Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
BOND SWAMP NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Bibb and Twiggs Counties, Georgia
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 2009
Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 7
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 11
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 15
Commercial Expansion ..................................................................................................... 16
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 17
Proliferation of Invasive Plants and Animals ..................................................................... 18
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 19
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 21
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 21
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 22
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 24
Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 25
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 25
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 27
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 27
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 27
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 30
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 35
ii Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 39
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 39
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 40
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 40
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 41
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 41
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 42
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 43
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 46
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 46
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 53
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 57
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 62
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 68
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 71
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 71
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 71
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 71
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 72
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 73
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 74
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 74
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 75
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 75
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 75
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 78
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 79
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 81
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 81
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 82
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 82
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 82
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 82
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 83
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 85
Table of Contents iii
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 87
Formulation of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 87
Description of Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 87
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 87
Alternative B – Custodial management ............................................................................. 89
Alternative C – Enhanced biological /visitor services programs ........................................ 90
(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 90
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 92
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................... 94
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 104
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 105
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 105
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 105
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 105
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 105
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 106
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 106
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 106
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 107
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 107
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 107
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ........................................................... 107
ALTERNATIVE B – Custodial Management ................................................................... 109
ALTERNATIVE C – Enhanced Biological/Visitor Services Programs ............................. 111
(Proposed Alternative) .................................................................................................... 111
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 113
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 120
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 120
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 121
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 121
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 121
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 121
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 122
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 122
Aniticated Direct And Indirect Impacts of Proposed Action on Refuge Programs,
Facilities, and Cultural Resouces .................................................................................... 126
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 128
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 129
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 131
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 131
iv Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 133
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 143
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 147
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 161
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 161
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 161
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 161
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 162
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 163
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 164
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 165
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 175
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................... 199
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 203
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 205
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 217
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity. ............................................................. 10
Figure 2. Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United States.
(Note: the Altamaha Watershed ecosystem is #31.) ........................................................... 13
Figure 3. Public use facilities at Bond Swamp NWR .......................................................................... 32
Figure 4. Hunting zones at Bond Swamp NWR .................................................................................. 33
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry ....................................... 28
Table 2. Comparison of demographic statistics for Bibb and Twiggs Counties,
Georgia, and the USA ........................................................................................................... 29
Table 3. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 76
Table 4. Bond Swamp NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and
objectives of the CCP ............................................................................................................ 77
Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Bond Swamp NWR ........................ 94
Table 6. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Bond Swamp NWR .............................. 114
vi Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide future management actions and
direction for the refuge. It is important to note throughout this document that as an overriding
principle, 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. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposed plan, as well as other alternatives
considered and their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state
and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and
comment. Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and 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 under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and 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.
2 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, 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 Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs
relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
inland sport fisheries.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (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 resources 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 managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your 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 once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl era severely depleted breeding populations of
ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production
areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl
continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of
bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for
endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife come first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
4 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents.
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 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. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Bond Swamp NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Bond Swamp NWR and other partners, such as the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division 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 mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 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 as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: 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 Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
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, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative, the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan, the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan, the Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan, the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas partnership, and
the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
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. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan 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. Potential roles of Bond Swamp NWR in
support of this initiative are:
􀁹􇤠 Develop waterfowl winter population and/or foraging habitat objectives in support of Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture goals.
􀁹􇤠 Provide foraging habitat for wintering waterfowl through protection of "natural" flooding
regimes.
􀁹􇤠 Where practical and compatible with other objectives, promote development of more
permanently flooded areas (e.g., sloughs, beaver ponds)
􀁹􇤠 Promote development of oaks and other small mast producing species
􀁹􇤠 Promote breeding and brood rearing habitat for wood ducks.
6 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 Provide spatial/temporal sanctuary to waterfowl.
􀁹􇤠 Consider future public use opportunities tied to waterfowl.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Southern Piedmont and 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 non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been
vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This
plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations. Potential roles of Bond Swamp NWR in support of this initiative are:
􀁹􇤠 Provide, manage, and restore where possible bottomland forest, forested wetland, and oak-pine
upland habitats in support of breeding and wintering priority landbirds identified by
Partners-in-Flight.
􀁹􇤠 Improve vegetative structural complexity in bottomland areas that are otherwise uniform and
lacking in strata development.
􀁹􇤠 Opportunistically encourage soft mast producing trees and shrubs on upland and bottomland
habitats.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
Potential roles of Bond Swamp NWR in support of this initiative are:
􀁹􇤠 Protect colonial waterbird rookeries.
􀁹􇤠 Give special consideration to protection and/or management of more permanently flooded
areas as waterbird foraging habitat.
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. The National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan
mandates that the Secretary of the Interior establish, and periodically review and revise, a national
wetlands priority conservation plan which shall specify, on a region-by-region basis or other basis
considered appropriate by the Secretary, the types of wetlands and interests in wetlands which
should be given priority with respect to federal and state acquisition.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas
(Conservación de las Aves Acuáticas de las Américas) is an independent partnership of individuals
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
and institutions having interest and responsibility for conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in
the Americas. The partnership was created to support a vision in which the distribution, diversity, and
abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds are
sustained or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the
Caribbean. In 2004, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiated a project to gather and assess
information in order to strategically advance conservation for critically threatened waterbird species
and sites in Central America, the Caribbean and South America. This information will be used to raise
awareness among decision-makers and representatives from key governments and non-government
agencies of the increasing threats to waterbirds and their habitats, and to inform future monitoring
and management of these resources throughout the entire Western Hemisphere.
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Joint ventures are the best forum for engaging in collaborative efforts
to help define one's conservation objectives in the context of landscape, ecosystem, or population
sustainability. Working both collectively and independently, joint venture partners conduct activities in
support of population and habitat objectives developed cooperatively through an interactive process
of biological planning and conservation design. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) is the
relevant joint venture for the piedmont and coastal plain of Georgia, including Bond Swamp NWR.
Much of the regional priorities and objectives of the ACJV are based on information developed by
international, national, and regional bird initiatives (e.g., Partners-in-Flight, North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan). These initiatives have identified the highest priority species, outlined limiting
factors and threats to their conservation, and articulated population goals of varying specificity. In
doing so, they provided a compelling justification for the ecoregion-based joint ventures to begin
developing and pursuing corresponding habitat conservation goals. The structure, composition, and
landscape context intrinsic to these habitat goals has received much attention by joint ventures.
Although the ACJV is still early in the process of deriving habitat goals to support bird population
objectives, this and similar efforts by joint venture partners establish a perspective for considering
desired future conditions and the conservation role of Bond Swamp NWR.
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 other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of Georgia.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), provides
management and protection for the state's fish and wildlife resources through conservation
enforcement officers in each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The
WRD’s major goal is to promote stewardship and enjoyment of Georgia’s natural resources, both for
present and future generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources,
waterway safety, state lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The WRD manages 94
wildlife management areas on approximately 1 million acres, public fishing areas, and natural areas.
The Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites is charged with managing state park lands and historic
sites. It manages 48 state parks and 15 historic parks on over 800,000 acres of land. Additionally,
the state agencies provide and direct public recreation opportunities, including extensive hunting and
fishing programs on wildlife management areas and parks.
8 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of Georgia. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission
objectives where appropriate.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Bond Swamp NWR is located along the Ocmulgee River in Bibb and Twiggs Counties, Georgia,
approximately 6 miles south of the city of Macon (Figure 1). The refuge was established on
October 16, 1989, to protect, maintain, and enhance the ecosystem of the Ocmulgee River floodplain
(USFWS 1989). The refuge is situated along the fall line separating the physiographic regions of the
Piedmont from the Coastal Plains and contains primarily wetlands associated with the Ocmulgee
River floodplain. A strip of uplands and two large limestone bluffs border the wetlands. The refuge
did not open for public use until 1999.
The refuge has a diversity of vegetation communities, including upland mixed hardwood-pine,
bottomland hardwoods, tupelo gum swamp forests, creeks, tributaries, beaver swamps, and oxbow
lakes. The refuge is rich in wildlife diversity, including white-tailed deer, wood ducks, black bears,
alligators, wild turkey, a nesting pair of bald eagles, and excellent wintering habitat for waterfowl.
Extensive bottomland hardwoods provide critical habitat for neotropical songbirds of concern, such as
Swainson's warbler, wood thrush, prothonotary warbler, and yellow-billed cuckoo. The combination
of warm weather and wet areas at Bond Swamp NWR also provide ideal conditions for a variety of
reptile and amphibian species.
The original land was purchased through cooperative efforts of the Service and the Nature
Conservancy. Currently, Bond Swamp NWR consists of approximately 7,348 acres. Most of the
refuge is owned in fee title by the Service, except for 1,072 acres that are managed by the Service
through a lease agreement with the State of Georgia. Within this agreement, the Service manages
Brown's Mount, a historic/cultural site that encompasses 165 acres of upland forest. In total, this
acreage is essentially contiguous, though it straddles the Ocmulgee River and major tributaries, and
is punctuated by a handful of noteworthy in-holdings. An expansion proposal in 1999 established the
present acquisition boundary, extending from the current refuge boundaries to the north, west, and
especially south. The approved acquisition area also includes portions of Bibb and Twiggs Counties,
Georgia, and encompasses approximately 18,000 acres of bottomland and adjacent upland habitats
along the Ocmulgee River representative of those already managed (USFWS 1999) (Figure 1).
In 1999, Bond Swamp NWR became an official partner in the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway project,
a cooperative effort to protect the wetland systems of the Ocmulgee River through development of an
integrated system of natural, scenic, and historical sites affording diverse public education and
recreational opportunities. In demonstration of its commitment to this project, Bond Swamp NWR
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with other private and public Greenway partners,
including the Trust for Public Land, city of Macon, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Macon
Water Authority, National Park Service, and Bibb County Board of Commissioners. Part of the
Greenway project is an extensive wetland conservation area that seeks to conserve the hydrology
and natural resources of the area. The forested wetlands and adjacent uplands of Bond Swamp
NWR figure prominently in these plans, and toward this end, several hundred acres have been
acquired by the refuge since partnering in the Greenway project. The Trust for Public Land assisted
the refuge in this second acquisition phase. The refuge has also expanded public use and access to
its lands as a result of the Greenway project, and has plans for continuing to provide increased public
recreational opportunities.
10 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Vicinity.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The Ocmulgee River and its forests have been an important part of Macon’s history and
development. This region was important to Native Americans from Ice Age hunters to the Muscogee
(Creeks) and Seminoles of historic times. Native Americans relied on the river and its surrounding
forests for food, water, shelter, and transportation for thousands of years before European settlers
arrived in the area. When early European explorers and frontiersmen arrived, they traveled and
traded along the river, and hunted and trapped in the forests along its banks. As European
settlements in the area expanded, the forests were logged. Mills operating along the river relied on it
for both power and product transportation.
In recent years, the Macon area has experienced rapid development through residential and
commercial expansion. To protect and manage the river corridor, concerned citizens, along with
local, state, and federal government agencies, initiated the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway effort.
Bond Swamp NWR is an important link in the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway, which is working to
protect the Ocmulgee River and its rich resources. The Greenway creates an integrated system of
scenic, historic, and recreational resources along the Ocmulgee River for the public’s enjoyment.
Bond Swamp NWR fills a vital role along the Greenway by providing a place for the conservation and
management of the fish, wildlife, and plants of the Ocmulgee River ecosystem.
The Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to both fulfill the purposes for which it
was established and the mission of the Refuge System. If there is a conflict between the two, the
purposes for which the refuge was established takes precedence.
The refuge was established in 1989 under the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16
U.S.C. 742(a)), as amended, and the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C.
3901(b)). These acts established the overarching purpose of Bond Swamp NWR by providing for the
acquisition of land by the Service for the development, advancement, management, conservation,
and protection of fish and wildlife resources; the conservation of wetlands to maintain public benefits;
and the conservation of wetlands to help fulfill international obligations of various migratory bird
treaties and conventions.
The objectives for which the area is managed are:
􀁹􇤠 To conserve and protect a diverse, threatened wetland ecosystem and its associated values.
􀁹􇤠 To conserve, protect, reestablish, and manage for threatened and endangered species of wildlife.
􀁹􇤠 To manage for migratory birds, with emphasis on providing optimum habitat for wintering
waterfowl and enhancing nesting and brood habitat for wood ducks.
􀁹􇤠 To manage for native wildlife species and their associated habitats.
􀁹􇤠 To provide opportunities for compatible public educational, interpretational, and recreational
opportunities associated with wildlife and their habitats.
12 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Bond Swamp NWR fills a vital role along the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway, which is working to
protect the Ocmulgee River and its resources. The refuge provides a place for the conservation of
the fish, wildlife, and plants of the Ocmulgee River ecosystem. The refuge is significant because:
􀁹􇤠 As many as 200 bird species occur on the refuge. This includes waterfowl, waterbirds,
shorebirds, and neotropical migratory birds.
􀁹􇤠 The area provides ideal nesting habitat for the Swainson’s warbler, listed as a species of concern
by Partners-in-Flight.
􀁹􇤠 Several rare species of butterflies associated with the river cane habitat can be found on the
refuge.
􀁹􇤠 There is an active bald eagle nest on Bond Swamp NWR.
��􇤠 Bond Swamp NWR supports one of the three black bear populations in Georgia.
􀁹􇤠 Bond Swamp NWR and the surrounding area is one of the largest areas of intact forested
wetlands remaining in Georgia.
Refuge management tools used include:
􀁹􇤠 Partnerships: active member of the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway.
􀁹􇤠 Education/interpretation.
􀁹􇤠 Deer herd management and feral hog population control with public hunting.
􀁹􇤠 Law enforcement.
In sum, the refuge was established to protect a biologically diverse system of wetland and upland habitats
for the benefit of numerous plants and animals on the Ocmulgee River floodplain. The refuge is managed
to provide public access to traditional, wildlife-dependent outdoor recreational activities.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Bond Swamp NWR does not contain any lands under special designation by the Federal
Government, such as congressionally designated wilderness areas, oil and gas activities,
federally designated wild and scenic rivers, demonstration areas, or research natural areas.
However, Bond Swamp NWR is part of the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway and provides most of
the conservation area for this program by protecting the important wetland forests and associated
wildlife. Additionally, the concept of an Ocmulgee River National Heritage Corridor was proposed
in 2004 as part of a feasibility study (Mastran et al., 2004). The purpose of seeking National
Heritage Corridor designation is to increase understanding and raise awareness of the Ocmulgee
River and the adjacent cultural and natural resources. It is an effort to rediscover and reconnect
people with the river after decades of neglect. The designation could include the stretch of the
Ocmulgee River within the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service
has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily
along watershed boundaries (Figure 2). Bond Swamp NWR lies within the Altamaha Watershed
Ecosystem in Georgia (USFWS, no date-a).
An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (e.g., people, plants, animals,
and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (e.g., soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles
that sustain them. All of these elements are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the
others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (a single stand of aspen) or large (an entire
watershed including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships).
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because it can't just look at a single
animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that is around it. Conservation will not be achieved
within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge, aquatic resources will not be restored within a national
fish hatchery, and listing an endangered species is not going to conserve the system. All of these are
interconnected. If one is disturbed or managed, all of the others will be affected.
Figure 2. Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United States. (Note: the
Altamaha Watershed ecosystem is #31.)
14 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a
watershed and it considers the economic health of communities within that watershed. A watershed
is the total land area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean.
The goals of the Altamaha Ecosystem Team are (USFWS, no date-b):
1. Protect and restore water quality/quantity and timing of rivers, streams, aquifers, and estuaries in
the ecosystem.
2. Protect, conserve, and enhance endangered species, migratory birds, and other fish and wildlife
trust resources and their habitats in the Altamaha Ecosystem.
3. Identify and pursue proactive approaches to conserve coastal resources.
4. Conserve, enhance, and manage trust resources through involving and informing the public,
partners, and decision-makers in the Altamaha Ecosystem.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in Fiscal Year 2002. Under this new program,
Congress provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
design and implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A
requirement of SWG was that each state would complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS was intended to identify and focus
management on “species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be
used to manage and conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
In December 2002 the Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) began a process to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy
(GADNR 2005). Through the Wildlife Conservation and Reinvestment Program, WRD made a
commitment to develop and begin implementation of this CWCS by October 1, 2005. Funding for this
planning effort came from a federal grant to WRD through the State Wildlife Grant program; matching
funds were 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 Georgia CWCS
was approved by the Service in August 2005.
Components of this planning effort included: (1) Development of databases on rare species and
natural communities; (2) identification of high-priority species and habitats; (3) identification of high-priority
research and biological inventory needs; (4) surveys for rare species on public and private
lands; (5) development of databases of conservation lands and high-priority watersheds and
landscapes; (6) prioritization of conservation, education, and habitat protection needs; (7)
collaboration with state and federal agencies on habitat protection/restoration plans; (8) technical
assistance to private conservation organizations and local governments; (9) review of existing
conservation laws, rules, and policies; and (10) public input and educational outreach.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
The following goals represent important themes in the conservation strategy:
􀁹􇤠 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.
􀁹􇤠 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.
Six technical teams focused on the following groups of species: birds, amphibians and reptiles,
mammals, fishes and aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants. These technical
teams consulted numerous data sources and used a variety of criteria to identify high-priority species
for Georgia; these included critically imperiled species, habitat indicator species known to be in
decline, species endemic to Georgia, and rare or uncommon species in need of further research to
determine conservation objectives. Ranges of distribution, habitat associations, conservation needs,
and research priorities for 296 species of high-priority animals and 323 species of high-priority plants
are outlined. Similarly, high-priority habitats are defined for each ecoregion and management needs
for these habitats are discussed.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Forested wetland habitat has been disappearing at an increasing rate over the last several decades.
This is particularly true of the southeastern United States, where it is estimated that over 90 percent
of the total forested wetland habitat loss occurred between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s
(Keeland et al., 1995). Since the mid-1970s, loss of forested wetlands has accounted for 95 percent
of all palustrine wetland losses.
16 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
The increase in human population in Georgia over two centuries through 1980 can be extrapolated to
indicate increasing pressures on natural resources as more natural habitat is impacted through an
expanding population. The percentage change in population by county for the last 10 years of this
period signifies a trend of population expansion out from urban centers into the traditionally more
rural counties (GADNR 2005).
In 1987, the Kellogg Physical Resources Task Force published a final report entitled "The Georgia
Landscape: A Changing Resource," documenting the effects of land use change in Georgia from
1935 to 1985 (Odum and Turner 1987). Changes during this time period were characterized as
extensive and dramatic. In the 1930s, the Georgia landscape was very fragmented with many small,
irregularly shaped tracts of open and forested land. Today, the landscape is much less patchy with
field and forest tracts larger and more regular in shape, and urban areas larger. Because of their
very high-energy consumption per unit of area, metropolitan areas increasingly impact the life-supporting
resources in the surrounding countryside. The amount of "edge" between land types has
decreased over this 50-year period, a change that has had a major effect on many populations of
birds and other animals.
Since the time of the studies conducted by the Kellogg Physical Resources Task Force, urban sprawl
has increased dramatically. The habitat losses and modifications attributed to increases in suburban
areas, including stream habitat losses due to construction of the water supply reservoirs
accompanying suburban growth, represent the primary long-term threats to wildlife diversity in
Georgia. Other important stressors of wildlife habitats and species include conversion of natural
habitats for agricultural or silvicultural uses, as well as activities associated with existing agricultural
and forestry operations that do not meet the standards of best management practices.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
The Macon area has continued to expand mostly toward western and northern Bibb County. The
area south of Macon has also experienced growth, primarily in the form of single family residential
development both to the north and south of the refuge.
COMMERCIAL EXPANSION
The floodplains of the Ocmulgee River near Macon have been subjected to increased demands from
development. A majority of these bottomland forests has been extensively harvested for timber and
portions have been cleared for agricultural purposes. The rich mineral soils have been used for
manufacturing bricks and masonry, while adjacent uplands have been subjected to kaolin mining.
Portions of the refuge, east of the railroad, show evidence of past logging operations. Larger
diameter class pines have been removed from the drier, upland areas, while some hardwood was cut
from the more accessible bottomlands. Forested areas in the immediate vicinity of the refuge have
also been harvested. Areas, which were formerly inaccessible to conventional harvesting, are being
logged, using helicopters to remove timber.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
The focus of mining for mineral resources is on kaolin and Fuller’s earth on the upland areas and
refractory clays on the floodplains. Extensive mining operations of kaolin deposits have been
established, particularly in Twiggs County. Mining companies own or have interests in the abundant
kaolin deposits in the middle Georgia area.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there
have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel
modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem, in terms of both extent and duration of
flooding, in comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has
had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
Point and non-point pollution of aquatic systems resulting from residential, commercial, and industrial
development and various forms of land-disturbing activity represent serious challenges for many of
Georgia’s species and habitats. According to 2002 data from the Environmental Protection Division,
some 2,870 of 11,359 miles of monitored streams in Georgia (25.2 percent) did not support
designated uses due to some form of impaired water quality (GADNR 2006a).
The proximity of a large metropolitan urban area to the refuge greatly increases the potential for
contamination problems. In general, pollutants in the area are generated as byproducts of industrial
production and a concentrated population center. Of primary concern is water quality on the refuge
and the Ocmulgee River. Water quality on the refuge is affected seasonally as flood waters inundate
wetlands along the floodplain. Additional concerns regarding water quality and contamination involve
potential spills from railway traffic, runoff from agricultural areas, and illegal waste disposal.
Although sections of the Ocmulgee River passing through Bond Swamp NWR remain public waters, it
is important that refuge staff remain vigilant of proposals that would vary the quantity, quality, timing
or distribution of these waters. The refuge should work with partners to ensure that minimum
instream flows are set that protect refuge resources, and that permit winter floods to continue to
inundate portions of the refuge. Since 2001, the state has been operating under an interim policy
regarding instream flows. This policy does not specify timing of discharges, which means that winter
flooding of bottomland systems in Bond Swamp NWR could be jeopardized. Refuge staff should
work with the Regional Water Rights Manager, the Division of Ecological Services, appropriate state
agencies, and other partners to develop a site-specific instream flow study.
As of 2007, 31 municipalities and industries had been permitted to withdraw a total of roughly 2,500
cfs (more than 4 times the current 7Q10 value) from the Ocmulgee River and its tributaries. All
permittees are located upstream of Bond Swamp NWR (EPD, 2007). Most of the permitted water
withdrawals likely return to the river in the form of treated sewage or releases from electric power
18 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
facilities. It is unknown how much these returns alter the historic hydrologic regime as a whole, but
discharges from Lake Jackson, a hydropower reservoir owned and operated by Georgia Power
Company, have great effects on the hydrology and bottomland hardwood forest ecology of the refuge
(USFWS 2007).
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Human activities have resulted in the introduction of many non-native species into the Georgia
landscape. Some of these species were deliberately introduced as crop or horticultural plants,
livestock, or pets and later escaped from cultivation or domestication. Others, like kudzu, autumn
olive, Japanese honeysuckle, and bicolor lespedeza, were introduced to control erosion or provide
food for wildlife. Still other exotic species were accidentally introduced by importation of food and
other materials. While many of these species are relatively benign or serve as pests primarily of
crops, lawns, or orchards, a number of exotic species are capable of invading natural communities
and causing severe negative impacts to wildlife. For example, the fire ant has been found to cause
mortality to gopher tortoises and southern hognose snakes. Animals like feral hogs have caused
extensive habitat damage and alterations. Many exotic pest plants have been identified for the
southeast, and techniques for control of these pests are being explored and implemented in various
habitats. Severe infestations of exotic species exist on public conservation lands as well as on
private lands, and responding to this form of “biological pollution” will be a major task for land
managers in the future.
Several exotic invasive plants are of concern at Bond Swamp NWR, including privet, kudzu (Pueraria
montana), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum),
Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), mimosa or silk tree (Albizia julibrissin), and non-native wisterias
(Wisteria sinensis and W. floribunda) (USFWS 2007).
Feral hogs occur in many of the bottomland hardwood habitats throughout Georgia, including Bond
Swamp NWR. They are an exotic invasive species that can cause extensive damage to a variety of
habitats. Feral hogs consume items from across the food web, including hard and soft mast, roots and
other vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, bird eggs and young, small mammals, the young of
larger mammals, agricultural crops, and carrion. Feeding activity by feral hogs turns over and uproots the
forest floor, causing damage to seedlings, herbaceous and other sensitive plant communities, litter
development, and soil structure. Feral hogs directly compete with other wildlife through removal of large
amounts of a variety of food items. In addition, through direct consumption and habitat disruption, they
can lead to unsustainable levels of mortality to a number of amphibian species.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Located near the geographical center of Georgia, the refuge is subjected to moderate climatic
conditions throughout the year. The climate is a blend of maritime and continental types. Rarely
does either system dominate for extended periods. The average yearly rainfall, as measured in
Macon from 1971-2000, is 45 inches, with rainfall reasonably well distributed throughout the year,
although winter is the wettest season (NOAA, no date). During that period, January was the wettest
month at 5.0 inches and October was the driest at 2.37 inches. Severe storms occur occasionally in
this area. Tornados occur approximately twice each year in middle Georgia (USFWS 1989).
Thunderstorms occur on an average of two days out of five during the period June through August.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Snow occurs at some time during most winters, but amounts are usually small as evidenced by
monthly means of 0.1 to 0.9 inches. The heaviest snowfall over a 24-hour period occurred in
February 1973 with 16.5 inches (NOAA, no date).
January is usually the coldest month, with a mean temperature of 45.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with an
average daily minimum of 35.5 degrees (NOAA, no date). July is normally the hottest, with mean
temperatures of 81.1 degrees and an average daily maximum of 91.8 degrees. Winters are mild, with
temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. The prevailing northwesterly winds of winter
and early spring are frequently superseded by southerly flows of warm, moist tropical air.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Geology of the refuge is dominated by the Tuscaloosa formation (USFWS 1989). The Tuscaloosa
formation is the oldest outcropping formation of the Coastal Plain of Georgia. It extends into Georgia
from the vicinity of Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where it is typically exposed. It crops out as an irregular
band, generally less than 15 miles wide, bordering the Piedmont province.
The Tuscaloosa formation consists of light-colored sand, sandy clay, and lenticular masses of clay.
The formation in Bibb County is characterized by fine to coarse sand, in places mingled with white
kaolin and in others separated by lenticular and pure kaolin masses. In northern Twiggs County, the
Tuscaloosa formation consists of clay, sand, and gravel.
East of the Ocmulgee River, along the interstream area, outlying bodies of the late Eocene age
occur. The deposits consist of Barnwell formation massive deep-red clayey sand, beds of green or
gray Fuller’s earth type clay, and beds of limestone with spotty outcroppings.
Alluvial deposits bordering the Ocmulgee River and some parts of the larger creeks are the youngest
sediments in the area. They are of Pleistocene and Recent age. These deposits are composed of
unsorted clay, sand, and gravel.
SOILS
The majority of soils on the refuge are categorized as Chewacla – Congaree – Hydroquents (USFWS
1989). These soils are typical of the floodplain of the Ocmulgee River and its tributaries. This soil
type encompasses approximately 20 percent of Bibb County and generally consists of approximately
74 percent Chewacla soils, 14 percent Congaree soils, 8 percent Hydroquents, and 4 percent of other
soil types. This soils type has low relief and generally has slopes of less than 2 percent. They are
generally found in areas with high potential for flooding.
Upland sites on the refuge contain soils which belong to the Vaucluse – Lakeland and Vaucluse –
Cowarts – Ailey classifications. These soil types combined, encompasses approximately 22 percent
of Bibb County.
Alluvial clay deposits are found at the bottom of the Ocmulgee River. This material is used for the
manufacture of bricks and other ceramics. Fuller’s earth is used as an absorbent. Deposits have
been reported throughout the Tertiary area of Macon and Bibb County. Kaolin is a type of clay that is
mined mainly for use in making paper, plastics, rubber, paints, and many other products. Twiggs
County is one of three counties that combined, produces 75 percent of the national output of kaolin.
20 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Bond Swamp NWR straddles the Ocmulgee River, and includes long sections of several important
tributaries, including Stone and Tobesofkee Creeks. The refuge also includes other minor drainages,
and low swampy areas that remain "wet" for much of the year. Several reservoirs and accompanying
utility interests along drainages upstream from Bond Swamp NWR have led to altered hydrologic
dynamics at the refuge (USFWS 2007). Such deviations from more natural hydrologic regimes are
readily discernible, but their effects on natural systems at Bond Swamp NWR remain poorly
understood. Seasonal flooding (primarily October- March) of many acres of riverine bottomland
forests still occurs with regularity. Typically, the refuge floods 5-6 times a year with flood events
lasting from a couple of days to 2-3 weeks. Although the river will return to normal levels quickly, the
swamp often holds flood waters for several weeks afterward. The extent and frequency at which
"natural" flooding occurs at Bond Swamp NWR is in large part affected by hydro power operations at
Lake Jackson, upstream along the Ocmulgee River. Other than influencing outflows from upstream
dams and utilities, there is no capacity to manage water levels or areas subject to inundation.
The drainage system consisting of numerous streams and tributaries flowing out of the Piedmont
region is part of the Alcovy/Ocmulgee Corridor. This corridor flows through both the Coastal Plain
and Piedmont provinces. Stone Creek, which flows into the refuge wetland area and forms much of
the rich bottomlands, has been classified as a fishing stream.
The Ocmulgee River bisects the refuge. This stretch of river has also been classified as a fishing
stream. Though quite turbid in the winter and spring months, the general water quality in the entire
Ocmulgee River basin is very good (USFWS 1999). The Ocmulgee River provides the major water
source for the city of Macon, which pumps more than 35 million gallons of water per day from the
river (USFWS 1989). At Macon, the Ocmulgee River had an average daily flow of 1,740 million
gallons. Increased demand and past drought conditions have severely reduced this flow rate. The
Ocmulgee River, south of Macon, also had water quality problems due to pulp/paper manufacturing
and urban sewage effluent.
The Ocmulgee River from Macon to downstream of Bond Swamp NWR is on the 2002 EPA 303(d) list of
impaired waters for the presence of poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The draft 2006 303(d) list also
includes the impairments of fecal coliform and low dissolved oxygen, likely caused by urban runoff.
Tobesofkee Creek is also listed for fecal coliform and low dissolved oxygen. Another significant threat to
water quality is mercury. Plant Scherer has been identified as the largest emitter of mercury in Georgia.
Its burning of coal accounts for 40 percent of the state’s emissions, and roughly a third of this falls within
90 miles of the source. Bond Swamp NWR is located approximately 30 miles from Plant Scherer.
Mercury contamination would negatively affect the refuge’s aquatic resources.
Ground water is supplied by the interface of the Clayton and Jacksonian aquifers. The sand and
gravel beds of the Tuscaloosa formation are the most productive sources of ground water in the area.
The largest consumer of ground water near the refuge is the kaolin processing plant at Huber.
Ground water quality is generally good; it is clear and has a slight sulfur taste.
The forested wetlands on the refuge provide a haven for a rich diversity of fish and wildlife and serve
to enhance the quality of the area’s water resources. These wetland areas act as a safety valve in
detaining overflows during flood periods and as water storage basins during dry seasons. The water
resources in these wetlands replenish both surface and ground water systems. Water passing
through is filtered by a natural process that aids in removal of organic and inorganic wastes, as well
as silt and other sediments.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
AIR QUALITY
Air quality is generally good with the exception of an average of two episodes per year when stagnant
conditions persist for short periods. The Georgia ambient air monitoring network provides information
on the measured concentrations of criteria and non-criteria pollutants at selected locations, including
three Macon sites (GADNR 2006a). From 2001 to 2006, Macon exceeded the ozone standard an
average of three times, but no other parameters were exceeded (GADNR, no date-a).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Of the current 7,348 acres administered under Bond Swamp NWR, general habitats and approximate
acreages include (USFWS 2007):
Mixed Hardwood-Pine Uplands 1,040
Forested Wetlands 6,108
Streams and Beaver Ponds 200
No systematic vegetation inventories or surveys of Bond Swamp NWR have been conducted.
However, based on topography, soils and climate, two principal climax communities are expected on
the refuge: southern mixed forest and oak-hickory-pine forest. General species composition of major
habitats on the refuge can be inferred from these climax community types, with more specific
information coming from observations made during site visits and other field work.
Bottomland Hardwood and Swamp
In bottomland hardwood and swamp forest types, principle overstory species on the refuge include:
water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica); black gum (Nyssa sylvatica); red maple (Acer rubrum); sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua); elm (Ulmus spp.); ash (Fraxinus spp.); hickory (Carya spp.); and water,
willow, overcup and swamp chestnut oaks (Quercus nigra, Q. phellos, Q. lyrata, and Q. michauxii).
Swamp forests are essentially the lowest areas of bottomland systems, and are distinguished as
being subject to extended or very regular periods of inundation. As bottomland forests grade into
swamps, tree species diversity decreases and forests tend towards dominance by water tupelo and,
at least historically, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum). Beaver ponds and oxbow-type lakes can
lead to significant portions of refuge floodplains remaining inundated throughout the year, allowing
establishment of submerged and emergent aquatic plant communities.
Common mid- and under-story species in bottomlands on Bond Swamp NWR include: poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), rattan vine (Berchemia scandens), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida),
Eastern hophornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), boxelder (Acer negundo), privet (Ligustrum spp.), and
others. Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) is present sporadically in small patches.
Though other factors are at play, the development and complexity of understory layers is principally
influenced by the combined effects of light penetration and hydrologic forces that affect growth,
survival, and recruitment of shrubs, vines, and small trees. Significant patches of bottomland forest
habitat on the refuge are closed canopied and lack understory complexity, particularly in interior
stands away from roads, old logging operations, and other disturbed areas. Nonetheless, there do
exist areas where mid- and under-story strata are quite well developed, providing important structure
and foraging/nesting substrates for many wildlife species.
22 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Upland Forests
Upland systems at Bond Swamp NWR can broadly be classified as oak-hickory-pine. Chief overstory
species include: hickories; sweetgum; white oak (Q. alba); persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera); and loblolly, shortleaf, and longleaf pines (Pinus taeda, P. echinata,
and P. palustris). Mixed forest types on the refuge are typically hardwood dominated. The fire
tolerant/dependent pines now comprise only a minor component of upland stands, presumably due to
the exclusion and suppression of fire, and resultant hardwood encroachment. Hardwoods can shade
and suppress existing pine trees, and preclude the establishment of future pine cohorts through
shading and competition for space and nutrients. Advance regeneration of softwood species appears
to be lacking in much of the uplands at Bond Swamp NWR. A mixture of understory species includes
dogwood, red bud (Cercis canadensis), and greenbriar.
Beaver Swamps/Rock Outcroppings
Other minor habitats on the refuge include rock outcrops, beaver ponds, and ravines that are
important in contributing plant and wildlife diversity to the overall refuge landscape. Rock
outcroppings are spectacular Piedmont ecosystems. They occur in a zone almost entirely across the
Piedmont. The outcroppings located on Brown’s and Bull’s mountains represent the southernmost
such communities in the state. Outcroppings present opportunities to observe the earliest plant
successional stages, including lichens and mosses. Federally endangered fringed campion (Silene
polypetala) and relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) could occur on the refuge given the presence of
known populations nearby. State threatened Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula) was found on an
upland site adjacent to rock outcroppings during the Biological Review (USFWS 2007). The rare
lobed spleenwort (Asplenium pinnatifidum) may possibly be found on these limestone outcroppings.
Much of the floodplain remains inundated throughout the year due to beaver swamps and oxbow-type
lakes. Many species of moist-soil and aquatic plants establish in these areas, including cattail, sedges,
rushes, arrowhead, pond weed, duck weed, and water shield. Button bush is a common understory
species along with river cane and alder. Principle tree species include willows, ash, and maples.
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Fifty species of mammals could occur on the refuge. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) occur commonly. The refuge and
surrounding lands support low numbers of black bear (Ursus americanus) from one of three recognized
populations in Georgia. Coyotes (Canis latrans) and beaver (Castor canadensis) also occur, and like feral
hogs (Sus scrofa), can have important impacts on habitats and other wildlife on the refuge. Because the
conditions at Bond Swamp NWR favor the eventual development of climax forests, wildlife species
adapted to mature forest conditions will be favored over time relative to species that are more dependent
upon disturbance and/or successional habitat stages. Other more diminutive species (e.g., shrews,
rodents, and bats) are also likely to occur based on existing habitat conditions.
Amphibians and Reptiles
The combination of warm weather and wet areas at Bond Swamp NWR provides ideal conditions for
a variety of reptile and amphibian species. About 80 species of reptiles and amphibians could occur
on the refuge, including 26 species of snakes, 10 species of lizards, 12 species of turtles, 13 species
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
of salamanders, and 18 species of toads and frogs. Although Bond Swamp NWR is on the northern
edge of the range for the American alligator (Alligator missispiensis), it is occasionally seen on the
refuge, especially on warm, sunny days. Alligators up to ten feet in length have been documented on
the refuge. There are several species of poisonous snakes, including cottonmouths, copperheads,
and rattlesnakes. Other common reptiles and amphibians that might be encountered at Bond Swamp
NWR include the box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern king snake (Lampropeltis getula), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), green treefrog (Hyla cinerea) and southern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus). No reptile or amphibian species of special concern are known from Bond Swamp NWR,
though several are possible, such as Southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus) and
spotted turtle (Clemmys guttata). Uplands could possibly support the poorly known coal skink
(Eumeces anthracinus), and with reintroductions and appropriate habitat management, uplands could
also support the state threatened gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus).
Birds
Approximately 200 bird species are believed to occur on the refuge. Many species of waterfowl,
waterbirds, shorebirds, and neotropical songbirds pass through, over-winter, or nest in Bond Swamp
NWR as they follow their seasonal migration routes. Waterfowl make extensive use of the wetlands
and naturally flooded bottomlands during non-breeding periods (Sept-March). Mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), American black duck (A. rubripes), blue-winged teal (A. discors), wood duck (Aix
sponsa), and ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris) are the most common species during these months.
The Bond Swamp NWR area supports one of the most significant concentrations of wintering
waterfowl in middle Georgia. Though the flooded swamps of the Ocmulgee River and vicinity are
difficult to survey accurately, and surveys are no longer flown, recent estimates indicate peak
midwinter waterfowl use at 3,000-5,000 birds. The area contains outstanding wood duck habitat, and
several thousand wood ducks remain or return to the refuge to breed. Isolated beaver ponds and
adjacent forests provide exceptional foraging habitat and rookery sites for herons, egrets, ibis, and
anhingas (Anhinga anhinga).
The floodplain forests of the refuge are an important habitat supporting the conservation of dozens of
species of resident and migratory landbirds, many of which are designated as priorities due to
continued concern over declining populations, habitat threats, and other factors. Priority neotropical
migratory birds found breeding on Bond Swamp NWR include Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis
swainsonii), prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus),
Acadian flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), and wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). A single pair of
bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has been nesting on the refuge, and others may utilize the
refuge in nonbreeding seasons. Other occurring bird species include woodpeckers, doves,
kingfishers, hummingbirds, hawks, owls, and Caprimulgids (nocturnal birds). American woodcock
(Scolopax minor) and wild turkey (Melagris gallopavo) are two important gamebird species found on
the refuge. The refuge and surrounding lands form one of the largest remaining blocks of forested
wetlands in Georgia, and their conservation is critical to the many species of landbirds that require
large, relatively unfragmented forest systems to successfully breed and sustain their populations. At
the same time, heterogeneity in forest age, structure, and composition is important in providing the
full complement of resources and structural characteristics necessary to support a diversity of
bottomland forest birds.
Fish
The Ocumulgee River, and Stone and Tobesofkee Creeks are the three principal waterways on Bond
Swamp NWR and all are classified as fishing streams. The dynamic nature of the flooding regimes along
these waterways and adjacent floodplains provides a constantly renewable fishery supporting a diversity
24 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
of warmwater species (approximately 100) including largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), spotted
bass (M. punctuatus), crappie (Pomoxis spp.), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and white catfish (Ictalurus
catus). Due to the lack of significant downstream obstructions, several anadromous species also occur in
the Ocmulgee system, including striped bass (Morone saxatillis), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and the
federally endangered shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Several species of freshwater
mussels and many other species of fish are possible on the refuge.
Invertebrates
Approximately half of the expected butterfly species for the region have been documented on Bond
Swamp NWR. Many of the 63 species of butterflies that have been identified are species of concern
in Georgia (Johnson 2006). It is likely that many of the others occur here, but perhaps infrequently or
in limited numbers. Many species require specific host plants to complete their life cycles, and a
number of such host plants require forest openings, early successional patches, and other sunlit
areas to thrive. Several butterfly species tied to cane and sedges have been found, but in general,
the relatively uniform forested habitats of Bond Swamp NWR are not likely to sustain thriving
populations of butterfly species dependent on successional plant communities. Management of utility
rights-of-way may provide some opportunities. Some of the more common species tied to mature
bottomlands and found on the refuge include the American snout (Libytheana carinenta), hackberry
emperor (Asterocampa celtis), and tawny emperor (A. clyton).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are two possible occurrences on the refuge of plant species listed on the Federal Endangered
Species List. These are the fringed campion (Silene polypetala) – endangered; and the relict trillium
(Trillium reliquum) – endangered. Both of these species are also on the protected plant list of
Georgia (GADNR 2007a), along with five additional species listed as occurring in Bibb and Twiggs
Counties: yellow flytrap (Sarracenia flava) – unusual; ovate catchfly (Silene ovata) – rare; sweet
pitcher-plant (Sarracenia rubra) – threatened; Indian olive (Nestronia umbellula) – threatened; and
the Ocmulgee scullcap (Scutellaria ocmulgee) – threatened and a federal candidate.
Two federally listed animal species occur in the area: wood stork (Mycteria Americana) and shortnose
sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Post-breeding wood storks frequent the refuge and the shortnose
sturgeon occurs in the Ocmulgee system. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which was
delisted in June 2007, is still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act. One active bald eagle nest is located on the refuge and is one of 112 in the
State of Georgia. In addition to Bond Swamp NWR’s year-round resident pair of eagles, during the
winter months eagles may temporarily use the refuge as they pass through the region.
A Georgia state listed endangered fish that occurs in the Ocmulgee River is the robust redhorse
sucker (Moxostoma robustum). This fish lives in Georgia rivers and was once thought to have
disappeared from the Ocmulgee River entirely. However, it was rediscovered in the river near Bond
Swamp NWR in 1999. The state threatened Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), the state rare
goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), and the spotted turtle (Clemys guttata) are listed as
occurring in Bibb and Twiggs Counties, but it is unknown whether these are found on the refuge
(GADNR 2006b). The Altamaha spiny mussel (Elliptio spinosa) is a federal candidate that has
potential to be found on the refuge. The Altamaha arc mussel (Alasmidonta arcula) is listed as
threatened by the State of Georgia and is also likely to be found in the area assuming appropriate
habitat exists (USFWS 2007).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
INVASIVE SPECIES
The greatest threat to the health of the refuge comes from a non-native mammal, the feral hog.
Hogs were introduced to North America by European settlers and have escaped from farms or
been released over the years. Feral hogs reproduce quickly in Bond Swamp NWR’s rich
bottomland hardwood forests and cause a wide variety of environmental damage, including soil
erosion and change of natural water flows by their rooting and wallowing. They can spread
disease, such as pseudorabies and brucellosis, to domestic pigs and potentially to humans.
Feral hogs feed on rare and sensitive native plants, especially wildflowers, allowing non-native
weedy species to invade. They compete with native wildlife, such as deer, turkey, squirrels, and
bear, for acorns during the fall and winter. Feral hogs can also trample or eat the eggs of ground-nesting
birds such as turkey and Kentucky warblers.
The major problem plant species on Bond Swamp NWR are privet, Nepalese browntop (Microstegium
vimineum), and non-native wisterias (Wisteria sinensis and W. floribunda). Other exotic invasive
plants of concern include kudzu (Pueraria montana), Chinese tallow (Sapium sebiferum), Chinaberry
(Melia azedarach), and mimosa or silk tree (Albizia julibrissin). Most of the exotics seem to be
coming in on roadbeds. These and other exotic species can jeopardize the integrity of refuge
habitats, directly affect wildlife, and impede or complicate future management attempts unless they
can be monitored and combated. The conclusion reached at the Biological Review (USFWS 2007)
was that, given the reality of resources to fight exotics, we could forgo attempts to control rampant
privet, Nepalese brown top and wisteria, and instead focus what few resources may become
available on species that are just becoming established, such as Chinese tallow.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources, as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (ARPA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), Executive Order 13007 – Protection and Accommodation to “Indian Sacred Sites,” and the
Service’s Cultural Resource Management, Policies, Responsibilities, and Definitions (614 FW 1), include
any prehistoric or historic district, archaeological site, building, structure, landscape, or object included in,
or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It also includes any artifacts,
records, and remains that are related to and located in such properties. These resources must be at
least 50 years old or have achieved cultural significance within the last 50 years. ARPA, for purposes of
civil or criminal prosecution, states that a historic property must be at least 100 years in age. The term
also includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance, such as traditional cultural
properties, listed or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP because of their association with cultural practices,
beliefs, or cultural identity of an American Indian tribe.
The middle Georgia region has a rich archaeological and historical heritage. The first human
inhabitants were nomadic foragers and hunters who occupied the area prior to 9000 B.C. Among the
early inhabitants were the Mississippians (900-1100 A.D.). These chiefdoms were complex
agricultural societies centered around large flat-topped mound complexes, such as the ones seen at
Ocmulgee National Monument and Kolomoki. An extensive trading network, which had been
expanding since the Late Archaic (ca. 3000-1000 B.C.), provided raw materials, such as conch from
the Gulf Coast or the Atlantic Coastal Plain, cherts from the Middle Tennessee Valley, copper from
eastern Tennessee and northern Michigan, as well as finished goods, such as ceramics. The most
notable features of the Mississippian Period in the Ocmulgee River watershed were the flat-topped
mounds, circular earth lodges, and rectangular house patterns. Creek Indians inhabited the region
during the period of early European settlement (1690-1715).
26 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Although few systematic archaeological investigations have been conducted on the refuge, a number
of significant archaeological and historic sites are located on or near it. The most notable site is
Brown’s Mount (9BI5). The site, which has been occupied since the Late Archaic, is situated on the
summit of a limestone outcrop overlooking the Ocmulgee River and its first terrace. A stone wall
once encompassed approximately 60 acres at the summit whose walls were reported to be four feet
in height and four to five feet thick (USFWS 1989). The defensive capabilities of the wall were
enhanced by elevated platforms and lunettes constructed along the wall at 30-yard intervals and
ditches which surrounded the structure both inside and outside the wall. Williams (1993) tentatively
dated the wall’s construction to the Middle Woodland Period (A.D. 0-600), though this assignation is
problematic due to the lack of any Middle Woodland Period ceramics at the site. All evidence of the
stone wall disappeared prior to 1935. A council house and an earth lodge, which were excavated by
A.R. Kelly in 1935 and Richard Marshall in 1959, were built ca. 980±150 A.D. and occupied for
approximately 200 years (Williams 1993; Marshall and Williams 2005). Evidence also exists of two
earth mounds that were present, one of a collapsed house probably of a ceremonial nature and the
other of a ceremonial council chamber (Williams 1993).
The ruins of Harry Stillwell Edward’s small cabin are located on the northeast slope of Brown’s Mount.
Edwards was a local poet of note. The cabin burned down in the 1930s and all that is left is the
limestone chimney and foundation.
The Ocmulgee Old Fields, which includes the Ocmulgee National Monument, Bond Swamp NWR,
Central City Park, and privately owned lands in the floodplain, was determined eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places as a Traditional Cultural Property (Brockington and
Ethnoscience 1999). A Traditional Cultural Property derives its significance from the role that the
property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices, and in maintaining
the continuity of those beliefs, customs, and practices. This area was occupied and served as the
political capital of a large area along the Ocmulgee River or as a general hunting area by ancestral
Muscogee Creeks. A strong affiliation exists today for modern Creek and Seminole peoples who
consider the Ocmulgee Old Fields area as the “cradle of the Muscogee Confederacy.”
The Bullard Landing site in the Ocmulgee River floodplain, located at the southern end of the
acquisition boundary within the southern expansion area, is an unplowed Late Mississippian period
village with 24 small mounds. The major period of occupation of this uniquely preserved village was
brief and occurred at about the time of DeSoto’s explorations in 1540 (Williams and Evans 1993).
The mounds are mostly collapsed earth-covered rectangular structures. The fact that the site has not
been plowed implies that most of the artifacts are lying intact where they were left.
There are other smaller archaeological sites on the refuge, such as the Stubbs Mound site and
another site that was recently discovered due to vandalism. The Stubbs Mound site, located on the
west side of Tobesofkee Creek 0.8-mile up from its junction with the Ocmulgee River, contains a
group of four house structures (Williams 1992). Site BS-1HP is a previously unrecorded multi-component
site located on a small rise in forested palustrine wetlands immediately west of the
Ocmulgee River. A site damage assessment after the vandalism found that it was a small hamlet
with at least one homestead from the Late Mississippian Period between 1350 -1540 A.D. (Kanaski
2006). Kanaski recently documented a number of 19th–early 20th historic period sites. These sites
included two farmsteads, a store, clay pits mined for use by local brickyards, and several house sites.
Undoubtedly there are many other unrecorded sites on the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Bond Swamp NWR includes portions of Bibb and Twiggs Counties about 6 miles south of the city of
Macon and within reasonable commuting distance of Robbins Air Force Base (AFB). The area
surrounding the refuge offers a blend of urban and rural environments. Robbins AFB is the largest
employer in middle Georgia. Land use around the refuge includes both residential and industrial
uses. Commercial enterprises focus primarily on timber and kaolin mining. The area is also used
extensively for recreational activities. Hunting and fishing are traditional activities for local residents.
Bibb County, which includes the city of Macon, is about four times more densely populated than the
state (615 persons per square mile vs. 141 persons per square mile), but growing slower. In 2005,
the county’s estimated population was 154, 918, about two percent of Georgia’s population of
9,072,576 (USCB 2006). The county population grew by 0.7 percent from 2000 to 2005, compared to
Georgia’s 10.8 percent growth in the same five years. From 1990 to 2000, Bibb County grew 2.5
percent compared to Georgia’s 26.4 percent in the same decade.
Twiggs County is about four times less densely populated than the state (29 persons per-square-mile
vs. 141 persons per-square-mile) and the population is decreasing. In 2005, the county’s estimated
population was 10,299, much less than one percent of Georgia’s population of 9,072,576 (USCB
2006). The county population declined by 2.7 percent from 2000 to 2005, compared to Georgia’s
10.8 percent growth in the same five years. From 1990 to 2000, Bibb County grew 8.0 percent
compared to Georgia’s 26.4 percent in the same decade.
In 2005, of the data available, retail trade was the largest of twenty major economic and employment
sectors in Bibb County, followed by accommodation and food services (STATS Indiana 2006).
Educational services were the largest sector in Twiggs County. Employment by major industrial
sectors is shown in Table 1.
Georgia’s statistics are slightly below the national averages for persons below the poverty line,
median household and per capita income, and educational attainment levels (USCB,2006). Bibb
and Twiggs Counties are both below Georgia’s profile in these areas, but Twiggs County fares a
little worse (Table 2). In terms of race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county
and the state populations.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Land Acquisition
The Service acquires lands and interest in lands, such as easements, and management rights in
lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other Congressional
guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlife-dependent
public use for recreational and educational purposes.
The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means,
such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available or effective. When land
is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the
minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full
consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the
impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.
28 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry
Industry Bibb County Twiggs County
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting N/A N/A
Mining N/A N/A
Construction 3.8% 4.8%
Manufacturing N/A 2.6%
Wholesale Trade N/A N/A
Retail Trade 12.9% 7.2%
Transportation and Warehousing N/A N/A
Utilities N/A N/A
Information N/A N/A
Finance and Insurance 7.2% N/A
Real Estate 1.5% N/A
Professional and Technical Services 2.9% 0.6%
Management of Companies 1.9% N/A
Waste Services 8.2% 2.7%
Educational Services N/A 22.4%
Health Care and Social Assistance N/A N/A
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 0.6% N/A
Accommodation and Food Services 8.4% N/A
Other Services N/A N/A
Public Administration 5.1% N/A
Source: STATS Indiana, 2006 (Note: N/A = data not available)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Table 2. Comparison of demographic statistics for Bibb and Twiggs Counties, Georgia, and
the USA
Bibb County Twiggs County Georgia USA
Median Household
Income
$35,169 $31,598 $42,421 $43,318
Per Capita Income $19,058 $14,259 $21,154 $21,587
% Below Poverty 18.9 16.5 13.3 12.5
% High School Graduates 77.2 63.2 78.6 80.4
% Bachelor Degree 21.3 5.4 24.3 24.4
% White 47.6 57.0 66.4 80.4
% Black 50.1 42.3 29.6 12.8
% Hispanic 1.5 1.3 6.8 14.1
% Asian 1.4 0.2 2.6 4.2
% Native American 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.0
Source: USCB, 2006
The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of
condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however,
requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing
sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the
property’s appraised market value, as established by an approved appraisal that meets professional
standards and federal requirements.
Desirable tracts for acquisition at Bond Swamp NWR fall as very low priorities at national and regional
levels relative to other tracts being sought by the Refuge System. The lack of willing sellers is a
problem, and those willing to sell have stated purchase prices well over appraised values. The
refuge can only pay appraised value.
Since the 1970s, there have been one or more proposals to build an alternate transportation route
across the Ocmulgee River between the refuge and the city of Macon. In 1999, the Service
committed that it would not actively pursue land acquisition north of Bondsview Road until this
alternate route is determined. This position was based on concerns brought forth by city, county, and
state officials who were seeking to avoid Section 4(f) consultation1 if federal funds are used for any
eventual highway construction.
1 Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 was enacted as a means of protecting publicly-owned
public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife/waterfowl refuges as well as historic sites, from conversion to transportation
uses. The U. S. DOT has established a review process for any Section 4(f) resource that may be impacted by a federally-aided
transportation project or program.
30 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Acquisition priorities and tracts of interest to the refuge include three small tracts of forested wetlands
along the Ocmulgee River at the end of Bondsview Road. These tracts total less than 50 acres.
Another includes a 275-acre tract at the end of Reid’s Station Road along the Ocmulgee River. This
site was recently clearcut by the landowner, and after a recent land survey was found that the cutting
extended onto refuge property. Acquiring these in-holdings would be beneficial for refuge operations
by providing contiguous management control over the forested wetlands and reducing the complexity
of hunting-related law enforcement in the area. Finally, Florida Brick Company owns a 100-acre
inholding of forested wetlands and open water pits west of the Ocmulgee River. This tract is actively
mined for clay every two to three years. It would be desirable for the same reasons listed above and
also because the open water areas provide habitat for wintering waterfowl as well as excellent
locations for wildlife observation and recreational fishing.
Wildland Fire Management
It is the policy of the Service to use fire when it is the most appropriate management tool for reaching
habitat objectives. Use of prescribed fire to reduce hazardous fuels, and to restore, rehabilitate, and
maintain fire-adapted ecosystems, such as more open, pine dominated stands at the refuge, would
require the surmounting of substantial logistical and resource constraints. Smoke management is a
concern, particularly with several major highways running through or adjacent to the refuge. In
addition, accumulation of natural fuels presents an inherent risk, and requires special attention to
minimize this risk and return fire safely to the landscape. Presently, fire "management" is conducted
in the context of suppression. The response to any natural or artificially occurring fires on the refuge
is to control and suppress them, guarding against undesirable habitat damage, smoke danger, and
loss to adjacent properties.
VISITOR SERVICES
Executive Order 12996 and the Improvement Act recognized six priority public uses on national
wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, which “have been and are expected to continue to be
generally compatible uses.” However, these uses are by no means the only permitted public uses of
national wildlife refuges; other uses have been and can continue to be permitted, provided that they
are determined to be compatible with the refuge purposes, including walking dirt/gravel roads, biking
dirt/gravel roads, canoeing, and general boating. All-terrain vehicle use is restricted at Bond Swamp
NWR (USFWS 2005). Horseback riding is not allowed at Bond Swamp NWR.
Public use opportunities on Bond Swamp NWR have been limited, primarily because Piedmont NWR
cannot devote the staff and resources necessary to safely and effectively support them. In addition,
there are no refuge maintained roads, so any access would have to be by foot, or the often poorly
maintained county roads on the refuge's periphery. Boat access to the refuge is not authorized.
Figure 3 shows the refuge’s public use facilities.
For several years, the refuge was closed to all public use with the exception of certain refuge
sanctioned activities (e.g., guided canoe trips). The first true public use on Bond Swamp NWR
occurred in 1999 as a result of the refuge's commitments to the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway
The provision states that the Secretary of the U.S. DOT may approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly
owned land only if a) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to using that land, and b) the program or project includes
all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
project. In this year, the refuge held its first public deer hunt, and in 2000, hiking and fishing
opportunities were made available. Public use has averaged approximately 8,000-10,000 visitors
annually. The refuge is interested in expanding public access and use opportunities, but this is
contingent upon compatibility determinations and National Environmental Policy Act compliance, as
well as the acquisition of sufficient refuge resources to support such use. The increasingly urbanized
landscape around Macon, Georgia, represents a significant and growing potential user base.
Hunting
Hunting is currently restricted to the east side of the Ocmulgee River (Figure 4) and is allowed during
a limited time each fall and winter. The refuge hunt plan states that the hunting program objectives
are to: (1) Control, and as much as possible eliminate, a large feral hog population that is causing
extensive damage to the refuge ecosystem; (2) control and maintain the white-tailed deer population
to ecologically compatible levels; and (3) provide the public with compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation through the use of a renewable resource. Hunting regulations are provided in a four-fold
brochure that is also used as a permit for all hunting and fishing. All hunters are required to sign-in
and obtain a free refuge hunt permit.
White-tailed deer and feral hogs are the only species hunted on the refuge. Over 75 percent of Bond
Swamp NWR is open to hunting, which is permitted within the framework of state regulations and
licensing requirements. An average of 20 deer and 67 hogs has been harvested annually since 2000.
Some hunters have asked about gray squirrel, turkey, and waterfowl hunting, which are currently not
allowed. According to harvest data, all current hunts are quality events, with good participation.
A refuge hunt permit and sign-in slip are required for all hunters who enter the hunt area during
refuge hunts. The refuge is closed to non-hunters during firearm hunts. All game harvested must be
checked out at the check station on Reid’s Station Road. Hunt access is limited to foot travel from
several vehicle access points around the perimeter of the refuge. A four-wheel drive vehicle may be
required for county road access, and all-terrain vehicles are not allowed on the refuge.
Fishing
Bond Swamp NWR (east side) is open to fishing from March 15-October 15, and is permitted within
the framework of state regulations and licensing requirements. A free refuge fishing permit is also
required. The refuge offers good fishing opportunities on both the Ocmulgee River and Stone Creek,
including largemouth bass, channel catfish, flathead catfish, and several species of sunfish. Fishing
permits and regulations are printed on a four-fold brochure. State regulations apply for creel limits,
except largemouth bass which must be 14 inches in length to keep. Commercial use is not allowed.
Bank fishing is allowed in all areas not designated as closed. Access to the waters in Bond Swamp
NWR requires walking through wooded areas in most cases. Portable boat access is available from
the Stone Creek parking area and Reid’s Station Road from March 15 to October 15. Gasoline
motors are prohibited. No boat ramp is available and the launch site is primitive and has uneven
terrain. The refuge has been looking for opportunities for construction funding to improve boat
access from the Stone Creek parking.
As part of the Ocmulgee Heritage Greenway effort, consideration is being given to the construction of
a public boat ramp on refuge lands along the Ocmulgee River at Bondsview Road or Reid’s Station
Road, thereby improving fishing access to the river via boat.
32 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Public use facilities at Bond Swamp NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Figure 4. Hunting zones at Bond Swamp NWR
34 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Wildlife Observation and Photography
Observable wildlife on the refuge includes white-tailed deer, feral hogs, black bears, raccoons, and
several rodent species. There are numerous bird species sought by birders. The highlighted species
are prothonotary warbler, hooded warbler, Swainson’s warbler, and waterfowl, such as the wood
duck. There are no observation/photography blinds on the refuge.
Early mornings and later afternoons are the best times to observe and photograph most wildlife,
although some reptiles, such as alligators and turtles, may be observed during the heat of the day
sunning themselves on exposed areas near the water. Spring bird migration occurs during late
March, April and May, and fall migration peaks in September and October. The best way to see Bond
Swamp NWR and observe its wildlife is by foot or canoe.
Two hiking trails are currently open. The 1.9-mile Longleaf Pine Trail passes through a mixed pine/
hardwood upland forest. The elevation of this trail is high enough to allow year-round use free of flooding.
The Beaver Swamp Loop Trail consists of a figure eight with one loop measuring 0.9-mile and the other
1.3 miles. It winds its way along Stone Creek through a bottomland hardwood forest, which often floods
and can be impassable. There are numerous foot trails used primarily by hunters that can also be used
for wildlife observation; however, these trails are not indicated on general refuge maps.
Access to Stone Creek for wildlife observation is via the Beaver Swamp Trail. Portable boat access
is allowed from March 15 to October 15, during the fishing season. No boat ramp is available. The
launch site is primitive. After launching boats, vehicles must be parked in the Stone Creek parking
lot. State boating laws and equipment requirements are in effect. There is no designated boat
access for the Ocmulgee River at this time. Refuge lands west of Ocmulgee River are closed to all
public uses at the current time.
The Brown’s Mount tract is currently closed to all public access. This 170-acre tract winds through a
mixed hardwood forest and has a trail system that leads up to a scenic mountain top. The refuge hopes
to open this area to foot travel for wildlife observation and environmental education in the future.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
The refuge conducts environmental education and outreach as requested when resources are
available. Educational programs are available to organized school, civic, professional, and
conservation groups. Advanced reservations are required for all programs. However, Bond Swamp
NWR does not have an established environmental education program. Staffing levels have only
allowed on average two programs a year. Bond Swamp NWR information is covered in some of the
Piedmont NWR programs. The refuge staff has seen a general trend of decline for program requests.
Via easement, Bond Swamp NWR acquired management control over the Brown's Mount property, which
adjoins Bond Swamp NWR, in July 2006. Brown’s Mount is owned by the State of Georgia. This site has
an education pavilion, restrooms, and parking area. Its close proximity to the city of Macon and Interstate
16 provide numerous outreach opportunities. Tours and hikes of Brown’s Mount had been available
through a cooperative agreement between the Service and the Macon Museum of Arts and Sciences.
However, due to constraints, the museum has ceased conducting programs at the site.
There is no visitor center dedicated exclusively to Bond Swamp NWR. The visitor center located at
the Piedmont NWR headquarters has one sign board dedicated to Bond Swamp NWR. It shows the
refuge map, describes the importance of the refuge, and identifies some of the common wildlife by
sight and sound that can be found on the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
There are four brochures printed for the refuge including a general refuge brochure; bird checklist;
amphibians, fish, mammals, and reptiles list; and hunting and fishing regulations. All brochures are
current and up to Service standards. There is also a web site managed for Bond Swamp NWR that is
connected with the web site for Piedmont NWR. There are interpretive panels located at Stone
Creek, Longleaf Pine Trail, and Brown’s Mount parking lots. All panels are well-maintained and
informative. All refuge brochures are stocked at these sites.
Due to the lack of staff, there is virtually no staff-directed interpretation on the refuge. In 2005, there was
only one staff-led program on the refuge. Groups, such as the local Audubon, utilize the refuge for self-guided
tours several times throughout the year. These tours are led by an Audubon Society member.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
As originally intended, Bond Swamp NWR was to be staffed and operated as an independent refuge.
However, since its inception, lack of an operational budget led to its being administered under
Piedmont NWR, approximately 30 miles to the north. No facilities or equipment are currently located
at Bond Swamp NWR, making it logistically more difficult for on-site work to be accomplished. The
refuge has one full-time employee (refuge operations specialist); however, the position is slated to be
cut, and no annual budget. The refuge operations specialist assigned to Bond Swamp NWR is
funded from the Piedmont NWR budget, and has collateral duties there. In 1999, Bond Swamp NWR
received a one-time line item in the Piedmont NWR budget to support opening the refuge to the
public. Several gravel parking lots, three information kiosks, and three hiking trails were installed. In
2004, the Piedmont NWR interpretive park ranger was reassigned to a new interpretive park ranger
position at Bond Swamp NWR. The Piedmont NWR park ranger position was held vacant and then
abolished in 2006, while the Bond Swamp NWR position became vacant in 2005, and was also later
abolished. The loss of both park ranger positions has impacted public use programs at both refuges.
The annual budget of Piedmont NWR varies and additional cuts are expected over the next 5 years.
In FY 2006, basic refuge funding for Piedmont NWR was $789,000. This does not include the fire
program ($282,000) or deferred maintenance projects. Salary and benefits accounted for $724K of
the base budget in FY 2006, leaving 9 percent of the base funding for operations.
Without an independent budget, the ability to conduct work at Bond Swamp NWR hinges on sufficient
staffing at Piedmont NWR. As of January 2007, Piedmont NWR staff comprised the following:
Project Leader - GS-0485-13
Deputy Project Leader - GS-0485-12
Law Enforcement Officer - GS-025-9
Refuge Operation Specialist - GS-0485-7 (Bond Swamp) **
Engineering Equipment Operator - WG-5716-10 **
Engineering Equipment Operator - WG-5716-10
Office Assistant - GS-0303-6
Administrative Forester - GS-0460-11
Forestry Technician - GS-0462-7
Prescribed Fire Specialist (FIRE) - GS-0401-11
Forestry Technician (Fire) - GS-0462-5
Forestry Technician (Fire) - GS-0462-4
Engineering Equipment Operator (Fire) - WG-5716-8
36 Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Two of these positions (marked with **) have been identified in the Southeast Region Refuge Work
Force Plan to be abolished on or before September 2009. No new positions are expected in the next
5 years and additional cuts may occur.
Bond Swamp NWR is open daily during daylight hours, although some access roads and portions of
the refuge may be closed during periods of flooding or deer and feral hog hunts.
Primary access to the refuge is by foot or limited county roads around the boundary of the refuge.
Three primary parking areas are located on the east side and two are planned for the west side of the
Ocmulgee River. There are four established hiking trails open to foot travel only. Boat access is
currently limited to a portion of Stone Creek during refuge hunting season by permitted hunters.
Boats must be portable and no gas engines are allowed. Boat access from the Ocmulgee River is
self-limiting since the two closest public boat ramps are over 30 r