Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2008
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EUFAULA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Barbour and Russell Counties, Alabama and
Stewart and Quitman Counties, Georgia
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2008
Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Considerations ........... 4
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship to State Wildlife Agencies ........................................................................................ 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 12
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 14
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 14
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
Physiography, Topography, and Soils .............................................................................. 19
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 19
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 19
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 20
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 20
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 32
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 35
Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 35
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 38
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 40
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 43
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 43
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 50
Personnel, Operations and Maintenance .......................................................................... 53
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 55
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 55
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 56
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 56
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 58
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 59
ii Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 60
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 61
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 63
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 63
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 64
Wildlife Population Management ...................................................................................... 64
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 75
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 82
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 87
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 93
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 93
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 93
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 93
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 94
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 94
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 95
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 96
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................... 96
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 96
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 96
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 97
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 103
APPENDIX II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED .............................................................. 113
APPENDIX III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 117
APPENDIX IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 131
Public Involvement Process ..................................................................................................... 131
Draft CCP/EA Comments and Service’s Responses ............................................................... 132
APPENDIX V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 137
APPENDIX VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 149
APPENDIX VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ................................. 175
APPENDIX VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ......................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX IX. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 181
APPENDIX X. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 193
APPENDIX XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 199
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX XII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .............................................................. 201
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 201
Alternative B: Enhanced Wildlife and Habitat Management ............................................ 202
Alternative C: Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Public Use ................................................ 204
Alternative D: Balanced Wildlife/Habitat Management and Public Use Activities (Preferred
Alternative) ...................................................................................................................... 205
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................................... 10
Figure 2. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the Northeast Gulf
Watersheds Ecosystem (#30) highlighted. .......................................................................... 13
Figure 3. Expanding infestation of hydrilla on Lake Eufaula, 2001–2006. .......................................... 18
Figure 4. Plant communities of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................................... 23
Figure 5. Major infestations of exotic and native weedy species on Eufaula National
Wildlife Refuge. .................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 6. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge management units and main features. ............................ 44
Figure 7. Croplands at Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................... 46
Figure 8. Current organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ..................... 98
Figure 9. Proposed future organization and staffing chart for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ....... 99
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Habitat types and their estimated acreages, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ..................... 9
Table 2. Natural community occurrences for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ................................. 21
Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 39
Table 4. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry. ...................................... 40
Table 5. Comparison of demographic statistics for Russell, Barbour, Stewart, and
Quitman counties, Alabama, Georgia, and the USA. ............................................................ 42
Table 6. Management units, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. .......................................................... 43
Table 7. Acreages of farm fields, Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................... 47
Table 8. Summary of projects. .......................................................................................................... 100
Table 9. Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan. .......................................... 101
iv Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
for Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (Eufaula NWR) to guide the refuge’s management actions and
direction over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge
management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible
with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
The CCP has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish
and Wildlife Service Manual. The CCP also meets the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (EA), which was
Section B of the Draft CCP/EA. The EA described the alternatives that were being considered and
their potential effects on the environment.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. In developing the CCP, the
team incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, non-governmental organizations, local
citizens, and the general public. This public involvement and the planning process itself are
described in Chapter III, Plan Development.
This CCP represents the Service’s preferred alternative and is being put forward after considering
three other alternatives. It has been made available to federal and state agencies, conservation
partners, and the general public for review and comment. All public comments have been considered
in the development of this CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a management action that best achieves the refuge’s purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
􀁹􇤠 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
����􇤠 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
2 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 with the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its origins to 1886 through the establishment of a Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds
and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was
changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Department of
Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a
clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions
were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to
complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement,
help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved CCPs will serve
as the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that
each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
􀁹􇤠 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
The following describes a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands.
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges
were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert
bighorn sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted
breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused
on waterfowl production areas, i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The
emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in response
to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service began to focus on establishing
refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120
per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers
contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million.
4 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state,
and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in their preparation and revision (every 15 years).
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCPs will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service
compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Please refer to Appendix III for a complete list of the relevant legal mandates.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation
between Eufaula NWR and other partners such as the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater
Fisheries; Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; the Wildlife Resources
Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Lake Point Resort State Park; Auburn
University; private landowners; and others.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. These mandates
are as follows:
􀁹􇤠 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public
uses in planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the refuges are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans. This policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while achieving the
purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on the refuges and their
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers are required to use sound professional judgment to determine the refuges’ contribution to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound
professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge’s role
within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others
both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Started in 1999, the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of
government agencies, private organizations, academic institutions, and private industry leaders in
the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure the long-term health of North America's
native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all
birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives include the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and
the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an international action plan to conserve
migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their
1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the
plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly
continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments,
non-governmental organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working toward the
6 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
goal of achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species, and people. The plan’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional
levels. These regional projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the
North American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic area
represents a scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term
maintenance of healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame
land birds have been vastly underrepresented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting
significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common
species in areas where conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local
emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort throughout the United States to ensure
that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan
was developed by a wide range of agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate
regions of the country, and identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key
research needs, and proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of
shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan provides a framework for the conservation and
management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird populations include
destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive species, pollutants,
mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from abundant species.
Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested
wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed,
including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior
least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainability of fish and wildlife species in the States of Alabama and Georgia.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) provides management
and protection for the state's fish and wildlife resources through conservation enforcement officers in
each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The ADCNR’s major goal is to
promote stewardship and enjoyment of Alabama’s natural resources, both for present and future
generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife, marine resources, waterway safety, state
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The Department manages 24 state parks, 23 fishing
lakes, 3 fish hatcheries, 2 waterfowl refuges, 2 wildlife sanctuaries, 34 wildlife management areas,
and a mariculture center. It also administers more than 645,000 acres of trust lands set aside for
wildlife purposes.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ (GADNR’s) Wildlife Resources Division (GAWRD)
manages 94 wildlife management areas on approximately 1 million acres, as well as public fishing
areas and other natural areas. The Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites Division (GASPHS) is
charged with managing the state’s park lands and historic sites. The GASPHS manages 48 state
parks and 15 historic parks that encompass more than 800,000 acres. In addition, the state agencies
provide and direct public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program
on wildlife management areas and parks.
8 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Eufaula NWR was established in 1964 through community support and in cooperation with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide habitat for wintering waterfowl and other migratory and
resident wildlife. The refuge provides habitat and protection for threatened and endangered
species. The refuge landscape offers a diverse contrast to adjacent land uses. A mixture of
wetlands, croplands, woodlands, grasslands, and open water creates a mosaic of wildlife-rich
habitats. Table 1 shows the current estimated acreages of the habitat types on Eufaula NWR.
The refuge provides valuable wintering habitat for migrating waterfowl, and resting and nesting
habitat for numerous neotropical migratory birds.
Eufaula NWR is located on both banks of the Chattahoochee River in southeast Alabama and
southwest Georgia (Figure 1). The refuge is superimposed on the Walter F. George Reservoir
(also referred to as Lake Eufaula), a river and harbor project of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The reservoir was created from the impoundment of the Chattahoochee River between Alabama
and Georgia. Named after the city of Eufaula, the refuge provides 11,184 acres of land and water
for public enjoyment in a wide range of outdoor activities. The refuge covers 7,953 acres in
Barbour and Russell counties, Alabama, and 3,231 acres in Stewart and Quitman counties,
Georgia. The refuge also administers a conservation easement program covering 44 counties in
Georgia and Alabama. Eighteen of these counties are located in Alabama and 26 in Georgia.
There are 19 conservation easements in 11 counties (Alabama and Georgia) totaling 1,360 acres,
and three fee title tracts in three counties (Georgia) totaling 591 acres. The refuge also manages
one conservation easement for Ducks Unlimited in Russell County, Alabama. The refuge is
crossed by U.S. Highway 431, Gammage Road, and Georgia Route 39. A natural gas pipeline and
a sewer right-of-way for Lake Point Resort State Park also cross the refuge.
Table 1. Eufaula NWR habitat types and their estimated acreages
Habitat Type Acres
Administration 74
Wetlands 3,560
Croplands 775
Forested 2,600
Successional Old Fields 175
Open Water 4,000
Total 11,184
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003a
10 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Eufaula NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Eufaula NWR lies on the eastern edge of the Mississippi Flyway. Peak wintering populations of
ducks reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. Recently, the refuge’s duck populations have peaked
at 12,000–20,000. Few migratory geese visit Eufaula NWR, but more than 2,000 Canada geese are
residents. Large breeding populations of raptors, such as bald eagles and osprey, are becoming
more common on the refuge. High populations of herons and other marsh birds are supported by the
habitat. An abundance of other migratory birds and wildlife is present seasonally.
The Georgia unit of the refuge consists of shoreline along the Chattahoochee River and the Bradley
Impoundment. The Bradley Impoundment is composed of wetlands, agricultural fields, and
timberlands. The Alabama portion of the refuge includes the Davis Clark Unit, the Kennedy
Impoundment, the Houston Unit, the Molnar Unit, the Upland Unit, and many miles of shoreline along
the western edge of the Chattahoochee River and Lake Eufaula. The land on the Alabama portion is
a mosaic of wetlands, croplands, woodlands, and grasslands.
Eufaula NWR is a significant component in the region’s recreational opportunities. The refuge’s
Management Information System (RMIS) showed 371,251 visits to the refuge in 2002 (Caudill and
Henderson 2003). Fishing and nature observation were the most popular activities with 129,959 and
101,190 visits, respectively. Deer hunters accounted for 8,700 visits in 2002. The auto tour route
attracted 35,974 motorists, and a small proportion of these people walked the nature trails or used
the observation platform. The local economy significantly benefits from the refuge. In 2002, refuge
visitors spent $7 million related to refuge recreation. This resulted in $5.6 million in local final
demand, $2.4 million in earnings, and 125 jobs attributable to refuge visitation (Caudill and
Henderson 2003).
The Muscogee Creek Indians once inhabited the land now known as the Eufaula NWR. Hardwood
trees dominated the landscape and the river’s edges were filled with Muscogee Creek Indian villages.
In the 1800s, European settlers moved into the area and a prosperous town developed. The town,
which served as a port city for steamboats along the Chattahoochee River, was named Irwinton after its
founder. Irwinton’s name was later changed to Eufaula in honor of a local Indian tribe. As the town of
Eufaula expanded, the hardwood trees were cleared for agriculture. After World War II, local residents
reforested the previously cleared land with pine plantations. In 1963, the Corps of Engineers
impounded a portion of the Chattahoochee River to improve navigation. The dam created Lake Walter
F. George (Lake Eufaula). Local Eufaulians wanted to provide a place for migratory waterfowl and
other resident wildlife, while protecting beautiful natural scenery. In 1964, the residents were pleased
by the creation of the Eufaula NWR. This positive bond between the refuge and the greater Eufaula
community still exists today, four decades later.
The composition and distribution patterns of ecological communities within the greater Eufaula area
have been significantly altered by the influence of humanity. Prior to the arrival of European
immigrants and Euro-American settlers, the Native Americans, like humans everywhere, had shaped
and modified the land to suit their purposes. Using simple but effective stone tools and controlled
burning, the Creek Indians and other indigenous tribes had long since cleared parts of the eastern
forest for agriculture. The resulting patchwork of garden plots, abandoned fields, and woodlands had,
in turn, increased habitat diversity for wildlife, thus adding to the variety and quantity of available
game. Far from a virgin and primeval wilderness as many believed, North America was an already
transformed landscape when Europeans first reached its shores. The effects of human occupation
upon the natural vegetation of the region are readily apparent. To accommodate the progress of
humanity, forests were cleared and burned and wetlands were drained, which was soon followed by a
series of events that would forever alter the landscape.
12 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Prior to government acquisition, most of the refuge lands were in agriculture and poorly managed
forests. Game animal populations were low. The refuge’s 1964 Narrative Report (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1964) states, “refuge personnel have not observed any deer or deer signs
on the refuge.” Additionally, wild turkeys were also noted as absent from the refuge. However,
waterfowl were plentiful according to the 1964 Narrative. Gradual reforestation efforts, providing early
successional habitats near cropland areas, and sound forestry practices have improved upland
habitat for many species and provide a contrast to the short-rotation pine silviculture that is present
on neighboring lands.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to fulfill the purpose for which it was
established but also the mission of the Refuge System. If there is a conflict between the two, the
purposes for which the refuge was established takes precedence.
The establishing and acquisition authorities for Eufaula NWR include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Coordination Act (16 USC 661-667-E), and 76 Stat. 1195; 16 U.S.C. 460d. These
documents state that the refuge:
1. “... shall be administered directly or in accordance with cooperative agreements... and in
accordance with such rules and regulations for the conservation and maintenance, and
management of wildlife, resources thereof, and its habitat thereon ...”
2. “... be suitable for (a) incidental fish and wildlife oriented recreational development, (b) the
protection of natural resources, (c) the conservation of endangered or threatened species ...”
Specifically, the objectives for Eufaula NWR are:
􀁹􇤠 To provide food, water, and shelter to support 2,650,000 use days for waterfowl, and
2,000,000 use days for other migratory birds.
􀁹􇤠 Provide wood duck nesting and brood-rearing habitat to produce 2,100 birds annually.
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance refuge lands to ensure the survival of threatened and
endangered plant and animal species.
􀁹􇤠 Provide for the continued public use and enjoyment of the refuge and its resources through
wildlife observation and interpretation opportunities, environmental education, and hunting and
fishing programs.
Eufaula NWR was established to provide food and resting habitat for migratory waterfowl and wood
ducks. Objectives are achieved through a habitat management program involving six impoundment
complexes using pumps and water control structures. Row crops and moist-soil management
techniques are used to produce waterfowl foods. An upland agricultural program, prescribed fire,
reforestation, timber thinning, and invasive plant control are used to enhance diversity for game and
nongame species and their habitats.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Eufaula NWR does not include any lands under special designation. That is, it does not contain
congressionally designated wilderness areas, federally designated wild and scenic rivers, demonstration
areas, or research natural areas. In addition, oil and gas activities do not occur on the refuge.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service
has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily
along watershed boundaries (Figure 2). Eufaula NWR lies within the Northeast Gulf Watersheds
Ecosystem (formerly the Florida Panhandle Watersheds), which spans portions of Florida, Alabama,
and Georgia (USFWS n.d.b).
The Service’s Northeast Gulf Ecosystem (NEG) Team has developed a strategic planning approach
using sub-teams to address conservation issues for which the Service has responsibility (i.e., trust
resources). The sub-teams are oriented to identify and resolve habitat-based impacts upon coastal
and inland wetlands, endangered species, migratory birds, water quality and quantity, and longleaf
pine restoration. Partnerships with other agencies and concerned groups are used to accomplish the
team’s objectives. Eufaula NWR has provided both staff time and refuge funding to assist in meeting
the biological goals and objectives of the NEG Team.
Figure 2. USFWS-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S., with the Northeast Gulf
Watersheds Ecosystem (#30) highlighted.
14 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Eufaula NWR has a special role to play in the conservation of migratory birds. Suitable wintering or
nesting habitat for species including the wood stork, prothonotary warbler, common ground-dove,
sandhill crane, bald eagle, bobwhite quail, least bittern, American kestrel, LeConte’s sparrow, and
others occur on the refuge. Utilizing recommendations from the Partners in Flight “Bird Conservation
Plan for the East Gulf Coastal Plan” has helped increased awareness and improved capabilities to
provide both seasonal and breeding habitat for many species. The refuge is a focal area for migratory
waterfowl in the Chattahoochee River valley. Wintering waterfowl populations of ducks peaked at
over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent years, wintering counts have averaged around 15,000
(USFWS 2003a). Few migratory geese visit the refuge, but a there is a resident Canada goose
population of approximately 2,000. Bald eagles and osprey are increasingly common, as are other
breeding and wintering raptors. The refuge’s habitats support large numbers of waterbirds including
herons, egrets, and other marshbirds.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in 2002. Under this new program, Congress
provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and
implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement
of SWG was for each state to complete a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by
October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and focus management on
“species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds to be used to manage and
conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.
The State of Alabama’s CWCS effort began when the Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
sponsored the 2002 Nongame Conference that assembled scientists and stakeholders to compile the
best available information on Alabama's wildlife. This two-year effort resulted in a comprehensive
four-volume publication entitled, Alabama Wildlife, which is the foundation for the Alabama CWCS.
The Alabama CWCS was approved by the Service in November 2005 (ADCNR n.d.). This CWCS
defines those wildlife species in greatest need of conservation in Alabama and describes the actions
necessary for their restoration.
In December 2002, the Georgia Wildlife Resources Division began the process to develop a
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy for Georgia. The goal is to conserve Georgia’s
animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive measures emphasizing voluntary and
incentive-based programs on private lands; habitat restoration and management by public
agencies and private conservation organizations; rare species survey and recovery efforts; and
environmental education and public outreach activities. The Georgia CWCS was approved by
the Service in August 2005 (GADNR n.d.).
The states’ participation and contribution throughout this planning process has provided for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue, improving the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in both
states. An essential part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of common
mission objectives, where appropriate.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Over the past two centuries, as civilization spread throughout the region, ever-increasing needs for
transportation, housing, water supply, electricity, food, and waste disposal have led to dramatic
alterations of the landscape. The greatest alteration has been from land clearing for agriculture and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
flood control projects. Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living, they
have also had a tremendous negative impact on biological diversity, biological integrity, and
environmental health. The underlying threats to biological diversity include:
􀁹􇤠 Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of high-quality habitat due to development;
􀁹􇤠 Loss of natural shoreline as a result of development, hydrologic modifications, natural erosion,
bulkheading, shoreline armoring, and inadequate coastal engineering; and
􀁹􇤠 Lack of monitoring and regulation to protect fish and wildlife resources.
More generally, threats to biodiversity across the variety of habitat types represented in the Northeast Gulf
Watersheds Ecosystem are posed by invasive species, overuse of resources, pollution, global climate
change, improper practices of fire suppression, and most of all, habitat loss and fragmentation.
As a consequence of these threats, all manner of habitats in this ecosystem have seen their acreages
reduced. Forested wetlands and marshes are rapidly disappearing. Immense areas of bottomland
hardwood forests have been reduced to forest fragments. These range from a few large areas of more
than 10,000 acres that have maintained many of the original functions and values of bottomland
hardwood forest, to very small tracts just a few acres in size possessing limited functional value.
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Gulf
coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in Alabama and Georgia. The
species most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special
habitat. Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species,
primarily through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 280 species of breeding
migratory songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species
have declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These
species need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
The avian species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive
(dependent on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors;
those that depend on special habitat requirements like mature forests or a particular food source; and
those that depend on good water quality. Species such as the prothonotary warbler, cerulean
warbler, and, in particular, Bachman’s warbler, have declined significantly and will require the benefits
of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
Increased urbanization is occurring along the Chattahoochee River around the town of Eufaula and
the Highway 431 corridor. Commercial, industrial, and residential development continues to swallow
farmland and natural areas at an alarming rate. Although many portions of the refuge are still
surrounded by large agricultural tracts, this may decline in the next 10–20 years.
16 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types,
significant alterations have occurred in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel
modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation. Aquatic systems have also been
degraded from the effects of excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire watershed, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in
comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an
enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due to
atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include erosion,
sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather disturbances.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of
native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to
movement prevent anadromous fish—including striped bass, Gulf sturgeon and Alabama shad—from
reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many other aquatic species have similarly
become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from land surface pollution runoff are
exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural wetland is complicated by the
fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation,
and animal complexes and processes.
The recent “water wars” between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over flow rates into and through the
Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint basin have not been resolved. Reduced flow rates could have severe
impacts upon wetland habitats along the Chattahoochee and affect management of refuge
impoundments. Other river management issues include the proliferation of hydrilla and other exotic
plants; sewage disposal by boaters; shoreline erosion; and the threat of exotic fish (i.e., bigheaded carp).
Currently, Eufaula NWR has limited regulatory authority to address these problems. Finding solutions will
require strong partnerships among the refuge, the Corps of Engineers, and state agencies.
SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Over a century ago, floodwaters and storms recharged aquatic and terrestrial habitats and created
rich, dynamic systems that supported a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife. Currently, however,
water quality is significantly impacted by agricultural and industrial runoff. Rivers and water bodies
throughout the ecosystem are filling in with silt. They are highly turbid, laden with pesticides, and
support a small fraction of the once-abundant aquatic resources. Declines in fish, wildlife, and
habitats have prompted the Service to designate the coastal habitats found in this ecosystem as
areas of special concern.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers, sloughs, and bayous, have been degraded as a result of
deforestation and hydrologic alteration. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an
accelerated accumulation of sediments and contaminants in all aquatic systems. Many water
bodies are now filled with sediments, greatly reducing their surface areas and depths.
Concurrently, the nonpoint source runoff of excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the
area’s remaining aquatic resources.
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. The protection, conservation, and restoration of these
aquatic resources consequently take on an added importance in light of the alterations associated
with flood control and navigation.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator-weed and willows. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding
and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable
for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the
introduction of exotic (nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening
viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation
important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
Various species of nonnative wildlife and fish also flourish in this temperate climate. Animals like the
nutria compete with native wildlife for limited resources and many, like feral hogs, have caused
extensive habitat damage and alterations.
Exotic and invasive weedy species in moist-soil areas, agricultural fields, wetlands, and forest edges
can potentially overwhelm management efforts and devastate plant and animal diversity on the
refuge. Feral hogs have become persistent annual pests in the Bradley Impoundment in Georgia,
and it is only a matter of time before they expand into the refuge on the Alabama side. Hydrilla now
occurs in refuge waters (Figure 3); it is expanding and poses severe implications for the refuge’s
fishery and other aquatic resources. Treating and managing invasive species is a complex issue.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Eastern Alabama (Russell and Barbour counties) and western Georgia (Stewart and Quitman), where
the refuge is located, have a humid, warm-temperate, continental climate typical of the southeastern
United States. The average yearly rainfall is over 51 inches, with rainfall reasonably well distributed
throughout the year, although winter is the wettest season. March is the wettest month at 6.1 inches
and October is the driest at 2.32 inches (USFWS 2005). Tropical storms or hurricanes coming from
the Gulf of Mexico may occasionally bring several days of heavy rain. Thunderstorms, which usually
bring the heaviest rains, are rarely accompanied by hail and tornadoes. Drought conditions during
the summer may increase the danger of fire. The average annual snowfall is less than an inch.
18 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Expanding infestation of hydrilla on Lake Eufaula, 2001–2006
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2007
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
January is usually the coldest month, with an average temperature of 47 degrees Fahrenheit. July is
normally the hottest, with temperatures averaging about 80 degrees (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration 2006). Winters are mild, with temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long.
Summers are hot and humid with heat indexes commonly reaching 110 to 115 degrees. Humidity averages
90% during summer. The average growing season is 230 days (University of Alabama 2006).
PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
The refuge is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic region (Stein et al. 2000).
Typical vegetation types found include southern mixed forest, oak-hickory-pine, and southern yellow
pine (loblolly-shortleaf, loblolly-longleaf) mixed with intervening floodplain forests (Kuchler 1964).
Major stream drainages include Cowikee, Wylaunee, Rood, Bustahatchee, and Soapstone.
The refuge’s elevations range from 185 to 270 feet above mean sea level (MSL). Its upland and
terrace soils are classified as fine sandy loams, deep to moderately deep, well drained, gentle sloping
to level. Examples include the Blanton-Bonneau complex, Wickham, Amite, and Flint. Soil water
movement ranges from freely moving to slow. Soils within the marshes, swamps, and floodplains
vary from fine sandy loams to alluvial clays. These soils are very deep, poorly drained deposits on
acid clayey sediments or fluvial and marine terraces. Examples include Bladen, Pelham, and the
Annemaine-Wahee complex.
HYDROLOGY
Almost 36 percent (4,000 acres) of Eufaula NWR is open water, mostly Lake Eufaula. The refuge
manages 16 impoundments that are flooded for waterfowl management. The refuge has six
managed wetland units. The Bradley (750 acres), Houston (210 acres), and Kennedy (450 acres)
units consist of inlet pumps to fill and outlet pumps to dewater. The Uplands (40 acres), Goose
Pen (15 acres), and Molnar (25 acres) units are all filled by inlet pumps, but are drained by gravity-flow
water control structures. Creeks found on the refuge include the North Fork Cowickee, Middle
Fork Cowikee, Wylaynee, and Little Barbour in Alabama; and the Soapstone, Bustahatchee, Rood,
and Grass in Georgia.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Water quality remains a long-term concern as siltation, pesticides, treated and untreated wastewater,
and nitrogen accumulation may eventually adversely impact aquatic resources. The refuge does not
conduct water testing and relies on monitoring by the appropriate state agencies. The Corps of
Engineers controls refuge water levels in a manner contradictory for good waterfowl management.
More immediate benefits would occur to refuge wildlife if the Corps would modify its management of
the water levels. Maintaining a lower pool elevation during summer would provide habitat for wading
birds and migratory shorebirds and allow for moist-soil plants to grow for wintering waterfowl use.
Due to the Corps’ navigational and flood control objectives for the Walter F. George Reservoir and
the Chattahoochee River, this change is unlikely.
AIR QUALITY
Compared to other counties in the United States, Russell County, Alabama, has relatively high
emissions of air pollutants. The county’s emissions rank in the 90th percentile for carbon monoxide;
70th percentile for nitrogen oxide; 80th percentile for PM-25 (particulate matter below 2.5 microns in
diameter); 60th percentile for PM-10; 70th percentile for sulfur dioxide; and 70th percentile for volatile
organic compounds (Scorecard 2005).
20 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
However, Russell County’s actual ambient air quality—the air to which its residents, flora, and
fauna are exposed and actually breathe—is relatively good. Its overall Air Quality Index is in the
30th percentile of counties nationwide, and its 1-hour and 8-hour ozone concentrations are in the
20th percentile. Its PM-2.5, 24-hour average concentration is in the 30th percentile; its PM-10, 24-
hour average concentration is in the 0–10th percentile range; and its PM-10 annual average
concentration is in the 20th percentile. The only ambient air parameter of concern is the PM-2.5
annual average concentration, which is in the 70th percentile. Overall health risks, as judged by
the number of person-days that exceed the national air quality standards for PM-2.5, are in the 1–
10th percentile range (Scorecard 2005).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Eufaula NWR contains a fragmented assemblage of managed and naturally occurring wetlands,
interspersed with a mosaic of hardwood forests, pine hardwood uplands, successional fields, and
active agricultural lands. The Service contracted with The Nature Conservancy’s Alabama Natural
Heritage Program (ANHP) to conduct a natural community and rare plant survey of the refuge, which
was published in 2001–2002 (Schotz 2002). This survey identified 21 distinct natural plant
associations or communities on the refuge, which are listed in Table 2 and shown in Figure 4. The
most ubiquitous plant communities included the Upland Pine Forest and Upland Mixed Forest. Each
of these 21 communities is briefly described below.
Upland Pine Forest
Historically, this forest type constituted the upland, well-drained portion of the once-extensive longleaf
pine ecosystem that stretched from southeastern Virginia to east Texas. Under ideal conditions
where frequent fire is allowed to burn every two to ten years, this system will assume an open and
park-like appearance consisting of widely spaced longleaf pine and a ground cover of perennial
grasses and forbs interspersed with a scattering of small oaks and shrubs. Formerly widespread
throughout southern Alabama, examples have now been reduced to small, isolated remnants that
occupy low ridges and slopes. One type is currently known from Eufaula NWR:
􀁹􇤠 Pinus palustris – Pinus (echinata, taeda) – Quercus (incana, margarettiae, falcata, laevis)
Woodland
[Longleaf Pine – (Shortleaf Pine, Loblolly Pine) – (Bluejack Oak, Sand Post Oak, Southern Red
Oak, Turkey Oak) Woodland]
The examples at Eufaula NWR are represented by an open canopy of longleaf and shortleaf pines
(Pinus palustris and P. echinata, respectively), with a high incidence of hardwoods that include
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa); bluejack oak (Quercus incana); southern red oak (Q. falcata);
sand post oak (Q. margarettiae); post oak (Q. stellata); and blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica). In addition
to specimens of the foregoing canopy species, the understory is comprised of a low diversity of trees,
shrubs, and vines, including Alabama black cherry (Prunus alabamensis); water oak (Quercus nigra);
yellow hawthorn (Crataegus flava); winged sumac (Rhus copallina); sassafras (Sassafras albidum);
sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum); dwarf blueberry (V. darrowii); poison oak (Toxicodendron
toxicarium); muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia); and various briers (Smilax bona-nox, S. glauca, S.
rotundifolia). For the most part, the herbaceous component is relatively sparse and irregularly
distributed, and composed of herbaceous perennials which either benefit directly from the effects of
growing season fire or from the open canopy.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Table 2. Natural community occurrences for Eufaula NWR
Scientific Name Common Name Global
Rank
State
Rank
No. of
EORs
Pinus palustris – Pinus (echinata, taeda)
– Quercus (incana, margarettiae,
falcata, laevis) Woodland
Upland Pine Forest G? S1 1
Quercus hemisphaerica – Quercus
(falcata, nigra) / Ilex opaca – Vaccinium
arboreum / Cnidoscolus stimulosus
Forest
Coastal Plain Dry – Mesic
Oak Forest
G2G3 S1 0
Pinus taeda – Quercus falcata –
Quercus alba / Ostrya virginiana /
Chasmanthium sessiliflorum Forest
Upland Mixed Forest G4G5 S2 0
Quercus falcata – Quercus alba – Carya
tomentosa / Oxydendrum arboreum /
Vaccinium stamineum Forest
Upland Hardwood Forest G4G5 S2 0
Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus
(nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda /
Vaccinium elliottii – Morella cerifera
Forest
Upland Mixed Forest G5 S5 0
Quercus pagoda – Quercus nigra /
Halesia diptera – Ilex decidua /
Chasmanthium sessiliflorum – Dicliptera
brachiata Forest
Bottomland Forest G4? S1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus
americana / Carpinus caroliniana /
Boehmeria cylindrica Forest
Bottomland Forest G4? S2 0
Pinus taeda Planted Forest Loblolly Pine Plantation G5 S5 0
Quercus pagoda Planted Forest Cherrybark Oak
Plantation
G5 S5 0
Quercus acutissima Planted Forest Sawtooth Oak Plantation G5 S5 0
Successional Field Successional Field G5 S5 0
Quercus phellos – Quercus nigra –
Quercus alba / Chasmanthium
sessiliflorum Forest
Bottomland Forest G3G4 S1 1
22 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Scientific Name Common Name Global
Rank
State
Rank
No. of
EORs
Quercus phellos / Carex (albolutescens,
intumescens, joorii) – Chasmanthium
sessiliflorum / Sphagnum lescurii Forest
Willow Oak Depression G2G3 S1 1
Nyssa biflora / Itea virginica –
Cephalanthus occidentalis Depression
Forest
Gum Swamp G3G4 S1 1
Nyssa biflora – Quercus nigra –
Quercus laurifolia – Pinus taeda / Ilex
opaca – Carpinus caroliniana Forest
Oak Depression Swamp G5 S1 0
Liriodendron tulipifera – Nyssa biflora –
Magnolia virginiana / Toxicodendron
vernix – Morella heterophylla / Osmunda
regalis Forest
Baygall G2G3 S1 0
Salix nigra Temporary Flooded
Shrubland
Black Willow Swamp G5 S3 0
Hypericum fasciculatum / Rhynchospora
(chapmanii, harperi) Shrubland
Coastal Plain Depression
Marsh
G2G3 S1 0
Panicum hemitomon – Pluchea
(camphorata, rosea) – Ludwigia spp.
Herbaceous Vegetation
Maidencane Marsh G3? S2 0
Eleocharis microcarpa – Juncus repens
– Rhynchospora corniculata –
(Mercardonia acuminata, Proserpinaca
spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation
Coastal Plain Depression
Marsh
G2G3 S1 0
Nelumbo lutea Herbaceous Vegetation American Lotus Aquatic
Wetland
G3G4 S2 0
Impounded Areas Impounded Areas G5 S5 0
Source: Schotz (2002) Total Number of Communities: 22
Total Number of EORs: 5
[NOTE: An element is any exemplary or rare component of the natural environment, such as a species, natural
community, bird rookery, sinkhole, or other ecological feature. An Element Occurrence (EO) represents the
location of an element and is the environment which sustains a species’ population or an example of a natural
community. The Element Occurrence Record (EOR) is the computerized record that contains the biological
and location information regarding a specific EO.]
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 4. Plant communities of Eufaula NWR
24 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Definition of Heritage Ranks
The Alabama Natural Heritage Program uses the Heritage ranking system developed by The Nature
Conservancy. Each species is assigned two ranks; one representing its rangewide or global status (G rank),
and one representing its status in the state (S rank). Communities or species with a rank of 1 are most critically
imperiled; those with a rank of 5 are most secure.
Global Ranking State Ranking
G1 Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer S1 Critically imperiled in Alabama because
occurrences) of extreme rarity (5 or fewer
occurrences of very few remaining
G2 Imperiled globally (6 to 20 occurrences) individuals or acres) or because of some
factor(s) making it especially vulnerable
G3 Either very rare and local throughout its to extirpation from Alabama.
range or found locally in a restricted
range (21 to 100 occurrences) S2 Imperiled in state because of rarity (6 to
20 occurrences or few remaining
G4 Apparently secure globally individuals or acres) or because of some
factor(s) making it very vulnerable to
G5 Demonstrably secure globally extirpation from Alabama
G? Not ranked to date S3 Rare of uncommon in Alabama (on the
order of 21 to 100 occurrences)
S4 Apparently secure in Alabama with
many occurrences
S5 Demonstrably secure in Alabama and
essentially “ineradicable” under present
conditions
Upland Hardwood Forest and Upland Mixed Forest
Upland hardwood and upland mixed forests are currently found throughout Alabama, but their
composition varies with the transition from a warm nearly subtropical forest in the south to a cool
temperate flora in the north. In addition, the composition and abundances of species, as well as the
structure and dynamics of these forests, are greatly affected by complex disturbance regimes that
vary at different scales over space and time. Most recently, as well demonstrated at Eufaula NWR,
anthropogenic disturbance has complemented natural disturbance regimes, thus further modifying
ecological processes. Hence, combinations of species and natural communities not present upon the
Eufaula NWR landscape during pre-settlement times are currently being formed. Given the above
conditions, four associations are presently recognized from Eufaula NWR:
􀁹􇤠 Quercus hemisphaerica – Quercus (falcata, nigra/Ilex opaca – Vaccinium arboreum/Cnidoscolus
stimulosus Forest
[Upland Laurel Oak – (Southern Red Oak, Water Oak)/American Holly – Tree Sparkleberry/
Tread-softly Forest
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
This association is predominantly comprised of upland laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica) in the
canopy, often in accompaniment with a lesser frequency of post oak (Q. stellata); southern red oak
(Q. falcata); water oak (Q. nigra); sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua); blackgum; and loblolly pine.
Characteristic taxa of the open understory are well represented by the foregoing canopy species, as
well as an assortment of small trees and shrubs, including tree sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum);
Elliott’s blueberry (Vaccinium elliottii); horse sugar (Symplocus tinctoria); American holly (Ilex opaca);
black cherry (Prunus serotina); sebastian bush (Sebastiana fruticosa); sand holly (Ilex ambigua); and
dwarf pawpaw (Asimina parviflora). The herbaceous component is typically very sparse with low-growing
briers (Smilax glauca, S. bona-nox), panicled tick-trefoil (Desmodium paniculatum), and
partridgeberry (Mitchella repens) appearing most conspicuous.
􀁹􇤠 Pinus taeda – Quercus falcata – Quercus alba/Ostrya virginiana/Chasmanthium sessiliflorum
Forest
[Loblolly Pine – Southern Red Oak, White Oak/Hop Hornbeam/Longleaf Spanglegrass Forest]
This community type is poorly represented on Eufaula NWR, where it is narrowly confined to a
complex of gently rolling slopes overlooking the backwaters along the west side of the
Chattahoochee River. Examples are close canopies being codominated by loblolly and shortleaf
pines, with some combination of southern red oak, upland laurel oak (Quercus hemisphaerica), white
oak (Q. alba), and water oak (Q. nigra). Accenting the foregoing assemblage is a lesser frequency of
post oak, mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and sweetgum. Of special interest is the presence
of an occasional longleaf pine, suggesting that this association may represent a transition zone
between the hardwood-dominated bottomlands and the fire-maintained uplands.
􀁹􇤠 Quercus falcata – Quercus alba – Carya tomentosa/Oxydendrum arboreum/Vaccinium
stamineum Forest
[Southern Red Oak – White Oak – Mockernut Hickory/Sourwood/Deerberry Forest]
This association contains vegetation that can be described as a dry-mesic oak-hickory forest. A
widespread association of the Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain, its presence on Eufaula NWR is
limited to a small tract along the north side of Cowikee Creek, just west of U. S. Highway 431. The
canopy is dominated by southern red oak, water oak, pignut hickory (Carya glabra), and mockernut
hickory, with lesser amounts of upland laurel oak, white oak, and sweetgum. The subcanopy and
shrub strata are comprised of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida); winged elm (Ulmus alata); hoary
azalea (Rhododendron canescens); tree sparkleberry; sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum); red maple
(Acer rubrum var. rubrum); beautyberry (Callicarpa americana); dwarf pawpaw (Asimina parviflora);
downy serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea); and hog plum (Prunus umbellata), among others.
􀁹􇤠 Liquidambar styraciflua – Quercus (nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda/Vaccinium elliottii – Morella
cerifera Forest
[Sweetgum – (Water Oak, Willow Oak) – Loblolly Pine/Elliott’s Blueberry – Southern Bayberry
Forest]
Undoubtedly the most ubiquitous community type on Eufaula NWR, this association contains a mixture of
upland and lowland species that typically occur together following the cessation of agriculture. It is
primarily dominated by hardwood trees, particularly sweetgum, water oak, and willow oak (Quercus
phellos). However, this forest type occurs in two distinct phases: one with an emergent canopy of large
loblolly pine, and the other without the emergent canopy. Coverage by Pinus taeda in the Pinus taeda
phase ranges from 10 to greater than 60 percent. As the hardwoods mature, the pines gradually
decrease in abundance, becoming only a minor component in the canopy. The closed canopy is
characterized by a prominence of sweetgum and various oaks, most notably water and willow oaks. The
26 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
understory exhibits a high variability in structure and composition, with the greatest density of shrubs and
small trees occurring in early successional stages. Vines are an important component of this association
and include trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans); yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens); poison
ivy; muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia); and seemingly a prominence of briers (Smilax laurifolia, S.
glauca, S. rotundifolia, S. bona-nox). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), an opportunistic exotic
species, has become well established in several areas. The herbaceous layer may be sparse, particularly
if shrubs and vines are dense.
Bottomland Floodplain Forests
Southern floodplain forests have undergone some of the most rapid reductions in size and changes
in floral composition than nearly any other forest biome in the United States, and are therefore of
critical conservation concern. Many have been and are continually being converted to farmland,
industrial parks, or are modified by urban and suburban expansion. Other bottomlands are
managed for timber production or as recreational areas in ways that reduce their viability as natural
wetland habitats. Nonetheless, an understanding of the distribution, physical and biotic
characteristics, and functional properties of these systems are critical toward establishing
appropriate criteria for their use and long-term conservation.
Floodplain forests are found wherever streams or rivers flood at least occasionally beyond their
channels. In the southeastern United States, these forests are broadly classified into three general
categories: bottomland forests, floodplain forests, and deepwater alluvial swamps, each being
defined by the frequency and timing of annual flooding. Floodplain ecosystems are highly variable in
size, ranging from broad alluvial valleys several miles wide to more narrow strips of streambank
vegetation. On Eufaula NWR, these forest associations exist as narrow remnants along the
Chattahoochee River, two of which are currently recognized.
􀁹􇤠 Quercus pagoda – Quercus nigra/Halesia diptera – Ilex decidua/Chasmanthium sessiliflorum –
Dicliptera brachiata Forest
[Cherrybark Oak – Water Oak/Two-wing Silverbell – Deciduous Holly/Longleaf Spanglegrass -
Mudwort Forest]
Occurring as a narrow corridor along the Chattahoochee River in the northernmost sector of Eufaula
NWR, this association is represented by a codominance of cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), water
oak, sweetgum, and loblolly pine in the canopy. More widely distributed, but seldom absent from the
canopy, is a suite of secondary species, including winged elm; post oak; swamp chestnut oak
(Quercus michauxii); black cherry (Prunus serotina); persimmon (Diospyros virginiana); and water
hickory (Carya aquatica). The understory is open and park-like, containing a representation of the
foregoing canopy associates, in addition to a scattering of small trees and shrubs such as deciduous
holly (Ilex decidua); American holly; American elm (Ulmus americana); two-wing silverbell (Halesia
diptera); dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor); and red maple (Acer rubrum). The herbaceous component is
characterized by a mosaic of sparsely vegetated areas.
􀁹􇤠 Fraxinus pennsylvanica – Ulmus americana/Carpinus caroliniana/Boehmeria cylindrica Forest
[Green Ash – American Elm/American Hornbeam/False Nettle Forest]
The extent of this association on Eufaula NWR is restricted to the margins of the Chattahoochee
River, where it is represented by a small number of poor quality occurrences. Considered a close
canopied forest, human-derived disturbances have resulted in an open overstory with a dense, nearly
impenetrable understory of vines and shrubs. A suite of species indicative of bottomlands in the
region characterize the canopy, including green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica); sugarberry (Celtis
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
laevigata); American elm; silver maple; water oak; sweetgum; and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The dense undergrowth contains a rich variety of species, most notably consisting of the following:
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum); American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana); lead-plant (Amorpha
fruticosa); pepper-vine (Ampelopsis arborea); southern bayberry (Morella cerifera); tag alder (Alnus
serrulata); giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea var. gigantea); groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia);
giant ironweed (Vernonia gigantea); and Japanese honeysuckle.
􀁹􇤠 Quercus phellos – Quercus nigra – Quercus alba/Chasmanthium sessiliflorum Forest
[Willow Oak – Water Oak – White Oak/Longleaf Spanglegrass Forest]
This is a temporarily flooded forest association dominated by willow oak in the canopy. Although
occurring less frequently, other canopy associates include, in decreasing order of abundance, water
oak; sweetgum; loblolly pine; swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora); red maple; green ash; winged elm;
water hickory; and white oak. The subcanopy/shrub stratum is generally well-developed and contains
representatives of the foregoing canopy layer, as well as parsley-leaf hawthorn (Crataegus marshallii);
green hawthorn (Crataegus viridis); dwarf palmetto; deciduous holly; and Virginia willow (Itea virginica).
The greatest floral diversity is found in the herb layer, which is dominated by members of the grass
(Poaceae) family. Resurrection fern (Pleopeltis polypodioides) and Spanish moss (Tillandsia
usneoides) are epiphytic on the branches of some trees. An assortment of vines is also in evidence,
appearing to be equally distributed along the forest floor as well as in the canopy. High quality
occurrences of this association can still be found throughout Eufaula NWR. The best examples occur
in the vicinity of Cowikee Creek, along the south side of the creek in the refuge’s Molnar Unit.
Forest Plantations
Plantations of trees have been planted throughout Eufaula NWR, with the primary intent of enhancing
wildlife habitat. Three types are noted for the refuge, including one pine and two hardwood
associations, all of which extend from 10 to 30 years of age.
􀁹􇤠 Pinus taeda Planted Forest
[Loblolly Pine Planted Forest]
This association is classified as a loblolly pine plantation with little understory.
􀁹􇤠 Quercus pagoda Planted Forest
[Cherrybark Oak Planted Forest]
Plantations of cherrybark oak are planted for wildlife habitat improvement. The understory is patchy
but relatively open, containing beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), southern bayberry, sweetgum, St.
Andrew’s-cross (Hypericum hypericoides), and muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia).
􀁹􇤠 Quercus acutissima Planted Forest
[Sawtooth Oak Planted Forest]
Plantations of sawtooth oak are grown for wildlife habitat enhancement.
28 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Successional Fields
Successional fields are the result of former land use practices in which the forest was eliminated, and
then allowed to become re-established. Fields represent the initial phase in the progression of
vegetational succession from which the cessation of active land use gradually transforms into climax
forest. On Eufaula NWR, this vegetation type is represented by the earliest levels of succession:
herb-dominated fields occasionally accented by a series of low-growing trees and shrubs.
􀁹􇤠 Successional Field
This is a relatively short-lived association that will likely succeed to a Liquidambar styraciflua –
Quercus (nigra, phellos) – Pinus taeda/Vaccinium elliottii – Morella cerifera Forest, a community type
that usually follows the abandonment of agricultural lands. Examples at Eufaula NWR are partially
maintained through periodic mowing, thus retarding the growth of woody vegetation. The vegetation
is characterized by a prominence of weedy herbaceous species such as gerardia (Agalinis
fasciculata), sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteus), Canada goldenrod (Solidago
canadensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), ragweed (Ambosia artemisiifolia), and Brazilian
vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) that are accented with a scattering of small trees and shrubs, most
notably loblolly pine, sweetgum, oaks, persimmon, and winged elm.
Basin Swamps
Basin swamps generally occur within irregularly shaped basins not associated with river systems.
Three types are known from Eufaula NWR, all of which maintain similar hydroperiods (200–300
days), but possess a strikingly different combination of flora. Some basin swamps on the refuge,
specifically those associations dominated by Nyssa biflora, are dependent on fire, which often
dictates the vegetation to occupy a given site. Long intervals between droughts obscure the
importance of fire in modifying and maintaining these wetland environments. Various wetlands are
burned on different cycles, with gum ponds having relatively long intervals of 50- to 150-year cycles.
􀁹􇤠 Quercus phellos/Carex (albolutescens, intumescens, joorii) – Chasmanthium sessiliflorum/
Sphagnum lescurii Forest
[Willow Oak/(Greenish-white Sedge, Bladder Sedge, Cypress-swamp Sedge) Longleaf
Spanglegrass/Yellow Peatmoss Forest]
This association occupies seasonally wet depressions along the upper floodplain terraces of the
Chattahoochee River. A closed canopy forest, this community is represented by a prominence of
willow oak. Water oak, sweetgum, swamp blackgum, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), and loblolly pine
generally occur less frequently and therefore are of secondary importance. The shrub and herb
layers of high-quality occurrences are relatively sparse, often characterized by a low diversity of plant
life. The finest occurrence of this association can be found on the north side of a refuge road in the
Upland Unit, in the southeast quarter of Section 24.
􀁹􇤠 Nyssa biflora/Itea virginica – Cephalanthus occidentalis Depression Forest
Swamp Blackgum/Virginia-willow – Buttonbush Depression Forest
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
This community, while rare on Eufaula NWR, is widespread throughout the southeastern United
States, where it occupies peaty or mucky, acidic, semipermanently wet depressions and narrow
sloughs. The canopy is predominantly comprised of swamp blackgum, while other bottomland
species such as sweetgum, water oak, willow oak, red maple, and loblolly pine are more widely
scattered, usually contributing less than 30 percent of the canopy. The abundance and diversity
of the shrub and herb layers are generally sparse, often correlated with seasonal water
fluctuation and canopy closure.
􀁹􇤠 Nyssa biflora – Quercus nigra – Quercus laurifolia – Pinus taeda/Ilex opaca – Carpinus
caroliniana Forest
[Swamp Blackgum – Water Oak – Laurel Oak – Loblolly Pine/American Holly – American
Hornbeam Forest]
The example at Eufaula NWR is represented by a closed canopy of swamp blackgum, laurel oak, and
loblolly pine, with a slightly lesser abundance of water oak and sweetgum. The understory is poorly
defined, with only a small number of species present, including American hornbeam, red maple, and
Virginia willow, as well as various members of the canopy layer. Lizard’s-tail (Saururus cernuus) is a
prominent component of the ground cover, along with a rich diversity of other wetland species.
Baygalls
Rangewide, baygalls exhibit highly variable structural and compositional features, but are generally
characterized as densely forested, acidic wetlands dependent on a continuous seepage flow or high
water table. Baygalls occur throughout southern Alabama in several different landscape settings,
including streamsides, flatwoods, depressions, wetter sections of pitcher-plant bogs, and floodplains.
Hydrology, topographic variables, and soil properties exert a significant influence on the type of
baygall vegetation occupying a particular site.
􀁹􇤠 Liriodendron tulipifera – Nyssa biflora – Magnolia virginiana/Toxicodendron vernix – Morella
heterophylla/Osmunda regalis var. spectabilis Forest
[Tuliptree – Swamp Blackgum – Sweetbay/Poison Sumac – Evergreen Bayberry/Royal Fern
Forest]
This association is generally restricted to the margins of small blackwater and spring-fed streams,
particularly those not subject to much flooding or siltation. Distinguished by the presence of poison
sumac, this community is an uneven aged, mixed forest consisting of a closed canopy of tulip tree
(Liriodendron tulipifera), swamp blackgum, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and loblolly pine that
overtops a dense shrub component principally composed of poison sumac, red maple, swamp redbay
(Persea palustris), large gallberry (Ilex coriacea), beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), American olive
(Osmanthus americanus), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia). The herbaceous stratum is
diverse and sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.) often carpets the ground.
Floodplain Marsh
Floodplain marshes are wetlands characterized by a prominence of herbaceous and/or woody
vegetation that occurs in river floodplains, particularly in the Gulf Coastal Plain. Water and, to a minor
extent, fire is the driving force responsible for maintaining the viability of naturally occurring systems
and a corresponding diversity of wildlife. In fact, fire plays a crucial role in the ecology of some of
Alabama’s marshlands by limiting the invasion of woody vegetation, affecting the composition of the
30 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
herbaceous component, and retarding or occasionally reversing peat accumulation. The presence of
floodplain marshes on Eufaula NWR originated from a combination of increased water levels resulting
from the damming of the Chattahoochee River and the installation of dikes to artificially manipulate
water levels for the benefit of waterfowl.
􀁹􇤠 Salix nigra Temporary Flooded Shrubland
[Black Willow Temporary Flooded Shrubland]
This community type is composed of young or frequently disturbed thickets of black willow (Salix
nigra) that inhabit shallow water associated with impounded areas and the backwaters of the
Chattahoochee River. Occurrences are moderately vegetated in the understory with an assortment
of shrubs, vines, and herbs. Characteristic species include buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis);
hemp sesbania (Sesbania macrocarpa); sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); rose
mallows (Hibiscus militaris, H. moscheutos); woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus); broad-leaf arrowhead
(Sagattaria latifolia); and water pepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides).
􀁹􇤠 Panicum hemitomon – Pluchea (camphorata, rosea) – Ludwigia spp. Herbaceous Vegetation
[Maidencane – Camphorweed – Seedbox species Herbaceous Vegetation]
This is a broadly distributed association that primarily occurs along the margins of backwater areas
associated with the Chattahoochee River. Characterized by a prominence of maidencane (Panicum
hemitomon), this vegetation type is nearly monospecific, containing only a small number of associated
herbs, including woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus); panicgrass (Dichanthelium scabriusculum); spikerushes
(Eleocharis spp.); rushes (Juncus spp.); sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); camphorweed
(Pluchea camphorata); and various seedboxes (Ludwigia spp.).
􀁹􇤠 Nelumbo lutea Herbaceous Vegetation
[American Lotus Aquatic Wetland]
The distribution of the American lotus association on Eufaula NWR is primarily restricted to the
backwaters of the Chattahoochee River. Stands are essentially monospecific and often cover
extensive areas. Other floating-leaved aquatics such as yellow pond lily (Nuphar lutea ssp. advena),
duckweed (Lemna sp.), mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana), and the exotic water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) are also present, as are various emergent species including pickerel-weed (Pontederia
cordata), broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia), broad-leaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia), water pepper
(Polygonum hydropiperoides), and maidencane (Panicum hemitomon). Alligator-weed (Alternanthera
philoxeroides), an adventive weedy species from South America, has also invaded some areas.
Depression Marsh
Depression marshes are shallow (less than a meter deep), often ephemeral wetlands that occur
within a slight depression in an otherwise flat landscape. The origin of depression marshes is open
to interpretation, with several explanations having been offered. However, one of the most
accepted theories suggests that these wetlands were created by wind scouring of unconsolidated
sands forming hollows that filled with water above a subsurface hardpan. The vegetation typically
assumes a well-defined concentric zonation pattern, where shrub St. John's-wort (Hypericum
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
fasciculatum) generally dominates the outer portion and a prominence of herbs, particularly grasses
and sedges, characterize the innermost sections. Eufaula NWR contains a single occurrence of
depression marsh, in the Molnar Unit, represented by two associations, the outer shrub zone and
the inner herbaceous zone.
􀁹􇤠 Hypericum fasciculatum / Rhynchospora (chapmanii, harperi) Shrubland
[Peelbark St. John’s-wort / (Chapman’s Beakrush, Harper’s Beakrush) Shrubland]
This association is poorly represented at Eufaula NWR, occurring as a small, linear assemblage of
shrubby vegetation along the margin of a pond in the Molnar Unit. The vegetation is readily
distinguished by a prominence of peelbark St. John’s-wort accompanied by a lesser abundance of
other shrubs, most notably black willow and groundsel-tree (Baccharis halimifolia). A rich diversity of
herbs are also present, represented by numerous members of the grass (Poaceae) and sedge
(Cyperaceae) families. Principal species, including grasses and sedges, are maidencane (Panicum
hemitomon); soft rush (Juncus effusus); wool grass (Scirpus cyperinus); nodding beakrush
(Rhynchospora inexpansa); short-bristle beakrush (Rhynchospora corniculata); bristlegrass (Setaria
geniculata); rose-mallows (Hibiscus spp.); water pepper (Polygonum hydropiperoides); centella
(Centella erecta); and flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia minor), among others.
􀁹􇤠 Eleocharis microcarpa – Juncus repens – Rhynchospora corniculata – (Mercardonia acuminata,
Proserpinaca spp.) Herbaceous Vegetation
[Small-fruit Spikerush – Creeping Rush – Shortbristle Horned Beakrush – (Axil-flower, Mermaid-weed
species) Herbaceous Vegetation]
This association forms the center of saturated to seasonally flooded depression ponds throughout the
southeastern United States. The example at Eufaula NWR is dominated by a combination of small-fruit
spikerush (Eleocharis microcarpa) and creeping rush (Juncus repens), two low-growing herbs
capable of establishing large colonies. Also present in much smaller quantities are blunt spikerush
(Eleocharis obtusa), short-bristle beakrush (Rhynchospora corniculata), and water-purslane (Ludwigia
palustris). The depressions where this community type occurs typically experience a seasonal
fluctuation in water level, filling in the winter and often drying completely in the summer. However,
during some years, the deepest zone in the center may remain inundated.
Impounded Areas
Moist-soil management refers to the management of land to provide moist-soil conditions during the
growing season to promote the natural production of beneficial plants. Seeds produced by these
plants often attract and concentrate waterfowl and other wetland wildlife species. The decomposing
vegetative parts of moist soil plants also provide substrate for invertebrates, which are critical food for
many wetland wildlife and fish.
Eufaula NWR maintains several artificially flooded areas for the purpose of enhancing waterfowl
habitat. Such areas are seasonally inundated generally to coincide with spring and fall migratory
patterns. The extreme variation in water levels allow for a diverse, but nonetheless, weedy flora to
exist. For the most part, herb-dominated vegetation is characteristic, often accented with patches of
low-growing trees and shrubs. Although no single species is prominent, several share co-dominance,
frequently occurring in nearly homogeneous stands. Although an impressive diversity of species is
present, a small number have become well established, achieving localized prominence and forming
monospecific stands. Examples include sugarcane plumegrass (Saccharum giganteum); bladder-pod;
hemp sesbania; soft rush (Juncus effusus); and Virginia broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus).
Herbs occurring in slightly lesser abundance are fascicled gerardia (Agalinis fasciculata); bugleweed
32 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
(Lycopus americanus); Maryland meadow-beauty (Rhexia mariana); flat-top goldenrod (Euthamia
minor); small white aster (Aster vimineus); and savanna panicgrass (Phanopyrum gymnocarpon).
Woody vegetation is represented by sweetgum, southern bayberry (Morella cerifera), groundsel-tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), and buttonbush.
WILDLIFE
With a variety of aquatic, managed wetlands and terrestrial habitats, Eufaula NWR supports a
diversity of fauna on the upper Coastal Plain. Various species occur throughout the area. The refuge
focuses most of its efforts on waterfowl habitat management, but a variety of these habitat
management practices benefit numerous other species. The refuge’s bird list includes 287 species.
Also recorded are 36 mammal, 25 reptile, 18 amphibian, and 37 fish species.
Waterfowl
Eufaula NWR is located on the extreme eastern edge of the Mississippi Flyway. Few Atlantic Flyway
waterfowl make it this far west. Primary waterfowl use areas occur in and around the Bradley
Impoundment, Kennedy Impoundment, Blackmon Bottoms, the Davis Clark/Lakepoint Lodge area,
Houston Bottoms, Upland Impoundment, and areas near Florence Marina. The common habitat
component of these areas is shallow water, either natural or controlled by pumps.
The refuge’s peak wintering populations of ducks reached over 40,000 in the mid-1970s. In recent
years, populations have peaked at 12,000–20,000. Migratory waterfowl numbers fluctuate
throughout the Chattahoochee Valley from year to year. Three major factors contribute to strong
duck numbers at Eufaula NWR: subfreezing weather must dip into the southern portion of the state; it
must occur before mid-December; and the sub-freezing weather must be sustained for several days.
A wide variety of duck species can be observed during the winter. An early arrival in August is the
blue-winged teal. By late October, wigeon, gadwall, green-winged teal, ring-necks and shovelers are
common. Wood ducks and ring-necked ducks eventually become the most abundant duck species
by mid-December. Larger groups of pintails and mallards can be observed in the Upland and Winter
Loop impoundments (USFWS 2003a). A large number of wood duck nest boxes are scattered over a
wide area on the refuge.
Few migratory geese use the refuge, but a resident Canada goose population now totals about 2,000.
Primarily, they utilize the Houston Bottoms and Kennedy units; however, the entire refuge can be
utilized by Canada geese during some part of the year. Only 100–200 true migratory Canada geese
may be found during the colder winters. About 30–50 snow geese and 50–100 white-fronted geese
use the refuge during the winter. A Ross' goose has been occasionally observed congregating with a
small group of Canada geese (USFWS 2003a).
The refuge participates in the annual mid-winter waterfowl counts. Since 2000, the counts have
ranged from 9,300 to 11,900 and about 27 species have been observed. The refuge staff estimates
that annual peak wintering waterfowl population averages about 15,000 birds. The refuge serves as
a survey area for the Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count. The refuge staff participates on the
river portion of the survey. This count also provides an estimate of wintering waterfowl numbers.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
The refuge has erected and maintained wood duck nest boxes for many years. Box numbers and
placement strategy have evolved as new recommendations occur. Over the last several years, the
staff removed clustered boxes from within the impoundments or from those lacking adequate water
during the summer. The current strategy is to locate new boxes outside the impoundments near
suitable brood habitat over permanent water. The program’s goal is to inspect and maintain 200
boxes annually. Poorly located boxes continue to be removed and others are added following the
Service’s updated Southeast Region policies. The refuge currently maintains 104 wood duck boxes.
Marsh and Wading Birds
Providing foraging areas for wading birds and marsh birds is an important objective within the
impoundments. This is accomplished by maintaining temporary mud flats and shallow water areas
during spring and summer. Impoundments in the Bradley Unit are especially suited to drawdowns
that expose productive foraging areas. Smaller areas in the Kennedy and Houston Bottoms are also
managed to provide similar sites. Suitable habitat is not widely available during the fall, as most have
revegetated with moist-soil plants.
About 27 species of marsh and wading birds have been observed. The most abundant and visible
species include the great blue heron, great egret, little blue heron, snowy egret, green-backed heron,
double-crested cormorant, coot, anhinga and cattle egret, although birds as rare as roseate
spoonbills can be observed. Other common water bird species include king rails, sora rails, American
and least bitterns, common moorhens and purple gallinules (USFWS 2003a).
Several large rookeries are located on the refuge, consisting of hundreds of great blue heron, great
egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, anhinga and cattle egrets. The refuge supports large
populations of herons and other marsh birds year-round. About 100 wood storks are present during
spring and summer and several hundred sandhill cranes winter on the refuge. It is possible that the
soon to be established eastern population of whooping cranes will use the Eufaula NWR during its
migration flight. Colonial water bird rookeries have been located in the past in the Molnar Unit,
Bradley Unit, Blackmon Slough, Houston Bottoms, Kennedy Unit, and Bird Island.
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species
Eufaula NWR provides stopover and feeding habitats for migratory shorebirds, primarily within the
impoundments during spring. River water levels are controlled by Corps of Engineers policy and are
maintained about 188 feet above mean sea level (MSL) during the migration periods. This is too high to
make the sandbars, mudflats, or other shallow water habitats available for shorebird use. Only during
extended droughts or when the water levels are approximately 187 MSL or less are suitable shorebird
habitats available along the Chattahoochee River. Resting and feeding areas are provided within the
impoundments, particularly the Bradley Unit. Gradual spring drawdowns and daily water level fluctuations
in the outlet pools provide ample habitat from March through June. By late July, these areas have
normally revegetated with dense, tall herbaceous growth which is unsuited for shorebird use.
Peak shorebird migration takes place in April and October. About 50 different species of shorebirds,
gulls, and terns are on the refuge’s bird list. Willets, marbled godwits, ruddy turnstones, black-bellied
plovers, short-billed dowitchers, greater and lesser yellowlegs, black-necked stilts, and several
species of sandpipers have been observed (USFWS 2003a). Sandhill cranes are annual winter
migrants on the refuge, and are highly coveted by birders. Between 75–150 sandhill cranes roost in
marshy and shallow water habitats along the river and feed in nearby agricultural fields. Blackmon
Bottoms and the nearby peninsulas are known roosting areas.
34 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Raptors
The refuge supports large breeding and wintering populations of raptors, including bald eagles and
ospreys. About 17 species of raptors have been documented on the refuge. Of these, the most
common are the red-tailed hawk, red-shouldered hawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk,
American kestrel, Northern harrier, osprey, barred owl, great horned owl, screech owl, barn owl,
turkey vulture, black vulture, and bald eagle (USFWS 2003a). Raptors are an important
consideration in the refuge’s forest and successional habitat management programs.
Other Resident and Migratory Birds
The refuge’s diverse habitat not only provides important habitats for waterfowl, wading birds and
raptors, but also for a wide range of songbirds. Neotropical migratory songbirds are a priority species
group in the management of timber resources and old field habitats. The refuge’s goal is to provide
diverse habitats with high quality stopover cover and food resources. The refuge contains
approximately 2,200 acres of forested habitat and 800 acres of old field areas. Of the 2,200 forested
acres, 1,700 acres are pine-dominated stands with 500 acres in hardwood types. The pine forests
are managed to provide a moderately open overstory with diverse understory conditions. Old field
areas are managed to encourage use by migrating songbirds that require grassland and scrub/shrub
habitats. These include bobolinks, meadowlarks, and several species of sparrows. Northern harriers
and kestrels also benefit from old field management. The refuge has placed field borders and buffer
zones along the edges of agricultural fields and retired fields or sections of fields to manage as old
field habitats. Periodic mowing and fall disking are used to encourage a grass-herbaceous cover
type. The refuge also contains resident populations of wild turkey and bobwhite quail.
Mammals
The various kinds of cover found on the refuge provide habitat for 36 species of mammals. Resident
wildlife including beaver; fox; raccoon; opossum; bobcat; swamp and cottontail rabbit; nine-banded
armadillo; coyote; and white-tailed deer are present in high numbers. Small mammals include
shrews, mice, chipmunks, voles, and moles (USFWS 2003b).
Game mammals include the white-tailed deer, cottontail and swamp rabbit, raccoon, opossum, and
gray and fox squirrels. Gray squirrels occur but are not very common, probably due to the absence of
large, contiguous stands of hardwoods. Fox squirrels are very rare. In addition to these game
mammals, furbearers include beaver, river otter, mink, weasel, and spotted and striped skunk. Four
species of bats can also be found at the refuge.
Amphibians and Reptiles
The refuge supports an abundance of native reptiles and amphibians. Sixty-eight species of
amphibians and reptiles are known from Barbour County based on museum specimens. In a
herpetofaunal survey of the refuge conducted by Guyer and Green (1992), 46 species were
observed: 17 species of frogs and toads, 2 species of salamanders, 6 species of turtles, 8 species of
lizards, and 13 species of snakes. Also, a healthy, growing population of American alligators exists in
refuge wetlands.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Fish
Lake Eufaula is regionally and nationally known for its bass fishing. Crappie, bluegill, and catfish are
also popular sport fish. The most prominent species of fish present in Lake Eufaula include
largemouth bass, crappie, catfish, various panfish, hybrid bass, and striped bass. A fishery survey of
eight streams entering Eufaula NWR documented 37 species of fish (USFWS 2003a).
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
The endangered wood stork is commonly seen on the refuge between May and October especially
when the lake levels and impoundment water levels are low enough to provide isolated pools for
foraging. The number of storks using the refuge fluctuates greatly from year-to-year, with as many as
70 birds having been observed (USFWS 2003a). Although the refuge has several active wading bird
rookeries, no wood stork nesting has occurred in the refuge vicinity. The Molnar Unit was established
as a management area for wood storks. Nesting platforms and decoys were installed but have not
been successful to date. Periodically, excess fingerlings, minnows, and tadpoles from the Warm
Springs Fish Hatchery are released in the Molnar Impoundment as a supplemental food resource for
storks and other wading birds. Habitat management for wood storks is an objective in the other
impoundments as well.
The formerly listed bald eagle and peregrine falcon are seen occasionally as they migrate through the
area in winter.
In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service pronounced the American alligator fully recovered, and
consequently removed the animal from the list of endangered species and reclassified it to
“threatened” due to similarity of appearance. The alligator population on the refuge and within the
refuge area has increased since the reintroduction of the species in 1971. Alligators nest on the
slopes of levees and on small, woody vegetation-covered islands in all the units. Young begin to
hatch in late summer. A conservative estimate of the refuge population is over 1,000 animals
(USFWS 2005). Most of the alligators are less than six feet in length; however, several 12- to 14-foot
individuals are present on the refuge. Beginning in 2006, the refuge contracted with Dr. William
Birkhead of Columbus State University to conduct alligator surveys in the impoundments. The
surveys are conducted at night using a spotlight to perform direct counts in the Houston, Molnar,
Kennedy, and Bradley impoundments. Sizes of alligators are approximated using the estimated
distance between the nostril and eye.
The federal endangered shinyrayed pocketbook mussel is documented to occur in Russell County,
Alabama, north of the refuge, on a tributary of the Chattahoochee River. State-listed species found
on the refuge include the alligator snapping turtle and bluestripe shiner.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Although habitat destruction and degradation are the most pervasive threats to the viability of
Alabama’s and Georgia’s vegetation resources, the influence of exotic (nonnative) plants has proven to
be equally as harmful to ecosystem integrity. Invasive exotic plants have demonstrably caused
irreparable damage to various natural communities throughout the Southeast. Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), alligator-weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), rattlebox (Sesbania punicea), bag-pod
(Sesbania vesicaria), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are five invasive plant
species that have become well established in several locations on Eufaula NWR. The major
infestations of exotic plants on the refuge are illustrated in Figure 5. These species are capable of
colonizing large areas, generally in full sun, throughout the warmer regions of the world. Japanese
36 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
honeysuckle was first introduced into the New World at Long Island, New York, to embellish the
gardens of Colonial America. Since then, the popularity of this species as a garden plant has enabled it
to quickly spread throughout much of the eastern United States, displacing desirable native vegetation.
While not firmly established, the presence of Chinese tallow on the refuge is of concern. The species
was first introduced from China during the early 1900s to promote the silkworm industry. Since then,
the tree has become widely naturalized in the Southeast, often monopolizing large areas. The
widespread dispersal of the above-mentioned and other exotic species have been primarily attributed to
highway maintenance and construction, horticultural purposes, and the enhancement of wildlife habitat.
The illegal disposal of yard trash has also aided the spread of these and other exotic species.
Table 3 lists the species of exotic plants that were observed on Eufaula NWR during a recent plant
communities survey (Schotz 2002). Other exotic species that occur on the refuge are two aquatic
plants (hydrilla and common waterweed), feral hogs, and the Mediterranean gecko. Hydrilla in the
Chattahoochee River has severe implications for the management of aquatic resources. Native
invasive and weedy upland plants including sicklepod, cocklebur, and morning glory are problems in
agricultural fields and impoundments. Chinese privet, Chinaberry, and Japanese honeysuckle are
pervasive along forest edges, invading into the stands. Plant diversity along shorelines has been
impacted by alligator-weed, water willow, maidencane, giant cutgrass, and primrose-willow. Treating
areas infested with alligator-weed, maidencane, primrose-willow, sesbania, water smartweed or
waterpepper, American lotus, and others occurs within the impoundments (USFWS 2003a).
Management of invasive and exotic plants at Eufaula NWR includes mechanical, biological, and
chemical methods, or a combination of these. Mechanical methods include mowing, and disking
or plowing using farm tractors. These methods are not effective as they provide only temporary
relief. The very high occurrence of invasive seeds in seed banks and the rhizomatous nature of
some species allow quick re-establishment and growth. The primary biological method used has
been the release of host-specific alligator-weed beetles. The quantities released each year vary,
normally between 2,000 to 3,000. The release of beetles has had limited success in reducing
alligator-weed. The use of herbicides has provided partial control of some invasive species. The
primary herbicides used are Roundup (glyphosate) and 2, 4-Damine (organophosphates). Others
include Rodeo (glyphosphate), Arsenal (imazapyr), and Tordon (picloram). Atrazine was
previously used by the cooperative farmer for control of sicklepod in corn, but it is now banned
from use on all refuges (USFWS 2003a).
The refuge’s management strategy for exotic plants focuses on drying up the impoundments and
using tractor-mounted boom sprayers to apply herbicides. The herbicides are applied as early as
ground conditions allow equipment in the fields before the plants become tall, dominant, and produce
seed. Abundant spring and summer rains delay treatments, allowing weed establishment. Aerial
treatments have been used at the refuge but are effective only when there are large concentrated
areas of invasives. Other application methods include backpack sprayers and an ATV-mounted
boom sprayer. In agricultural fields, the cooperative farmer applies approved herbicides for weed
control in corn, soybeans, winter wheat, oats, and rye.
Monitoring and treatment of existing infestations, and preventing the encroachment of new
populations, should remain an important component of land management throughout Eufaula NWR.
Education of land managers about the problems associated with exotic pests, coupled with the use of
native species for improving wildlife habitat, may be beneficial in this effort. If nonnative cultivars
must be used, then invasive species should be avoided.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 5. Major infestations of exotic and native weedy species on Eufaula NWR
38 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access
to “Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an
American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that
is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
Eufaula NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the cultural legacy
that may potentially occur on the refuge. There are no historic structures located on the refuge.
Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving
equipment, such as tractors, graders, and bulldozers used in the development of moist-soil units, the
refuge contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological
survey of the site. The results of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s Regional Historic
Preservation Officer, as well as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), which, in Alabama, is a
member of the Alabama Historical Commission. The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether
cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places will be affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during
construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately.
In 1978, the Columbus Museum of Arts and Sciences published the results of a cultural resource
background survey and archaeological reconnaissance of Eufaula NWR (Schnell and Knight 1978).
The study’s literature and background survey demonstrated that there were 57 archaeological sites
known to exist in or adjacent to the refuge prior to the reconnaissance. Ethnohistorical data
suggested that a minimum of six historic Creek Indian villages were located in the refuge area. A
number of archaeological properties had already been impacted by the impoundment of the Walter F.
George Reservoir.
During the reconnaissance portion of the 1978 study, 11 additional sites were discovered within the
proposed Kennedy and Davis-Clark project areas. Two of the 11 sites were demonstrated to have
archaeological integrity. Both of these sites were believed to represent prehistoric occupation of the
area. Data collected at the time of the survey were insufficient to allow for nomination of either of
these sites to the National Register of Historic Places. However, limited sampling of lithics (rock
materials) and ceramics at one of the sites suggested a possibly pure component assignable to the
Swift Creek Period (ca. 500 AD), with perhaps an additional Archaic Period manifestation. At the
other site, two components were identifiable, the strongest of which was assignable to the Cartersville
Period (ca. 1 BC). Another component suggested an earlier occupation of the site during the
transitional Archaic-Woodland Period (ca. 1000 BC).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Table 3. Exotic plant species observed in Eufaula NWR
Scientific Name Common Name Degree of Severity*
AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA Tree-of-heaven 3
ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN Mimosa 2
ALTERNANTHERA PHILOXEROIDES Alligator-weed 1
CROTALARIA SPECTABILIS Showy rattle-box 3
DAUCUS CAROTA Wild carrot 2
JACQUEMONTIA TAMNIFOLIA Hairy cluster-vine 3
LESPEDEZA BICOLOR Shrub bush-clover 2
LESPEDEZA CUNEATA Chinese bush-clover 2
LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM Japanese privet 2
LIGUSTRUM SINENSE Chinese privet 1
LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM Italian ryegrass 2
LONICERA JAPONICA Japanese honeysuckle 1
LYGOPODIUM JAPONICUM Japanese climbing fern 2
MACLURA POMIFERA Osage orange 3
MELIA AZEDARACH Chinaberry 2
MICROSTEGIUM VIMINEUM Nepal grass 2
NARCISSUS SPP. Narcissus 3
PASPALUM NOTATUM Bahia grass 2
PASPALUM URVILLEI Vasey grass 3
PERILLA FRUTESCENS Beefsteak plant 3
POPULUS ALBA White poplar 3
PUERARIA LOBATA Kudzu 2
RAPHANUS RAPHANISTRUM Wild radish 3
SAPIUM SEBIFERUM Chinese tallow 2
SESBANIA PUNICEA Rattle-box 2
SESBANIA VESICARIA Bag-pod 1
VERBENA BRASILIENSIS Brazilian vervain 3
VERBENA RIGIDA Stiff vervain 2
WISTERIA SINENSIS Chinese wisteria 2
Category 1 = Species that have invaded and disrupted native plant communities in Eufaula NWR.
Category 2 = Species that have shown a potential to invade and disrupt native plant
communities, but pose no immediate threats in Eufaula NWR.
Category 3 = Species that have persisted around old homesites and have no or
minimal potential to invade native plant communities.
Source: Schotz (2002)
40 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Eufaula NWR is located on both banks of the Chattahoochee River in southeast Alabama and southwest
Georgia. It lies in four counties: Barbour and Russell counties in Alabama and Stewart and Quitman
counties in Georgia. The refuge is located about 40 miles south of Columbus, Georgia, and 80 miles east
of Montgomery, Alabama. Much of the refuge lies within the city limits of Eufaula, Alabama.
Russell County is almost as densely populated as the state of Alabama (78 persons per square mile
vs. 88 persons per square mile), while Barbour County has about half the density (33 persons per
square mile). Stewart and Quitman counties in Georgia are very rural (11 and 17 persons per square
mile vs. 141) (U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2006).
In 2004, Russell County’s estimated population was 49,262, about 0.01 percent of Alabama’s
population of 4,530,182 (USCB 2006). The county’s population declined by 1 percent from 2000 to
2004 compared to Alabama’s 1.9 percent growth in the same four years. Barbour County’s estimated
population in 2004 was 28,557. The county’s population declined 1.7 percent from 2000 to 2004.
Stewart County’s estimated 2004 population was 4,981, about 0.0006 percent of Georgia’s
population of 8,829,383. The county population declined by 5.2 percent from 2000 to 2004,
compared to Georgia’s 7.8 percent growth in the same four years. Quitman County’s estimated
population in 2004 was 2,467. The county’s population declined 5 percent from 2000 to 2004.
The local economy is dominated by nearby Fort Benning, and the largest industries are durable-goods
manufacturing followed by state and local government. In 2004, of the data available,
manufacturing was the largest of twenty major economic and employment sectors in Russell and
Barbour counties in Alabama (STATS Indiana 2006). Health care and social assistance was the
largest sector in Stewart County and retail trade in Quitman County in Georgia. Employment by
major industrial sectors is shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry.
Industry Russell County,
Alabama
Barbour County,
Alabama
Stewart County,
Georgia
Quitman County,
Georgia
Agriculture, Forestry,
Hunting
N/A
1.9%
6.3%
9.0%
Mining N/A 0.9% N/A N/A
Construction 7.3% 1.1% N/A N/A
Manufacturing 22.0% 36.6% N/A N/A
Wholesale Trade 1.2% N/A 2.3% N/A
Retail Trade 15.7% 10.4% 10.31% 9.2%
Transportation and
Warehousing
2.3%
6.9%
1.2%
1.9%
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Industry Russell County,
Alabama
Barbour County,
Alabama
Stewart County,
Georgia
Quitman County,
Georgia
Utilities 0.7% 0.6% N/A N/A
Information 0.9% 0.4% N/A N/A
Finance and
Insurance
2.9%
2.6%
N/A
N/A
Real Estate 1.6% 0.6% N/A N/A
Professional and
Technical Services
1.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Management of
Companies
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Waste Services 1.4% 1.5% N/A N/A
Educational Services 9.2% 6.4% 18.6% N/A
Health Care and
Social Assistance
N/A
7.6%
28.6%
N/A
Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation
0.5%
0.5%
N/A
N/A
Accommodation and
Food Services
10.0%
6.1%
N/A
N/A
Other Services 2.7% 1.2% 1.7% 1.9%
Public Administration 1.6% 9.6% 9.1% 1.3%
Source: STATS Indiana 2006
(Note: N/A = data not available)
Alabama’s statistics are well below the national averages for persons below the poverty line, median
household and per capita income, and educational attainment levels (USCB 2006). Russell and
Barbour counties conform to this profile and worse. Georgia conforms closely to the national
averages; however, both Stewart and Quitman counties fare significantly worse, as shown in Table 5.
In terms of race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and the state populations.
42 Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge
Table 5. Comparison of demographic statistics for Russell, Barbour, Stewart, and Quitman counties, Alabama, Georgia,
and the USA
Location
Median
Household
Income
Per
Capita
Income
% Below
Poverty
% High
School
Graduates
%
Bachelor
Degree
%
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic
%
Asian
% Native
American
Russell
County, AL
$27,492
$14,015
19.9
66.5
9.7
56.7
40.8
1.5
0.4
0.4
Barbour
County, AL
$25,101
$13,316
26.8
64.7