamanders have narrow habitat requirements, living in longleaf pine flatwoods
with scattered ponds and are unlikely to be found on the refuge.
Reptiles
A thorough reptile survey has not been performed on the refuge, but at least 38 species have been
documented on the adjacent air base (Moody Air Force Base 2007). Most of these include aquatic or
wetland species that would likely be found on the refuge. The list includes a few upland species,
which could be found on higher areas of the refuge.
30 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The largest and most prominent reptile on the refuge is the American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis). Alligators are the top predator on the refuge, an important role in maintaining the
ecological balance. The alligator population has not been systematically assessed on the refuge, but
they are believed to be common (USFWS, pers. comm., Jan 2008). Other aquatic reptiles include
several species of turtles, such as the chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia), musk turtle
(Sternotherus odoratus), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Florida softshell turtle (Apalone
ferox), and yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta scripta). The refuge lies within the range of the
alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), a state-listed species, but until recently it has not
been documented there. In 2005, an alligator snapping turtle was found by refuge volunteers along
the north side of SR 122 and was carried across the road and released into Banks Lake (S. Olsen,
Pers. Comm., June 2009). This species was not found during a survey for rare species on Moody Air
Force Base (Geo-Marine, Inc., 2004). Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina carolina) are
terrestrial, and can be found in a variety of wetland and upland habitats on the refuge. The only true
tortoise east of the Mississippi, the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a state-listed species,
has been infrequently observed on the refuge. This species prefers drier, more upland habitats, and
would be unlikely to be found on the refuge.
The green anole (Anolis caroleninsis) is relatively common on the refuge, while several skinks such
as the broadheaded skink (Eumeces laticeps) and ground skink (Scincella lateralis) may be
occasionally found in the refuge uplands.
Snakes are likely the most diverse group of reptiles on the refuge. Many of these are aquatic or
wetlands-associated, such as several true water snakes (Nerodia spp.), eastern mud snakes (Farancia
abacura abacura), and two crayfish snakes (Regina spp.). More upland species include the eastern
hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos), eastern kingsnake (Lampropeltis triangulurn triangulum), gray
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta spiloides), and southern black racer (Coluber constrictor priapus). Three
venomous snakes potentially found on the refuge are the eastern coral snake (Micrurus fulvius),
cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivoris), and canebrake (timber) rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus).
The latter prefers drier areas and has a large home range (Martin 2000, Adams 2005), and the refuge
would likely only be able to support a few individuals. Likewise, the federally protected eastern indigo
snake (Drymarchon couperi) is unlikely to be found on the refuge due to habitat limitations since it has a
large home range (Speake et al. 1978, Layne and Steiner 1996, Legare 2002). Eastern indigo snakes
were not documented during a survey on Moody Air Force Base (BHE Environmental, Inc., 2002).
Birds
A variety of birds, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, water birds, birds of prey,
vultures, and other land birds are found on the refuge. More than 150 species have been
documented on neighboring Moody Air Force Base (Appendix I), and many of these are likely to
be supported by refuge habitats.
Waterfowl. The refuge’s lake and wetlands provide resting and foraging habitat for several
species of waterfowl, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), blue-winged teal (A. discors), ring-necked
duck (Aythya collaris), American coot (Fulica arnericana), common moorhen (Gallinula
chloropus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis) and wood duck (Aix sponsa). The refuge is
particularly suited to wood ducks, since this species is more dependent on forest land than is any
other American waterfowl. Hardwood forests, especially bottomland hardwoods that contain
permanent freshwater ponds with at least some brushy borders and swampy areas, provide
especially suitable foraging areas and cover for wood ducks.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Shorebirds. Banks Lake NWR provides habitat for shorebirds, mostly along the lakes edges.
Temporary habitat is available during lake drawdowns, which are periodically scheduled to control
excessive aquatic plant growth (USFWS 2007a). Shorebird species likely to utilize the refuge include
upland sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), least sandpiper (Calidris minutilla), killdeer (Charadrius
vociferous), common snipe (Capella gallinago), lesser and greater yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes and T.
melanoleuca), and solitary sandpiper (T. solitaria).
Wading Birds. Wading birds at the refuge utilize the broad range of wetland habitat types for foraging
and roosting. The refuge’s wading birds include the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), American
bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), green heron (Butorides striatus), great egret (Casmerodius albus),
snowy and little blue egrets (Egretta thulla and E. Ecaerulea), tricolor heron (E. tricolor), white ibis
(Eudocimus albus), sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), and wood stork (Mycteria arnericana), a
federally listed species. A resident population of Florida sandhill cranes (G.c. pratensis), a species
listed as threatened in Florida, was introduced into the GBBL area by GADNR.
Raptors, Owls, and Vultures. Several raptors are found on the refuge, ranging from the tiny American
kestrel (Falco sparverius) to the large bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Other birds of prey that
utilize the refuge include Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks (Accipiter cooperii and A. striatus), red-tailed
and red-shouldered hawks (Buteo jamaicensis and B. lineatus), northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus), Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis), and osprey (Pandion haliaetus). Owls include the
great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), barred owl (Strix varia), and eastern screech owl (Otus asio).
Turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) and black vultures (Coragyps atratus) are found on the refuge.
Neotropical Migratory Birds. A variety of neotropical migratory birds (passerines) can be found on the
refuge year-round or during their fall and spring migrations. Major groups include finches, thrushes,
woodpeckers, night hawks, doves, orioles, sparrows, tanagers, grackles, nuthatches, swallows,
vireos, and warblers (Appendix I).
Mammals
Mammals found on Banks Lake NWR are likely to include those which are relatively common state-wide.
Bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans) are the largest predators and will be found in
a variety of habitats. Smaller predators include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon
lotor), red fox ((Vulpes vulpes ), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and otter (Lutra canadensis).
Conspicuous herbivores include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger). In addition, numerous small mammals, including rats,
mice, voles, shrews, and moles occupy various habitats on the refuge. Seven species of bats,
including two that are state-listed—the southeastern bat (Myotis austroriparius) and the northern
yellow bat (Lasiurus intermedius)—have been documented on Moody Air Force Base and could
potentially be found on the refuge (BHE Environmental 2001).
NONNATIVE AND NUISANCE SPECIES
Nonnative or exotic species are animals and plants that have established populations outside of their
historical range. In their new environment, nonnative species often do not have significant predators or
competitors to help control their numbers. Under these conditions, they can become an important
component of an ecosystem, sometimes having profound effects on ecological processes that include
predation, competition, soil moisture, fire regimes, and disease vectors (Mooney and Hobbs 2000).
Sometimes, nonnative species will flourish to the detriment of native animals and plants. One such
problematic species on the refuge is water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). This floating plant, a native of
South America, grows rapidly and spreads quickly through budding. Large mats of water hyacinth can
block the light essential to submerged aquatic plants. In extreme cases, oxygen levels can decline
32 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
significantly underneath these floating weed beds to the detriment of fish and invertebrates (Schmitz et al.
1993). Floating mats of water hyacinth can also impede boat traffic. Since its establishment, the refuge
has controlled invading water hyacinth through the application of approved herbicides. These and other
nonnative species that may occur on the refuge are listed in Table 5.
Nuisance species are native, but are potentially injurious to humans, fish, wildlife, or habitats. On the
refuge, nuisance species consist of submerged aquatic plants, primarily fanwort (Cabomba
caroliniana). Fanwort grows in long strands that can reach the surface. At high densities, submerged
aquatic vegetation can limit fish production and be an impediment to boat traffic. On the refuge,
management for submerged aquatic vegetation consists of conducting periodic lake drawdowns
during the winter months in order to freeze and kill the exposed plants (USFWS 2007a).
Table 5. Nonnative species documented or potentially occurring on Banks Lake National
Wildlife Refuge
Common Name Scientific Name
PLANTS
Alligator Weed Alternanthera philoxeroides
Annual Bluegrass Poa annua
Asiatic False Hawksbeard Youngia japonica
Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon
Black Medic Medicago lupulina
Brazilian Vervain Verbena brasiliensis
Chinese Privet Ligustrum sinense
Common Bedstraw Galium tinctorium
Common Chickweed Stellaria media
Curly Dock Rumex crispus
Glossy Privet Ligustrum lucidum
Hop Clover Trifolium campestre
Japanese Honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Ladysthumb Polygonum persicaria
Narrow-leaved Vetch Vicia angustifolia
Quaking Grass Briza minor
Southern Rockbell Wahlenbergia marginata
Sticky Chickweed Cerastium glomeratum
Water Hyacinth Eichhornia crassipes
Yellow foxtail
Setaria glauca
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Common Name Scientific Name
BIRDS
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis
Eurasian Collared Dove Streptopelia decaocto
European Starling Sturnus vulgaris
House Sparrow Passer domesticus
Rock Pigeon Columba livia
MAMMALS
Black Rat Rattus rattus
Coyote Canis latrans
Feral Hog Sus scrofa
House Mouse Mus musculus
Nine-banded Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus
Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus
RARE, ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Several federal- and state-listed threatened and endangered as well as species of concern are known to
occur or potentially occur within the refuge. They include reptiles, birds, and mammals (Table 6).
American Alligator
The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is federally listed as threatened only as a result of
its similarity in appearance to the federally listed American crocodile. The species is not regulated
under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and is not in danger of becoming extinct. Its current
listing is the result of a successful recovery program. American alligator populations reached all-time
lows in the 1950s, primarily due to market-hunting and habitat loss. In 1967, under a law that
preceded the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the alligator was listed as endangered. A combined
effort by the Service and state wildlife agencies in the southern United States saved these unique
animals and, in 1987, the alligator was pronounced fully recovered, making it one of the first
endangered species success stories. Currently, approximately 200,000 alligators exist in the State of
Georgia (GADNR 2008a). The rise in alligator numbers and concurrent development of human
settlements in or near alligator habitat has resulted in some human/alligator conflicts. In 1989, the
GDNR initiated a nuisance alligator program that allows licensed agent trappers to capture and
harvest specific nuisance alligators over 4 feet in length. A nuisance alligator is one that exhibits
aggressive behavior toward humans or domestic animals, shows symptoms of some debilitating
illness or injury, or inhabits recreational waters intended primarily for swimming. The state regulates
an alligator hunting program. The status of alligators on the refuge is currently unknown, but they are
believed to be common.
34 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a large raptor whose populations declined through
poaching, habitat loss, and pesticide poisoning (Buehler 2000). In 1967, it was listed as endangered.
Through various conservation efforts, the bald eagle’s status was changed to threatened in 1995 and
eventually removed from the Endangered Species List in July 2007. It remains federally protected
under the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and is state-listed as threatened. Juvenile
eagles and nonnesting adults can be seen throughout Georgia, but known nesting activity is
concentrated mostly along the coast and near major rivers, wetlands, and reservoirs in the southern
and central parts of the state. Historically, the coastal area, including the barrier islands, marsh
islands, and nearby mainland, has provided good eagle nesting habitat and still supports the greatest
population density. However, construction of reservoirs has increased suitable inland nesting habitat.
Bald eagles prefer isolated sites for nesting but adapt to the presence of human disturbance in some
areas (GADNR 1999). Nests are usually built in a large, open-topped pine near open water, often on
high ground if available, but occasionally cypress trees are also used. Based on 2008 GADNR survey
data, the nearest known active bald eagle nest is located approximately 15 miles (24 km) southwest of the
refuge (J. Ozier, GADNR, pers. comm., 30 Jul 2008). Bald eagles have been known to nest on the
refuge, but no active nests have been documented for over 10 years.
Wood Stork
The wood stork (Mycteria americana) is a large wading bird that typically nests in the upper branches
of black gum (Nyssa biflora) or cypress (Taxodium distichum) trees that are in standing water.
Standing water deters mammalian predators and is an essential element of colony sites. Wood
storks are tactile feeders and frequently forage in large groups in open wetlands where prey species
are available and water depths are less than 20 inches (50 cm). From the 1960s to the mid-1980s,
the wood stork nesting population shifted from southern Florida to northern Florida, Georgia, and
South Carolina (Ogden et al. 1987). Prior to 1970, a majority (70 percent) of the population nested
south of Lake Okeechobee, Florida and declined from 8,500 pairs in 1961 to fewer than 500 pairs in
the late 1980s and early 1990s as a result of changes in the Everglades hydrology caused by
channelization and other water control efforts. During the same period, nesting in Georgia increased
from 4 to 1,501 pairs and nesting in South Carolina increased from 11 to 829 pairs (USFWS 1997).
In 2005, 1,817 pairs were documented at 19 colonies in Georgia, and in 2006 there were 1,928 pairs
at 21 colonies (USFWS 2007b). Several colonies in Georgia and north Florida are within 75 miles
(120 km) of Banks Lake NWR (Brooks and Dean, in press), and wood storks have been observed
foraging on the refuge. This species is state- and federal-listed as endangered.
Round-tailed Muskrat
The round-tailed muskrat (Neofiber alleni) is a species of conservation concern (listed as threatened
in Georgia) that represents a monotypic genus with a patchy distribution restricted to Florida and
southern Georgia (Bergstrom et al. 2000; Lefebvre and Tilmant 1992). Habitat loss and alteration are
the primary causes of their decline. Round-tailed muskrats are semiaquatic, nocturnal herbivores
usually found in shallow marshes with emergent vegetation (Birkenholz 1963; Lefebvre and Tilmant
1992). Preferred habitat appears to be floating mats of vegetation in the vicinity of open water with
emergent sedges and floating-leafed vegetation. At Grand Bay in South Georgia, preferred habitat
appears to exist mainly along the ecotone between mixed emergent marsh and dense chain-fern
marsh (GADNR 1999). They have been common in the marshes of Grand Bay Wildlife Management
Area (GADNR 1999; S. Aicher USFWS, pers. comm., Feb. 2008), where their densities have been
estimated to reach 100-121 animals per acre or 250-300 per hectare (GADNR 1999).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Table 6. Listed wildlife species documented or potentially occurring on Banks Lake National
Wildlife Refuge
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
GWRD USFWS
REPTILES
American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis - T(S/A)
BIRDS
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus T -
Wood Stork Mycteria americana E E
MAMMALS
Round-tailed Muskrat Neofiber alleni T -
Key: E=endangered, T=threatened, T(S/A) = Similarity of Appearance (to Threatened American crocodile)
Listed Plants
Several state-protected plant species of concern are listed as occurring in Lanier County (GWRD
2007). Listed species have declined due to habitat loss resulting from urbanization and agriculture,
changes in land-use (e.g., fire suppression), competition with exotic plants, and changes in
hydrology. Listed plant species potentially occurring on Banks Lake NWR are shown in Table 7 (Dr.
R. Carter, Valdosta State University, pers. comm., 20 Jun 2008).
Table 7. State-listed plants likely to occur on Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Common Name Scientific Name
Status
GWRD USFWS
Greenfly Orchid Epidendrum conopseum SC -
Hooded Pitcherplant Sarracenia minor SC -
Yellow Flytrap Sarracenia flava SC -
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The cultural history of the Banks Lake area extends back to at least 15,000 years before present (BP)
covering the Paleo-Indian, Archaic, Woodland, Mississippi, and Historic Periods. Human occupation
of Georgia likely occurred during the end of the last ice age, which marked a climatic transitional
period during which the vast grasslands, boreal forests, and associated mega-fauna found in this part
of the state began to give way to oak-hickory forests and smaller wildlife species, most of which
continue to inhabit the area (Anderson et al. 1990). This timeframe is also called the Paleo-Indian
Period (15,000 - 10,000 BP), during which humans were predominantly nomadic hunters and
engaged in supplemental gathering of nuts and other plant resources. The Clovis people, one of
several Paleo-Indian groups, were long-regarded as the first human inhabitants of the New World and
ancestors of all the indigenous cultures of North and South America. Clovis points found on the
refuge indicate that the area was inhabited by humans by 11,000 BP (USFWS 1992).
36 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The Archaic Period (10,000 - 3,000 BP) followed the Paleo-Indian Period. The climate continued to
become warmer and wetter, reestablishing deciduous forests and consequently forcing a shift in food
procurement (White 1988). With the nomadic mega-fauna largely extinct, the Archaic Indians
switched to smaller, more elusive forest prey such as deer, raccoon, squirrel, and turkey. They also
began fishing, and collecting mollusks. The gradual shift from a nomadic to sedentary lifestyle also
led to the development of horticulture and pottery-making. Pottery shards found on the refuge have
been dated to the Archaic Period (USFWS 1992).
The Woodland Period (3,000 - 1,000 BP) followed the Archaic Period. Sedentism continued, with
more varieties of crops being grown (White 1988). Mollusks disappeared from the diet due to
changes in climate. Pottery manufacturing and decorating became more sophisticated (ceramics
were first used) and ceremonial activities grew more elaborate. Chert (silica rock) tools, diagnostic of
the Woodland Period, have been identified on the refuge (USFWS 1992).
The Mississippi Period (1,000 - 460 BP/Anno Domini [AD] 1540) is considered the pinnacle of native
American culture in this region, the culmination of over 1,000 years of development resulting in large
ceremonial and political centers. The Mississippian way of life was dominated by agriculture, being
supplemented by hunting, gathering, and fishing. The decline of the Mississippian cultural traditions
was brought about by the arrival of Europeans, whose military expeditions and introduced diseases
killed thousands of Native Americans and destabilized their cultural and political centers (Anderson et
al. 1990). Although Mississippian cultures were likely present in the area, no artifacts dating from this
period were recovered during the 1992 archaeological survey.
The Historic Period (1540 AD - Present) marks the final disintegration of the Mississippian Chiefdoms
into smaller tribal affiliations. During this period, most of Georgia was part of the Creek Confederacy.
The Creeks were part of the larger Muskogee group, which also included Choctaw and Chickasaw
groups. The DeSoto expedition was the first to contact the Creeks in 1540. Later the Creeks formed
alliances with the English, which lasted through the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The
Creek Confederacy broke up when it accepted aid from the US and was forced into land concessions
in 1814 and later moved to Oklahoma (White 1988). In 1819, the land ceded by the Creeks was
surveyed and divided, a portion of which eventually became Lanier County (Roquemore 1989). The
first settler, J.D. Patten, arrived in 1820, followed in 1825 by Joshua Lee, who damned the outlet of
the Grand Bay Swamp, creating Lee's Millpond. The mill, which processed grist, cotton, and rice
became the focal point for agricultural activity in the area. A flood destroyed the mill and dam in
1848, and Lee sold the property. It was purchased by William Lastinger, who raised the dam and
built a sawmill. Lastinger sold the mill in 1857 to Henry Banks, who renamed the pond, Bank's
Millpond. In 1926, James Banks, son of Henry Banks, sold the lake to State Senator E.D. Rivers,
who named it Banks Lake. Rivers proposed several commercial and recreational uses for the lake,
none of which materialized (Scheimer 1988). From 1935 to 1939, a Civilian Conservation Corps
camp was located at Banks Lake, and assisted with forestry and firefighting tasks. After 1939, the
land was purchased by the Tobacco Belt Trust Company, which later deeded it to Mrs. E.D. Rivers.
In 1980, Mrs. Rivers transferred the land to The Nature Conservancy, which held it in trust until 1985,
when the Service acquired it. Numerous historical artifacts have been found on the refuge, including
stoneware, glass, ceramic, and brass items (USFWS 1992).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND ASSOCIATED LAND USE CHANGES
Georgia is considered one of the seven fastest-growing states in the nation (U.S. Census Bureau
2007) and has an estimated population growth of 160,700 people annually (approximately 7.9
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
percent). Consequently, between 1974 and 2005, an average of 86,387 acres (34,959 ha) was
developed each year in association with the population increase. Development is primarily in the
form of low-density residential areas, commercial buildings, and associated parking lots and roads. In
recent years, the rate of urbanization has accelerated with an average rate of conversion to urban
land use approximating 333,028 acres (134,771 ha) annually between 2001 and 2005 based on
Georgia land- use trend analyses (University of Georgia 2007c). The land use change has been
primarily at the expense of forested areas (deciduous forests and forested wetlands), not agricultural
lands (University of Georgia 2007). The state's population was estimated at 9,363,941 in 2006 and is
expected to surpass 12 million by 2030 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). If current land conversion rates
associated with this rise in population are applied (with the assumption, among others, that housing
densities remain at current levels), approximately 7,326,616 additional acres (2,964,976 ha) will be
developed by 2030 or an additional 19 percent of the state’s total surface area. Already, more than
two percent or 1,287 square miles (3,335 km2) of the state is covered by impervious surfaces
(University of Georgia 2007). Although Lanier County and neighboring counties have relatively low
population densities, their growth rates are higher than the state average (Table 8) and these areas
will likely change significantly in future land use.
Table 8. Regional county population data for Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
County 2000
Population
% Increase
2000-2015
Predicted 2015
Population*
Atkinson 7,609 23.0% 9,358
Berrien 16,235 8.4% 17,605
Clinch 6,878 9.3% 7,521
Echols 3,754 34.8% 5,061
Lanier 7,241 9.1% 7,897
Lowndes 92,115 13.7% 104,767
Source: State of Georgia 2005
COUNTY DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMIC INDICATORS
In 2000, there were 7,241 people in Lanier County (Table 9) with a population density of 38.7/mi²
(100.2/km²). There were 3,219 housing units at an average density of 17.2/mi² (44.4/km²). The racial
makeup of the county was 72.9 percent White, 25.2 percent Black or African-American, 2.4 percent
Hispanic/Latino, 0.7 percent Native-American, 0.4 percent Asian, 0.1 percent Pacific Islander, and the
remainder of other or mixed races (U.S. Census Bureau 2007). The median income for a household
in the county was $29,171, and the median income for a family was $34,512. Males had a median
income of $26,023 versus $20,021 for females. The per capita income for the county was $13,690.
About 15.30 percent of families and 18.50 percent of the population were below the poverty line,
including 22.90 percent of those under age 18 and 24.20 percent of those of age 65 or over (U.S.
Census Bureau 2007). Major economic activities include construction, manufacturing (furniture),
retail, accommodation/food services, agriculture, and forestry (Georgia Department of Labor 2006).
Land use (1998 data) is primarily evergreen forest, forested wetland, agriculture, clearcut, and urban
(University of Georgia 2007).
38 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The counties bordering Lanier County have similar demographics (Table 9). Their populations are
approximately two-thirds white, with African-Americans ranging between 29 and 7 percent.
Population densities are relatively similar, except for Lowndes County where it is much higher.
Median annual household incomes range between $25,000 and $32,000, well below the American
average ($44,334). In terms of their percentage of people, the age classes are very similar, with a
relatively high number of young people, indicating a growing population. Major economic activities
vary between some of the counties. Atkinson, Berrien, and Clinch Counties have mostly agriculture
and forestry, wood manufacturing, retail, health care, and accommodation/food service sector jobs.
Echols County industries are mostly related to agriculture and forestry. Lowndes County has the
most diverse industries, including agriculture, forestry, textiles, wood/paper production, chemical
manufacturing, plastics/rubber manufacturing, furniture, and retail, as well as technical and
professional services (Georgia Department of Labor 2006). Land use among the neighboring
counties is similar, with evergreen forests comprising the largest component (range: 30-50 percent),
except for Berrien County, where agricultural lands are the largest component (35 percent). Next,
forested wetlands are the major land use type (range: 15-35 percent), followed by clearcut or sparse
areas (range: 10-15 percent) and urban lands comprising 10 percent or the land in each of these
counties (University of Georgia 2007).
STATEWIDE WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES
Fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-associated activities are an important component of the
recreational opportunities available in Georgia (U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau 2001). More than 2 million Georgia
residents and nonresidents engage in hunting, fishing, and wildlife-watching activities. Wildlife
watchers comprised the largest component (68 percent) of the wildlife-related activities, with over 1.5
million people engaged in this activity.
In 2001, state residents and nonresidents spent nearly $1.7 billion on wildlife recreation in Georgia.
Of that total, trip-related expenditures were $561 million and equipment purchases totaled $909
million. The remaining $194 million were spent on licenses, contributions, land ownership and
leasing, and other items and services. Expenditures by anglers and wildlife watchers in Georgia rose
significantly. Anglers spent $1 billion in 2006 compared to $543 million in 2001, while wildlife watcher
expenditures rose from $535 million in 2001 to $1.8 billion in 2006. Hunting expenditures rose
slightly from $503 million in 2001 to $651 million in 2006 (USFWS 2006c).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
This section describes the refuge’s land protection and conservation efforts; its visitor services
program; and its personnel, operations, and maintenance programs.
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Banks Lake NWR is part of the GBBL ecosystem, and a large section of its southern boundary abuts
Moody Air Force Base and is therefore largely protected from potential adjacent development (Figure
9). Along the northwest side of the refuge, the Georgia Department of Transportation owns a
wetlands mitigation area, which provides an added buffer between private lands and the refuge.
However, to the north and east, the refuge lies against private lands that were, until recently, largely
rural and agricultural in nature, but are becoming increasingly developed.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Currently, only a portion of the refuge’s acquisition boundary is officially established as a result of
surveys that were mandated as part of recent legal proceedings regarding land ownership between
the refuge and private landowners whose properties lie along the lake’s edge off of West Main Street
(SR 122). In addition, the lack of formal boundaries has led to some issues regarding the use of lake
water by adjacent private or commercial land owners. Figure 10 shows land parcel information in
relationship to the refuge.
VISITOR SERVICES
Refuge visitation averages 82,000 visitors annually. The primary visitor activity on the refuge is
freshwater fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill, crappie, and catfish. Peak use of the lake is during
March, April, and May, coinciding with the fish spawning season. The refuge provides specially
designed fishing piers that can accommodate anglers with disabilities.
Many visitors experience fishing and wildlife observation simultaneously. However, a growing
number of visitors are citing wildlife observation and photography as their main reasons for visiting.
Wading birds, ospreys, and bald eagles continue to be the top species of viewing and photography
interest. In addition, the photography of Carolina bay habitats is growing in popularity.
The refuge has contracted with Banks Lake Outpost to provide canoes and kayaks rentals, fish,
tackle and bait, and snacks. Banks Lake Outpost employees and Service volunteers provide the
primary visitor contact for the refuge.
40 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Table 9. Demographics for Lanier County and neighboring counties
Parameter Atkinson Berrien Clinch Echols Lanier Lowndes
Total Area (mi²/ km²) 344/891 458/1,186 824/2,125 421/1,090 200/518 511/1,323
Population 7,609 16,235 6,878 3,754 7,241 92,115
% White 66 85 69 75 72 62
% Black 19 11 29 7 25 34
% Latino 14 2 1 17 2 3
% Other Races 1 2 1 1 1 1
Population Density(per mi²/
km²) 22/9 36/14 8/3 9/4 39/15 183/71
Housing Density(per mi²/ km²) 9/4 16/6 4/1 4/1 16/6 72/28
Median Income (household) $26,470 $30,044 $26,755 $25,851 $29,171 $32,132
% < 18 years 30 27 28 29 27 26
% 19 - 44 years 39 37 43 43 38 46
% 45 - 64 20 23 23 18 20 18
% > 65 11 13 6 10 15 10
Source: US Census 2007
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Figure 9. Land status map of Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent areas
42 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 10. Land ownership map with parcel identification numbers for Banks Lake National
Wildlife Refuge and surrounding area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
Hunting is currently not permitted on the refuge. The refuge staff has coordinated the refuge’s
environmental education and other activities with GDNR through their Grand Bay Environmental
Education Center, which is located south of Banks Lake and just east of Moody Air Force Base.
The refuge continues to pursue an environmental education partnership with the local Lanier
County School System.
During fiscal year 2007, the Lowndes County Regional Development Council successfully applied for
and managed an environmental education grant-in-aid which supported the development of a website
that highlights the refuge. The website was designed to provide teachers and schools with general
information on the refuge and environmental education trips to Banks Lake NWR. Interpretation
about the refuge is provided through the refuge’s website, a refuge informational kiosk, and via paid
Banks Lake Outpost staffers, as well as refuge volunteers. The annual one-day Kids Fishing Derby
provides valuable interpretation as well.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Banks Lake NWR is a satellite refuge under the care and administration of Okefenokee National
Wildlife Refuge. Typically, the Okefenokee NWR’s refuge manager and chief of visitor services
maintain contacts, work with local officials and adjacent landowners, and address management
issues as they arise. The maintenance worker(s) stationed at the Highway 177 entrance near Fargo,
Georgia, provides the majority of the maintenance work needed at Banks Lake NWR’s public access
area. In addition, Okefenokee NWR’s full-time law enforcement officer, stationed at Homerville,
Georgia, attends to visitor safety and conducts periodic law enforcement patrols. Okefenokee NWR’s
visitor services division administers the recreational, volunteer, environmental, and special event
programs for Banks Lake NWR. The other Okefenokee NWR staff members assist as needed.
The amount of staff time and funding that Okefenokee NWR has spent each year to administer Banks
Lake NWR has slowly grown over the years, as public use facilities were developed and the
population in the adjacent area increased. Okefenokee NWR spent approximately $125,000 during
fiscal year 2008 to administer Banks Lake NWR. Approximately $109,000 or 87 percent of the
annual cost of managing Banks Lake NWR can be attributed to the time that Okefenokee NWR’s
employees spent on this satellite refuge. The remaining $22,000 or 13 percent of the annual cost of
managing Banks Lake NWR involved paying for utilities and purchasing materials and visitor program
supplies. Table 10 provides a breakdown of the projected funds that Okefenokee NWR spent in
fiscal year 2008 to administer Banks Lake NWR.
The refuge attempts to keep a refuge volunteer onsite 365 days per year, but this is not always
possible. Volunteers are responsible for grounds maintenance, trash pickup on the uplands and
along the lake edge, and dock maintenance, as well as checks of restrooms and recording of
hourly visitation for specified dates. Volunteers have worked an average of 200 to 250 staff-days
annually for the last 3 years (2005-2007). The Okefenokee volunteer coordinator and the
Okefenokee Wildlife League (OWL) are responsible for the recruitment, coordination, supervision,
and supplies for this volunteer position. The refuge staff is responsible for periodic water level
drawdowns, while volunteers help with trash cleanup and other maintenance functions associated
with the reduced water levels.
44 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Table 10. Fiscal year 2008 costs for Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge to administer Banks
Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Okefenokee Refuge���s FY-2008 Cost to Administer Banks Lake NWR
Last Update: 09/02/2008
Support Costs by Program Estimated
Staff Days Estimated Cost Percentage of Budget
Managerial & Administrative 148 $37,000 22%
Biological Program 45 $11,000 7%
VCS & Law Enforcement
(Includes maintenance costs) 350 $83,000 50%
Forestry - Fire Program
(Non-Fire Related Work)
60 $15,000
9%
Utilities/Supplies ** $20,000 12%
Total: 603 $166,000
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
Although Banks Lake NWR has prepared several step-down management plans in the past, no
comprehensive conservation plan existed to address all refuge programs. The comprehensive
planning process has allowed the Service, governmental and non-governmental partners, and the
public the opportunity to take a detailed look at the refuge and its management, resources, and
future. The Service’s comprehensive planning process has provided the opportunity for public
involvement in developing a plan for future refuge management. This CCP will be revised in 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 comprehensive planning
process involve the gathering information; scoping for public input; developing the draft CCP;
gathering public input on the draft CCP; developing the final CCP; and implementing and monitoring
the actions identified in the final CCP.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process for Banks Lake NWR began with various data-gathering sessions. As part of
this process, the Service conducted several reviews that included a wildlife and habitat management
review, a visitor services review, and a wilderness review. In addition, the Service established a CCP
Planning Team that obtained input from the public and from an intergovernmental coordination
planning team. The CCP Planning Team was the primary decision-making team for the CCP. The
key tasks of this group involved defining and refining the refuge vision; identifying, reviewing, and
filtering the issues; defining the goals; and outlining the alternatives.
The CCP Planning Team met regularly to review public comments, data, and information as assimilated
to write the CCP. Professional reviews of the refuge were conducted to determine the status, trends,
and condition of the refuge’s resources and facilities. Experts from the Service (including those from
the Ecological Services and Fisheries Resources Divisions), the State of Georgia (including GDNR),
Moody Air Force Base, Jones Ecological Research Center, and The Nature Conservancy participated
in the wildlife and habitat management review of the refuge in 2007. A visitor services review was
conducted in September 2007 involving staff from the Service’s Southeast Regional Office, Lower
Suwannee NWR, and the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex. This review focused on the refuge’s
existing visitor use activities and provided recommendations to improve program development and
public use facilities. The information garnered from these reviews helped the planning team analyze
and develop recommendations for this CCP.
A notice of intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was published in the Federal Register on
December 6, 2007. The Service also placed advertisements in local newspapers; posted information
on the refuge’s website regarding the upcoming public meeting and how to submit comments; posted
information on the meeting in the local community (e.g., local shops, post offices, the Okefenokee
NWR visitor center, refuge kiosk, and local libraries); and distributed flyers announcing the public
meeting. Invitations were sent to everyone on the key contact list. During January 2008, the
Service’s intention to develop a CCP and information regarding a public meeting appeared in six local
and regional newspapers: the Lanier County News, Valdosta Daily Times, Berrien Press, Clinch
County News, The Florida Times Union (Jacksonville, Florida), and the Waycross Journal-Herald.
46 Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The CCP Planning Team then held a public scoping meeting at the Lanier County Courtroom in
Lakeland, Georgia, on January 24, 2008, with 28 attendees. During the public scoping period, more
than 15 comments were submitted by individuals and organizations spanning several states.
Planning updates kept the public informed of the progress of the CCP. To date, more than 25 people
are on the refuge’s CCP mailing list. Appendix D, Public Involvement, provides a summary of the
public scoping comments.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings, open planning team meetings, comment packets, and
personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues
that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be
addressed within this planning process. The team did consider all issues identified 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 priority issues for Banks Lake NWR were identified as
follows:
 The refuge has not established strategic habitat and wildlife conservation goals.
 The refuge does not have baseline data on its biological, hydrological, or ecological health.
 There is an ongoing need to control invasive species and nuisance aquatic vegetation.
 The refuge has not fully addressed the opportunities for public recreation and use.
 There is significant urban development occurring within the ecosystem and impacting the
refuge.
