Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2010
Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
PIEDMONT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Jones and Jasper Counties, Georgia
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2010
Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 11
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 11
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 16
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 18
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 22
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 25
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 25
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 25
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 26
Hydrology and water quality .............................................................................................. 28
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 31
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 31
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 35
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 39
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 40
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 42
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 43
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 45
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 47
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 48
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 49
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 51
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 54
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 54
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 55
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 57
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 57
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 58
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 58
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 58
ii Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 64
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 70
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 72
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 75
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 79
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 79
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 79
Fish and wildlife population management ......................................................................... 79
habitat management ......................................................................................................... 80
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 82
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 84
Climate change ................................................................................................................. 85
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 85
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 86
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 86
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 87
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 87
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 90
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 91
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 111
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 125
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 125
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 143
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 155
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 167
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 195
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 199
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 201
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 215
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 217
APPENDIX L. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................. 219
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 219
APPENDIX M. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................................................... 223
Table of Contents iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Piedmont NWR .................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. Erosion on the Georgia Piedmont, on what is now Piedmont NWR—
photographs from Piedmont NWR files: Erosion due to farming and 1921 gully ........ 17
Figure 3. Bailey’s ecoregions .............................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4. Non-attainment areas for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
established by EPA ............................................................................................................ 32
Figure 5. Land cover types – Piedmont NWR 2008 ............................................................................ 36
Figure 6. Double brick chimney site photo by Rick Kanaski, FWS ..................................................... 41
Figure 7. Proposed organizational staffing chart ................................................................................ 88
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Climatological normals for the years 1971-2000 from the National Weather
Service station at the Macon, Georgia, airport ...................................................................... 26
Table 2. Forest types, SAF forest cover types, and NVCS Alliances that occur on the refuge........... 37
Table 3. Hunting and fishing opportunities available in 2009 – 2010 .................................................. 44
Table 4. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 89
Table 5. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive conservation plan ......................................................................................... 90
iv Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management of Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge in Jones and Jasper Counties, Georgia. The
plan outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife and
habitat management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of
the issues the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists
from federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations that have an interest in
the refuge. The refuge had a 30-day public review and comment period of the draft
comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment.
The Service developed and analyzed four alternatives.
Alternative A, the no action alternative, was a proposal to maintain management at its current level.
Alternative B proposed to increase wildlife and habitat diversity on the refuge.
Alternative C proposed the refuge would direct the majority of their efforts to enhance habitat for
and increase the population of migratory birds.
Alternative D proposed the refuge would direct the majority of their efforts to focus on rare,
threatened, and endangered species.
The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative and is reflected in this
comprehensive conservation plan. The refuge would work to become fully staffed and increase all
management programs. Management of federal and state listed species, migratory birds, and
other wildlife would be increased through monitoring efforts. The refuge would expand forest
management. Exotic plant control efforts would be increased and prevention methods for
additional non-native species would be implemented. Potential impacts of climate change would
be accessed through partnerships. Environmental education and interpretation, wildlife viewing
and photography opportunities, and hunting and fishing opportunities would be enhanced. New
partnerships would be sought and intergovernmental coordination would be expanded.
2 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation
will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this plan
was made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the
general public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the
development of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (hereinafter referred to as
Service) preferred plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to outline the management action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife
Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant
mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of
Service management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System;
and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries
involved with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the
Bureau of Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of
birds and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the
name was changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
4 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department
of the Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish
and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal
programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine
mammals, and inland sport fisheries (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 Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and
future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established,
for the first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System.
Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an
effort to complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are
completed with full public involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by
establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs. Consistent with the
Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines for refuge management for the
next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit
of the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge
System; and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican
Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western
refuges were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931),
and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural
disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl
severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the
Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in
America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection
of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
As the number of Americans that engage in wildlife-associated recreation grows, there are
significant economic benefits to local communities. In 2006, 87.5 million Americans, 16 years and
older, fished, hunted, and observed wildlife, generating more than $122 billion (USFWS 2006)
Recreational visits to national wildlife refuges are an important component of this economic
activity. In FY 2006, 34.8 million people visited refuges in the lower 48 states for recreation,
mostly to observe wildlife in their natural habitats. Their spending generated almost $1.7 billion
of sales in regional economies. As this spending flowed through the economy, nearly 27,000
people were employed and $542.8 million in employment income was generated. About 82
percent of total expenditures are generated by non-consumptive activities on refuges. Fishing
accounted for 12 percent and hunting 6 percent. Local residents accounted for 13 percent of
expenditures while visitors coming from outside the local area accounted for 87 percent.
Refuge recreational spending generated about $185.3 million in tax revenue at the local, county,
state and federal level. (Carver and Caudill 2007)
In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in seven years. At
the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per
refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard
(Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira
(Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay
(California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake
(California); and Tensas River (Louisiana) -- the same refuges identified for the 1995 study.
Other findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically.
Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent
from $5.2 million in 1995. For each dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding
communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income
(Caudill and Laughland 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.
6 Piedmont 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 comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in
consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop
and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the
preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved
comprehensive conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies
for achieving refuge unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource
management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service compatibility
standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge
System and management of the Piedmont NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in
making decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources;
historical and cultural resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a
framework for cooperation between Piedmont NWR and other partners, such as the Georgia
Forestry Commission, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, USDA Forest Service –
Oconee Ranger District and Hitchiti Experimental Forest, The Southern Company, National Wild
Turkey Federation, and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened.
No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a
use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere
with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the
refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These
uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System they receive priority
consideration over other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow
while achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the
consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found
on refuges and associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management
direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their
refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple
landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, and 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.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to
ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an
integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international
and national bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-
Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The
plan's goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and
upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically
low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan
is a partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental
organizations, private companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better
wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people.
Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects
contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
8 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan,
the Southern Piedmont physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird
conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of
native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented
in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is
voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership
effort throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of
shorebird species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of
agencies, organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and
identifies conservation goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and
proposed education and outreach programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the
threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and
invasive species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts
arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include
pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen
species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks,
Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of
brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to
better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall
ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game
agencies and tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State
wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection
of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in
the State of Georgia.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (WRD), provides
management and protection for the state's fish and wildlife resources through conservation
enforcement officers in each county statewide and through fisheries and wildlife biologists. The
Department’s major goal is to promote stewardship and enjoyment of Georgia’s natural
resources, both for present and future generations. It is responsible for freshwater fish, wildlife,
marine resources, waterway safety, state lands, state parks, and other natural resources. The
WRD manages 90 wildlife management areas on approximately 1 million acres, public fishing
areas, and natural areas. The Georgia State Parks and Historic Sites (GASPHS) are charged
with managing state park lands and historic sites. The GASPHS manages 63 state and historic
parks on more than 800,000 acres of land. Additionally, the state agencies provide and direct
public recreation opportunities, including extensive hunting and fishing programs on wildlife
management areas and parks.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for
ongoing opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and
wildlife in the State of Georgia. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is
integrating common mission objectives where appropriate.
10 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Piedmont NWR is one of 548 refuges which comprise the Refuge System. The mission of the
Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans. Within this context, the following general objectives were established for
Piedmont NWR:
 Conserve, protect, reestablish, and manage for threatened and endangered wildlife;
 Conserve and manage migratory birds and their habitats;
 Conserve and manage native wildlife and their habitats; and
 Provide compatible wildlife dependent recreational and educational opportunities for the
public.
The Improvement Act establishes that wildlife conservation is the first and foremost component
of the mission of the Refuge System. Further, it establishes the following goals for the Refuge
system, which provides a broader context for the conservation role of Piedmont NWR:
 Fulfill statutory duty to achieve refuge purpose(s) and further the Refuge System
mission;
 Conserve, restore, and enhance all species of fish, wildlife, and plants that are
endangered or threatened with becoming endangered;
 Perpetuate migratory bird, inter-jurisdictional fish, and marine mammal populations;
 Conserve the diversity of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Conserve and restore representative ecosystems of the United States, including the
ecological processes characteristic of those ecosystems; and
 Foster understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their
conservation, by providing safe, quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use.
Development of this CCP for Piedmont NWR was initiated in November 2007. This CCP
contains concepts to guide further development and implementation of land use and
management programs and associated facilities and management structures for the next 15
years. The refuge's physical, biological, and cultural resources, along with the socioeconomic
environment and refuge management and administration, are taken into account and analyzed
to produce an overview of the refuge and the challenges it faces. An environmental
assessment, which was Section B of the draft of this CCP, was prepared in compliance with the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) guidelines. In addition to documenting the
existing natural environmental and socioeconomic setting, the environmental assessment
evaluated the impact of the proposed and alternative actions and no action alternative in order
to facilitate selection of the alternative most suitable for implementation.
Piedmont NWR (Figure 1) is located in central Georgia, on the Southern Piedmont Plateau, a
strip of land lying between the Appalachian Mountains and the coastal plain. Piedmont NWR
consists of 34,955 acres in Jones and Jasper Counties, Georgia (28,552 and 6,403 acres in
Jones and Jasper Counties, respectively). In total, this acreage is essentially contiguous and
12 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Piedmont NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
the refuge has reached most of its established acquisition boundary except for several private
in-holdings. The refuge lies just east of the Ocmulgee River approximately 30 miles north of the
city of Macon, 18 miles east of Forsyth, and 11 miles north of Gray. The refuge's topography is
typical of the region, with open low hills interspersed with small streams. Most of the refuge is in
forest cover. Habitats and vegetative communities include upland pine and pine-hardwood
forests on the ridges, mixed pine and hardwood forests along the numerous creeks, open
grassy fields and roadsides, man-made ponds and impoundments, and a few beaver swamps.
The refuge is managed and is owned in fee title by the Service and is primarily used by the
public for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and hiking.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The refuge was established in 1939 through Executive Order 8037 of President Roosevelt.
Establishing authorities include the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, Bankhead-Jones Farm
Tenant Act, and the Refuge Administration Act. The refuge was established:
 “as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and other wildlife.” Executive Order 8037,
dated January 18, 1939;
 “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory
birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
 "conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans" 16 U.S.C.
668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
 "conservation, management, and restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats ... for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." 16
U.S.C. 668dd(a)(2) (National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act)
 "purposes of a land-conservation and land-utilization program." 7 U.S.C. 1011
(Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act)
The first human influence on the North American landscape was the American Indian. The
southeastern climate evolved to what it is today about 3000 Before Common Era (BCE), during
the Archaic period (8000 to 1000 BCE). The forest was changing with climate. The Piedmont
was covered with a mixed hardwood forest or a pine-hardwood forest that replaced the earlier
evergreen forest. The people were nomadic hunter/gatherers. They were very successful and
their population increased, so that by the end of the Archaic period, humans lived in every part
of Georgia (White 2002).
When the 1539-1543 expedition of Hernando de Soto arrived in present-day Georgia, the landscape
was home to more than a dozen largely distinct Indian chiefdoms (Worth 1993). The members of
this expedition were the first Europeans to see the chiefdoms of the Indians of the interior southeast
in a largely pristine (i.e., unimpacted by Europeans) state (Worth 1994). At the same time, the
landscape they witnessed was not pristine (i.e., unimpacted by humans). The de Soto chroniclers
described middle Georgia as an area teeming with people (Clayton et al. 1993). The large Indian
population had a significant impact on the environment. Earthworks, fields, and settlements were
everywhere (Denevan 1992). The largest impact, however, was through the use of fire (Cowell
1998). This human-influenced fire regime changed the “natural” fire regime, which in turn modified
the composition and structure of the plant communities (Barden 1997, Hamel and Buckner 1998,
Williams 2000). American Indians affected the survival and abundance of wildlife and changed the
natural vegetation through their land use practices.
14 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Within only a few decades of contact, European diseases decimated the Indian populations.
Greatly reducing the American Indian population removed their keystone status, resulting in a
significant shift in the composition of the ecological community. By the time most historical
records were being written in the18th century, the Indian-influenced environment of 1492 had
largely vanished. Former Indian fields and fire-maintained uplands were supporting
communities that developed for 50 to 150 years under completely different disturbance regimes
than that of pre-European contact.
While 18th century records do not represent conditions prior to substantial human-related
changes to the landscape of middle Georgia, they are valuable documentation of conditions at
that point in time. Although William Bartram is the most well-known travel/nature writer of the
time, Benjamin Hawkins also wrote prolifically and descriptively. Survey records are a further
source, complementing the anecdotal records of these writers with quantifiable data.
William Bartram was America’s first native born naturalist and the first author in the modern genre of
writers who portrayed nature through personal experience as well as scientific observation. He set
off from Savanna to Augusta in 1773 to attend an Indian Congress. He depicted the Piedmont west
of Augusta as an “extensive nearly level plain of pine forests, mixed with various other forest trees.
The trees and shrubs are Pinus taeda, great black Oak, Quercus tinctoria, Q. rubra, Laurus,
Sasafras, Magnolia grandiflora, Cornus Florida, Cercis, Halesia, Juglans acuminate, Juglans-exaltata,
Andromeda arborea; and, by the sides of the rivulets (which wind about and between these
hills and swamps, in the vales) Styrax latifolia, Ptelea trifoliate, Stewartia, Calycanthus,
Chionanthus, Magnolia tripetala, Azalea, and others” (Harper 1998).
Benjamin Hawkins, a United States agent to the Creek Nation, traveled through north
Georgia and to the Piedmont region of western Georgia and eastern Alabama in late 1796
and early 1797. He described the lower Piedmont of west-central Georgia, in the area of
present day Coweta County, as “the timber pine, oak, hickory, the soil stiff,” the drainages
“stored with cane” (Hawkins 1916).
Georgia was settled between 1733 and 1832. Territorial expansion between 1733 and 1784
was without any logical scheme for land apportionment. The land law of 1784 required that
plats be surveyed into rectangles and squares. Expansion of the frontier in 1805 was
accompanied by a land lottery system. Eight times between 1805 and 1833, Georgia held
lotteries to distribute land. Each new territory was subdivided into districts. Surveyors recorded
one witness tree at each lot corner, and two intervening line trees. Tree size was not measured.
Trees were identified by common name, and certain taxa recognized only to genus (i.e., pine,
hickory). The original Baldwin County consisted of 20 districts. Districts 1-5 were part of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
1805 drawing; districts 6-20 were part of the 1807 drawing. Cowell (1995) investigated the
districts which are in the current Baldwin, Putnam, and Morgan Counties. The percentage
frequencies of trees were as follows:
Tree Species Percent Frequency
Oak 50.1
Post 17.5
Red (several species) 10.5
Black (several species) 10.9
White 7.3
Spanish 2.7
Black Jack 1.1
Water 0.1
other oak
Pine 26.8
Hickory 10.1
Other 13.0
Cowell then investigated species-environment relationships using landform classes as a proxy
for environmental and moisture gradients. Pine and post oak dominated the uplands on upper
slopes and south facing mid-slopes. They were more prevalent than other species on north,
east, and west facing mid-slopes, and east and west facing lower slopes. Pine was always
more common than post oak. Red oak frequencies showed a clearly increasing trend from
upland to lowland. Black oak frequency was steady on all classes except lower slopes and
riparian areas where it decreased. Hickory showed a slightly decreasing trend from lowland to
upland. Other species, especially white oak and hickory, were most common in riparian areas
and in coves. Large-scale disturbance, primarily anthropogenic fire, likely was a significant
factor in determining plant community composition and structure.
Baldwin County was formed on May 11, 1803. Jones County, which comprises most of the refuge,
was officially formed and opened for settlement when it was partitioned from Baldwin County on
December 10, 1807. A part was added from Putnam County in 1810, and a piece was given to Bibb
County in 1822. The boundaries have remained stable since then (Williams 1992).
There were already many families in Jones County by 1803 (when it was still part of Baldwin
County), as well as Indians. After the survey, land lots were distributed by lottery to induce
settlement, which occurred rapidly. At the time of settlement, the western boundary of Jones
County (where the refuge currently is) “there stood deeply fertile lands of pine and oak forests.
There were numerous natural springs, branches, creeks and streams which flowed cool and
16 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
clear. Among the oaks and pines there grew chestnut, beech, maple, and short-leaf pines.
Underneath these pines of more than 3 feet in diameter and 120 feet high also grew wild
azaleas, sweet shrub, dogwood, chinquapin, red bud, huckleberry and jasmine.” The settlers
found deer, rabbits, turkeys, squirrels, and quail for food. The streams were full of fish and the
woods full of wild fruit (Williams 1992).
The western half of the county was quickly settled and fields cleared. Past Indian burning had
maintained an open understory; however, the large pines and oaks had to be removed. The
“logrollings,” where the huge trees were felled and rolled into piles and burned, were community
affairs where neighbor helped neighbor. Cotton, corn, and flax were grown, sheep and cattle
grazed, apples and peaches planted. During the 1830s and 1840s, wealthy planters with slaves
moved into the area. Cotton growing increased and the area prospered until the Civil War. The
economy was destroyed during the Civil War. After the war, most of the land went to a single
crop, cotton, and a sharecropping system came into prominence (Williams 1992).
Settlement and land conversion quickly changed the landscape. Within 50 years of European
settlement, the southern Piedmont was converted from forests to farms. At first the farms were
smaller subsistence farms, but within 20 years of settlement, cotton as a cash crop took over.
Contour plowing and crop rotation were not practiced, and serious erosion set in. Charles Lyell
traveled by rail from Savannah to Macon in 1845-1846. In Milledgeville he described the
already apparent effects of poor farming practices: “the clearing away of the woods, where
these Creek Indians once pursed their game, has caused the soil, previously level and
unbroken, to be cut into by torrents, so that deep gullies may every where be seen” (Lane
1973). Nearly all the topsoil was lost from the uplands, and fertility was lost. As a result of
deposition from the uplands, the bottomlands were also degraded (Brender 1974).
Land abandonment followed in the wake of land degradation. Economic and political
circumstances of the Civil War, the agricultural depression of the 1880s, and the advent of the
boll weevil in 1920 increased land abandonment. An estimated 10, 30, and 35 percent of
farmland was abandoned from cultivation during these respective episodes (Brender 1974).
Despite the extreme level of degradation, forests quickly reestablished themselves. Trees were
left in fencerows, turnarounds, and small woodlots. Pines, especially loblolly pine, are prolific
seed producers, and their lightweight seeds are easily disseminated by wind. Pure stands of
“old field pine” became established throughout the Piedmont, particularly after periods of land
abandonment. Loblolly pine grew rapidly, so that by 1910 sawmills were in production (Brender
1974). A substantial erosion control program was initiated after the establishment of the refuge
in 1939 (Gabrielson 1943); however, the forest had restored itself to such a degree that by 1945
the refuge began an active timber harvesting program. This program has continued to this day.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
During the development of this CCP, lands within Piedmont NWR were reviewed for their
suitability in meeting the criteria for wilderness areas, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964
[Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136)]. No areas in the refuge were found to meet these
criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further
analyzed in this CCP.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 2. Erosion on the Georgia Piedmont, on what is now Piedmont NWR—
photographs from Piedmont NWR files: Erosion due to farming and 1921 gully
18 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
The Five Points Research Natural Area, located in compartment 32, is 118 acres. While the
establishment date is unknown, its presence was documented in the Society of American
Foresters’ report of the Committee on Natural Areas in 1947 (Shanklin et al. 1947). The
committee recognized the need of practicing foresters for comprehensive knowledge of natural
developments within virgin forest associations: “Only by reference to recorded data and by
continuous study of areas containing virgin type associations may the forester view a managed
forest in its proper perspective. Complete knowledge of the original forest is therefore essential to
the practice of silviculture.” This report defined a natural area as “an area set aside to preserve
permanently in unmodified condition a representative unit of the virgin growth of a major forest
type primarily for the purposes of science, research, and education. Timber cutting and grazing
are prohibited and general public use discouraged.” The Federal Committee on Research Natural
Areas (1968) modified this definition, defining a research natural area as “an area where natural
process are allowed to predominate and which is preserved primarily for the purposes of research
and education.” Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipulation may be used to maintain
the unique features for which the research natural area was established.
The Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia identified Falling Creek as one
of Georgia's 212 high-priority waters (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005). High-priority
waters are defined as containing populations of high-priority aquatic species or are
representative of a high-priority aquatic system and its associated community.
Five ponds on the refuge became a part of the robust redhorse recovery program in 1996. The
robust redhorse is a fish species of special concern and until the 1980s was thought to be
extinct. Piedmont NWR ponds were needed to provide additional locations to raise fingerlings
before being restocked into the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers. The refuge is working in
cooperation with the Georgia DNR Fisheries Division to return ponds no longer needed in the
recovery effort back into the refuge's public fishing program (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Piedmont NWR Biological Review, Fisheries Section, 2008).
The Round Oak-Juliette Road which bisects the refuge has been designated as part of the
Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway, a Georgia State Scenic Byway (Ocmulgee-Piedmont
Scenic Byway Committee 2005).
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographical area that includes and interconnects all the living (biotic)
organisms, their physical (abiotic) surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them. All of
these elements are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the others in that
ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (a single stand of aspen) or large (an entire watershed
including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships). Piedmont NWR is
located in the Service's Altamaha River watershed ecosystem unit. The ecosystem approach is
comprehensive and is based on all of the biological resources within a watershed.
Bailey (1995) developed a regional ecosystem, or ecoregion, classification scheme based on
climate and vegetation. There are three levels in this hierarchy. The two broadest, domain and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
division are based on large climatic zones. Each division is subdivided into provinces on the
basis of vegetational macrofeatures, which are expressions of more refined climatic differences.
The refuge falls into the following classifications:
 200 Humid Temperate Domain – The climate, located in the middle latitudes (30 to 60
degrees N), is governed by both tropical and polar air masses. The middle latitudes are
subject to cyclones; much of the precipitation in this belt comes from rising moist air
along fronts within these cyclones. Pronounced seasons are the rule, with strong annual
cycles of temperature and precipitation. The seasonal fluctuation of energy and
temperature is greater than the diurnal. Climates of the middle latitudes have a
distinctive winter season.
 230 Subtropical Division – The humid subtropical climate, marked by high humidity
(especially in summer) and the absence of really cold winters, prevails in Southern
Atlantic and Gulf Coast States. There is no dry season; even the driest summer month
receives at least 1.2 inches of rain. The average temperature of the warmest summer
month is above 72°F. Rainfall is ample all year, but is markedly greater during summer.
Thunderstorms, whether of thermal, squall-line, or cold-front origin, are especially
frequent in summer. Tropical cyclones and hurricanes strike the coastal area
occasionally, always bringing very heavy rains. Winter precipitation, some in the form of
snow, is of the frontal type. Temperatures are moderately wide in range and
comparable to those in tropical deserts, but without the extreme heat of a desert
summer.
 231 Southern Mixed Forest Province – This province comprises the Piedmont and
the irregular Gulf Coastal plains. Climax vegetation is provided by medium-tall to tall
forests of broadleaf deciduous and needleleaf evergreen trees. At least 50 percent
of the stands are made up of loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and other southern yellow
pine species, singly or in combination. Common associates include oak, hickory,
sweetgum, blackgum, red maple, and winged elm. The main grasses are bluestem,
panicums, and longleaf uniola. Dogwood, viburnum, haw, blueberry, American
beautyberry, yaupon, and numerous woody vines are common.
The National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units, developed by the USDA Forest
Service divided these national designations into regional categories called sections (Cleland
et al. 1997). Sections are relatively homogeneous subdivisions of provinces based on
physiographic and biological features (McNab et al. 2007). The refuge falls into the
following section:
 231A Southern Appalachian Piedmont – The terrain is moderately dissected, irregular
plains with occasional isolated high hills or low mountains on more resistant formations.
Underlain by highly metamorphosed crystalline rocks that have weathered to form deep,
infertile clayey soils, it is now highly eroded from long, intensive cultivation. Current
forest cover is a mixture of loblolly-shortleaf pine and oak-pine cover types. Kuchler
(1964) mapped the Potential Natural Vegetation as oak-hickory-pine forest and southern
mixed forest (PNV is the “climax" vegetation that will occupy a site without disturbance or
climatic change).
20 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Bailey’s ecoregions
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared for the nine national wildlife
refuges in the State of Georgia. When final, the CCPs will provide Service managers with
a 15-year strategy and broad direction: (1) Conserve wildlife and their habitats; (2) achieve
refuge purposes; and (3) contribute toward the mission of the Refuge System. In addition,
the plans identify wildlife-dependent opportunities available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Many regional conservation plans and initiatives are derivatives of national plans. These
regional plans are developed by a variety of cooperating regional organizations and agencies
and are being planned and implemented in the southeastern United States. Some of the more
notable, which are compatible with the mission and purpose of Piedmont NWR, are listed below:
 CWCS – Georgia's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy:
Supported by the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program, Georgia's CWCS (also known as
the State Wildlife Action Plan) identifies the challenges facing Georgia's diverse wildlife
species and devises strategies to conserve those "species with the greatest conservation
need," and their habitats. Georgia ranks sixth in the nation in overall species diversity based
on numbers of vascular plants, vertebrate animals, and selected invertebrates. The state
currently has 223 species that are protected by state or federal laws and hundreds of
additional animal and plant species in need of conservation. The CWCS is a guide to
conserving the species of fish and wildlife that have immediate conservation needs or are
key indicators of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. The CWCS emphasizes a
cooperative, proactive approach to conservation, inviting local governments, businesses,
and conservation-minded organizations and individuals to join in the task of maintaining the
fish and wildlife resources (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005).
 The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Recovery Plan:
The ultimate recovery goal is red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) viability. Once
this goal is met, the size, number, and distribution of populations will be sufficient to counteract
threats of demographic, environmental, genetic, and catastrophic stochastic events, thereby
maintaining long-term viability for the species as defined by current understanding of these
processes (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003)
 SAMBI – The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative:
This plan represents one of the initial efforts in North America to integrate the objectives of
four major bird conservation plans (the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United
States Shorebird Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan) under the North American Bird Conservation
Initiative into a single plan that land managers, biologists, administrators, and private
landowners can use to achieve common goals and objectives for bird conservation across a
regional landscape. The primary objectives are to develop population and habitat goals for
priority species, delineate “all bird” focus areas, develop a long-term framework for bird
conservation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, and develop and seek funding for "all bird"
projects (Atlantic Coast Joint Venture 2005).
22 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
 NBCI – Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative:
The NBCI charged with meeting the conservation and management needs of the
northern bobwhite quail and facilitate integration with other bird management plans. The
goal is to restore bobwhites to the density they enjoyed during the baseline year 1980.
Forest habitat objectives are to enhance habitats in pinelands and mixed pine-hardwood
forests through silvicultural treatments such as thinning and prescribed burning
(Southeast Quail Study Group, no date).
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS
1) Southern Forest Resource Assessment
The Southern Forest Resource Assessment was a 3-year project initiated in 1999 as a result of
concerns regarding the status and future of forests in the south (Wear and Greis 2002). Federal
natural resource agencies (USDA Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service) and the Tennessee Valley Authority agreed to work together to
conduct a careful evaluation of the condition and ongoing changes of southern forests. State
agencies actively contributed to the effort. The broad findings from this report are:
 Multiple forces of change are simultaneously affecting forest conditions. Land use
changes, atmospheric pollution, fire exclusion, and the introduction of non-native species
are reshaping the composition, productivity, and ecological function of forests. The
interaction of these variables is complex and difficult to predict.
 Urbanization has a significant impact on the extent, condition, and health of forests. The
Piedmont region will experience the greatest loss of forest area among the ecoregions of
the south. The Piedmont already has a low ratio of interior forest to total forest,
indicating a high degree of forest fragmentation. This trend will increase, altering wildlife
habitats for certain key species such as neotropical migratory birds. A result of
urbanization will be increasing limitations on forest management options, such as
prescribed burning, that are important in maintaining healthy, productive forests.
 The population is growing and the social context is changing. The demographic profile
has changed towards a more urban population. Public values about forests vary among
different segments of the populace and include both commodity and biocentric views.
 The total forest area should remain stable, but there will be subregional changes.
Regionally, losses to urbanization are expected to be offset by agricultural land reverting
to forest. However, urban development is forecast to be concentrated in the eastern part
of the region and agricultural conversion to forest in the western part, resulting in a
westward shift in forest area.
 Timber production is expected to increase but not deplete forest inventories below
current levels.
 Forecasting models indicate that pine plantation acreage will increase from 32 million
acres in 1999 to 54 million areas in 2040. This additional acreage will come from
agricultural afforestation and conversion of hardwood, natural pine, and mixed pine-hardwood
forests. This should concentrate timber harvesting on fewer acres that would
otherwise be necessary to meet demand, but at the expense of natural forests.
 Changing land use and harvesting patterns will have economic and political impacts.
Urban sprawl into timber production areas will increase controversy and likely increase
local regulation of land uses and forest treatments.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
 Increasingly scarce forest components are vulnerable to change.
 Scarce forest types have high ecological value. Thus, much biodiversity consideration is
concentrated on relatively few acres.
2) Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for Georgia
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) began a
process to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy in December 2002 (Georgia
Department of Natural Resources 2005). The goal of the strategy is to conserve Georgia’s
animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive measures. Goals were defined broadly,
while strategies more specifically address the objectives that must be met to achieve these
goals. Conservation goals and strategies were identified for the five ecological regions of the
state. Identifying problems affecting wildlife diversity was part of the process of developing
goals and strategies. Those problems identified for the Piedmont region are:
 The rapid pace of residential and commercial development. These pressures have
resulted in the loss or fragmentation of a number of habitats, including bottomland
hardwood forest, oak-hickory-pine forest, granite outcrops, and mesic hardwood forest.
 Point-source discharges into streams including wastewater industrial facilities and
municipal treatment facilities.
 Reductions in streamflow fluctuations by upstream dams have resulted in isolation and
dewatering of floodplains in many areas. Restoration of natural hydrologic conditions,
maintenance of vegetated stream buffers, and continued improvements in erosion and
sedimentation control are essential to the protection of aquatic diversity.
 Conversion of remaining upland hardwood and pine-hardwood forests to pine
plantations. Problems associated with this forest conversion include loss of vegetative
structure and nesting sites, decline in hard and soft mast production, loss of understory
and groundcover diversity, and physical disturbance of habitat for organisms found in
leaf litter or soil.
 A lack of fire has resulted in the decline in the extent and quality of habitats such as oak-pine-
hickory forest, oak woodlands and savannas, montane longleaf pine-hardwood
forest, serpentine outcrops/woodland/savanna, and canebrakes. Concerns about smoke
management, air quality, and damage to structures make it difficult to implement
prescribed burn plans for these habitats.
 Invasive/alien species pose significant problems to habitats in the Piedmont.
 For some high-priority species and habitats, unmanaged recreational use represents a
serious problem.
 The Piedmont is the primary region of water supply reservoir construction in Georgia.
These impoundments threaten the viability of populations of native aquatic species.
 Incompatible road and utility corridor management represent potential problems for
some high-priority plants of open areas. Indiscriminant use of herbicides or excessive
ground disturbance along roads and in utility corridors may impact adjacent terrestrial
and aquatic habitats.
 Encroachment of vegetated stream buffers and general loss of permeable watershed
surfaces are particularly significant problems due to intense development pressures.
24 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
INVASIVE/EXOTIC SPECIES
People have moved plants and animals around the world for centuries. Most of these non-native
species are benign or even beneficial – for example, food crops and domesticated
animals. A few, however, cause serious problems. These are known as invasive species. An
invasive species is defined as a species that is non-native (or exotic) to the ecosystem under
consideration, and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental
harm or harm to human health (National Invasive Species Council 2001). This “silent” biological
invasion threatens biodiversity by homogenizing flora and fauna (Westbrooks 1998). Invasive
species of concern that occur on or near the refuge include Kudzu (Pueraria Montana), Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese Privet (Ligustrum japonicum), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata), Chinese tallow tree (Sapium sebiferum),
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), Bamboo (Phyllostachys aurea), Chinaberry
(Melia azedarach), Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), tall fescue
(Lolium arundinaceum), Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon) and Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrical).
CURRENT FOREST CONDITIONS
Ninety-eight percent of the refuge is forested. There are 25,537 acres in pine and 8,785 acres
in hardwood. Seventy-four percent, or 18,925 acres, of the pine acreage is in the mature size
class. Eighteen percent (4,511 acres) of the pine acreage is in the pole size class, eight percent
(2,102 acres) in the regeneration class.
The current distribution is unsustainable. There are too many acres in the mature size/age
class, and insufficient acreage in the regeneration and pole classes. Furthermore, the majority
of the stands in the mature class are 75+ years old. As a consequence of these missing age
class acreages, sooner or later there will be a shortage of red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)
habitat. A significant change in the age/size class structure of the refuge’s forests will occur
over the next 50 years (Powell 1998). Because of mortality, the mature size/age class will no
longer dominate the forest. Instead, poles will be the dominant size/age class, increasing from
18 percent to between 38 to 46 percent of the pine forest. The mature size/age class will
decrease from 74 to 32 percent of the pine acreage (10,950 acres).
SOUTHERN PINE BEETLE EPIDEMICS
Five species make up the guild known as the southern pine bark beetles: southern pine beetle
(Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmerman), black turpentine beetle (D. terebans Oliver), small southern
pine engraver or fourspined engraver (Ips avulses Eichhoff), fivespined engraver (I. grandicollis
Eichhoff) and the sixspined engraver (I. calligraphus Germar). Because of its behavior and
reproductive potential, the southern pine beetle (SPB) causes more concern than the other bark
beetles. Historically, periodic SPB outbreaks increased forest heterogeneity, thus increasing
biodiversity. Now, however, the SPB is considered a pest because of the value placed on the pine
forests it destroys (Nebeker 2004). These values include timber, water quality, fish and wildlife
populations, recreation, biodiversity, endangered species, and cultural resources (Fettig et al. 2007)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The refuge is located in the Southern Piedmont Plateau near the geographical center of
Georgia. The refuge's climate results from a blend of maritime and continental climates.
Summers typically consist of long spells of warm and humid weather. Average afternoon high
temperatures are in the upper 80s to around 90. Readings of 90 or higher can be expected on
30 to 60 days. Overnight lows usually range from the middle 60s to lower 70s. Temperatures
during winter months are more variable. Stretches of mild weather can alternate with cold
spells. Winter high temperatures average in the 50s. Lows average in the 30s. Lows of 32
degrees or lower can be expected on 50 to 70 days. Spring and autumn seasons are
characterized by daily and annual variability. The average dates of first freeze in the autumn
range from late October to mid-November. The average dates of last freeze in the spring range
from mid-March to early April. The highest observable temperature recorded at the National
Weather Service station at Macon, Georgia (Station: {095443} MACON WSO AIRPORT, GA)
was 108oF, on July 13, 1980; while the lowest recorded temperature was -6oF, on January 21,
1985 (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2008).
A measurable amount of rain falls on about 120 days each year, producing amounts averaging
between 40 and 50 inches, usually distributed rather uniformly throughout the year. The average
annual total snowfall is 1 to 2 inches. Usually this snowfall occurs on just one or two days. The
driest month is October and the wettest month is January. Thunderstorms are common in the
spring and summer months. On a typical year, thunder will be heard on 50 to 60 days. The
maximum one-day total rainfall recorded at the National Weather Service station at Macon,
Georgia (Station: {095443} MACON WSO AIRPORT, GA) was 5.30 inches on September 27,
2004. On July 5, 1994, Macon received 11.48 inches; this measurement is not official, however,
because the extreme weather caused the weather station to malfunction (Georgia State Climate
Office 1998). The highest total snowfall was 16.5 inches on February 9 and 10, 1973.
Using data collected at the National Weather Service station at the Macon, Georgia, airport
(Station: {095443} MACON WSO AIRPORT, GA) for the period 1971 to 2000, daily temperature
(average maximum, average minimum, and average) and average daily precipitation data; and
normal temperature and rainfall data are tabulated in Table 1. Data is from the Southeast
Regional Climate Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Piedmont physiographic region comprises a transitional boundary between the Appalachian
Mountains to the northwest and the flat Coastal Plain to the southeast. It is a mosaic of
metamorphic and igneous rocks with a moderately dissected irregular landform of plains and
some hills. Granite outcrops are scattered across the region. Soils contain more clay and less
sand then those of the Coastal Plain. The southern boundary is at the Fall Line, where Coastal
Plain sediments are deposited over Piedmont rock (Griffith et al. 2001).
The refuge's topography is typical of the region, with open low hills interspersed with small
streams. Twenty to fifty percent of the refuge is gently sloping; the majority of the slope is on
uplands. Elevations on the refuge range from 360 to 640 feet above mean sea level.
26 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Climatological normals for the years 1971-2000 from the National Weather
Service station at the Macon, Georgia, airport
Month
N O R M A L
High
(°F)
Low
(°F)
Mean
(°F)
Rainfall
(inches)
Snowfall
(inches)
Jan 56.6 34.5 45.5 5.00 T
Feb 61.0 37.1 49.0 4.55 T
Mar 68.5 43.8 56.2 4.90 T
Apr 75.9 49.5 62.7 3.14 0.0
May 83.4 58.6 71.0 2.98 0.0
Jun 89.5 66.6 78.0 3.54 0.0
Jul 91.8 70.5 81.1 4.32 0.0
Aug 90.5 69.5 80.0 3.79 0.0
Sep 85.4 63.7 74.5 3.26 0.0
Oct 76.8 51.1 63.9 2.37 0.0
Nov 67.8 42.5 55.1 3.22 0.0
Dec 59.2 36.3 47.8 3.93 T
Yearly Normals
High (°F) Low (°F) Mean (°F) Total Rainfall Total Snowfall
75.5 52.0 63.7 45.00 T
SOILS
Soils directly influence the kind and amount of vegetation and the amount of water available; in
this way they indirectly influence the kind of wildlife that can live in an area. Soils are organized
into a taxonomic classification system by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, in which each soil is categorized by order, suborder, great group,
subgroup, family, and soil series. Nationwide, there are twelve soil orders, three of which are
found on the refuge – Ultisols, Alfisols, and Inceptisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a
thermic soil temperature regime, a udic soil moisture regime, and kaolinitic or mixed mineralogy.
They are shallow to very deep, generally well-drained, and loamy or clayey. Within these three
orders there are nine soil series found on the refuge (Payne 1976).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
The soil series Davidson, Vance, Cecil, and Gwinnett are found in the order Ultisols. These
soils are acidic and are characterized by an argillic or clay deposition horizon. They are acid,
becoming more so as depth increases. Soils in the Davidson, Vance, and Cecil series occupy
78 percent of the refuge and are found on interstream ridgetops and slopes adjacent to
drainages. Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. Most of these soils are classed as eroded; in
some areas erosion has removed all or nearly the entire original surface layer. Loblolly pine is
best adapted to these degraded soil conditions. Soils in the Gwinnett series occur on steep
slopes adjacent to drainages. Slopes range from 15 to 35 percent. Good upland hardwood
sites are found on Gwinnett soils. More specifically:
 Davidson – This series is found extensively on the refuge on the ridge tops and upper
slopes and are well-drained soils. These soils are deep, usually 20 feet to bedrock.
Slopes range from 2 to 25 percent. Pine is usually found on these soils, but on some of
the less severely eroded areas stands of upland hardwoods can be found.
 Vance – This series is found sparingly in small areas. Vance soils are derived from acid
crystalline rock, and are well-drained. They have low organic matter content and low
fertility. Unlike most of the other upland soils, they have a yellow to brown subsoil.
 Cecil – These soils are of limited extent on the refuge. They are well-drained soils
weathered from gneiss and granite. Cecil soils are strongly acidic throughout and have
low natural fertility.
 Gwinnett – This series is limited in area on the refuge, but is important since some of the
better upland hardwood sites are found on Gwinnett soils. These soils are well-drained,
low in natural fertility, and medium to strongly acid throughout. Gwinnett soils were
derived from diorite and hornblende gneiss.
There are two Alfisols (suborder Udalfs) present on the refuge - Enon and Wilkes. These
soils are similar to the Ultisols in that they have an agrillic horizon as the identifying
horizon; however, Alfisols have a higher pH than Ultisols and the pH will remain the same
or increase with depth. In most climates, these soils tend to be somewhat younger that
Utisols. Enron and Wilkes soils occur on the uplands and on slopes adjacent to
drainages. Together, they occupy 12 percent of the refuge. Pine is best adapted to these
soils. More specifically:
The soil order Inceptisols is young soils with no distinct horizons. Within this order are found the soil
series Chewacla and Starr, of the suborder Udepts. Chewacla is in the subgroup Fluvaquentic
Dystrudepts and Starr is in the subgroup Fluventic Dystrudepts. The soil series Congaree is in the
suborder Fluvents, subgroup Oxyaquic Udifluvents. These soils are found along the stream
bottoms. They occupy 10 percent of the refuge. While they are suitable for both hardwoods and
pines, they are better suited to hardwoods due to the somewhat poor drainage.
 Chewacla – This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils that are formed on
alluvium. They are found on the flood plains of the larger streams on the refuge. Although
the flood plains are narrow, the surface is usually flat. Bottomland hardwoods are found on
these soils.
 Starr – These soils are found to a limited extent on the refuge. They are located in the
upper bottomlands and in small depressions. They have moderate natural fertility and
are strongly to medium acidic throughout.
 Congaree – The Congaree soil is found in bottoms along streams. It is a well-drained
soil. The soil is subject to frequent flooding and is best suited to bottomland forests.
28 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Various degrees of erosion are found on all these soils. On 20 percent of the area the topsoil is
completely gone. An additional 70 percent retains only a thin layer of topsoil. Gullies are
numerous throughout the forest.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Ocmulgee River basin which drains Piedmont NWR contains a dynamic hydrological
system that includes interactions between aquifers, streams, reservoirs, and wetlands. Many
tributary streams receive a substantial contribution of water from groundwater base flow during
dry periods and withdrawal of groundwater can, under certain condition, also result in reduction
in surface water flow.
Groundwater
Groundwater in the Piedmont Province largely flows along faults and fractures, making it
difficult to find but often locally abundant. The principal aquifer underlying the Ocmulgee
River basin in the region of the refuge is the Piedmont Crystalline Rock aquifer, which is
typically unconfined.
Typical well yields are 1 to 25 gallons per minute, though systematic well-site techniques can
produce high-yielding wells (greater than 100 gallons per minute). Currently, the crystalline
rock aquifer is used primarily for domestic water supply and livestock watering. It is
commonly believed that groundwater in the Piedmont part of Georgia is not sufficient to supply
such uses as municipal supplies and industry, although several municipalities and industries
use groundwater to augment local surface-water resources. Because groundwater is
transmitted through faults and fractures, each surface water drainage basin or watershed is
also a groundwater drainage basin or watershed; surface and groundwater are in such close
hydraulic interconnection that they can be considered as a single and inseparable system. In
the Piedmont, the saprolite that holds groundwater may also contain considerable clay and
may act locally as a barrier to groundwater pollution. The Piedmont section of the Ocmulgee
River basin is generally ranked as having below-average pollution susceptibility (Georgia
Department of Natural Resources 2003).
Surface Water
Piedmont NWR lies within the upper Ocmulgee River watershed. Piedmont NWR has
approximately 35 miles of permanent streams/creeks and is drained primarily by Falling Creek
and its tributaries (Little Falling Creek, Stalking Head Creek, Allison Creek, Rocky Branch,
Caney Creek and Hurricane Creek). Also, Butlers Creek and Hurricane Creek (and their
tributaries) drain the southern portion of the refuge. There are several intermittent (unnamed)
streams scattered throughout the refuge. Both Falling Creek and Butler Creek flow in a general
south and southwesterly direction and discharge into the Ocmulgee River, which lies about 3
miles to the west of the refuge boundary.
Falling Creek (USGS 02212600), just downstream from its confluence with Little Falling Creek
and Allison Creek has a annual average stream flow of 58.8 cubic feet per second, ranging from
an annual average of 19.6 cfs in 1988 to an annual average of 120 cfs in 1998 (U.S. Geological
Survey 2008).
In addition to these surface water streams, there are 12 impoundments ranging in size from 1.8
to 45.8 acres, with a total estimated surface area of 118 acres.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Forest Management Activities
Siltation (sedimentation), pathogens (bacteria), and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) are
the leading causes of water pollution in the south. While silvicultural activities, such as tree
harvesting, prescribed burning, and chemical application, have the potential to degrade water
quality, these activities ranked 9th out of 10 major sources of pollution (West 2002). Pollution
impacts from silviculture are generally local in nature, short term, less extensive, and less
frequent than impacts from agriculture or urbanization.
Without controlling measures such as forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs), however,
silvicultural activities do have the potential to significantly impact water quality (Fulton and
West 2002). The primary silvicultural impact to water quality is from non-point source
pollution from roads and skid trails. Forestry BMPs are the most appropriate or applicable
forest practices or activities to attain a silvicultural goal while protecting the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of waterways. BMPs achieve this by minimizing non-point
source pollution from silvicultural activities. Georgia’s Best Management Practices for
Forestry (Georgia Forestry Commission 2009) emphasizes protecting water resources when
conducting silvicultural operations through proper forest management and sound conservation
practices and techniques. Streamside management zones (buffer strips adjacent to perennial
or intermittent streams), stream crossings, log decks (a place where logs or tree length
material is assembled for loading and transporting), skid trails, fireline construction, and
herbicide use are regulated by Georgia’s BMPs.
According to the Ocmulgee River Basin Management Plan, no streams were identified in the
Ocmulgee River Basin as impacted due to commercial forestry activities (Georgia Department
of Natural Resources 2003). Also, research conducted on the refuge demonstrate that habitat
management (i.e., silvicultural activities such as timber harvesting and prescribed fire) had no
effect on stream condition and subsequently no negative effects on wildlife species dependent
on high-quality functioning stream reaches (Lang 1998, Powell 1998, Brady 2005).
Refuge Stream Studies
Third Branch and Gladesville, Scoggins and Butlers Creeks (streams which drain to the
Ocmulgee River in the eastern portion of the refuge) have been identified by the State of
Georgia and EPA as having an impaired biota and biological habitats due to non-point sources
of sediment loading to the creeks. These creeks are identified as only partially supporting their
designated uses for fishing. Georgia and EPA have also identified a section of Falling Creek
(from the confluence of Little Falling Creek to the Ocmulgee River) as being impacted by high
concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria, and not supporting its designated use for fishing
(Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006).
An earlier USGS report identifies an old feldspar-processing plant located on the headwaters of
Falling Creek; from which settling pond discharges have impacted the water quality of the creek
with suspended sediment and chemical contamination (pH, fluoride, and sulfate). This industrial
wastewater discharge resulted in the Falling Creek Hydrological Benchmark Network monitoring
site (Station 02212600, located on the refuge just east of Juliette) being discontinued in 1994
(Mast and Turk 1999). Investigations of the impacts of the settling pond discharges on the
present day chemical and biological quality of Falling Creek would seem to be prudent.
30 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Little Falling Creek has been identified as one of the only functioning low order Piedmont
streams that is not eroded. A study that began in 2008 was designed to assess and evaluate
environmental and vegetative characteristics of Little Falling Creek and Jesters Creek
restoration site in Clayton County (Boudell 2008).
In 2003 and 2004, Falling Creek between management compartments 8 and 16 (Bridgeout
Road) was sampled for water quality and biological indicators as part of a watershed
assessment study for the city of Gray, Georgia. The study concluded that water quality was
excellent–excluding one reading of high fecal coliform during a wet weather event in June 2004.
The bioassessment was conducted in 2004 and consisted of three parts, habitat assessment,
benthic macroinvertebrate assessment, and fish assessment. Falling creek received an optimal
rating for habitat, unimpaired stream for benthic macroinveretbrates, and a “good” overall Index
of Biotic Integrity for fish assemblage health. Overall the study suggested the refuge’s natural
setting afforded a rare opportunity for an undisturbed, pristine stream to serve as a reference for
other study streams (University of Georgia 2004)
Campbell Environmental studied the same area of Falling Creek between 2003 and 2008.
This study’s objective was to provide information on a lower Piedmont third order stream
which is fairly stable. The study suggests that Falling Creek is a suitable reference reach to
measure other streams in the lower Piedmont in which stream restoration measures have
been proposed and implemented.
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), required the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public
health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set for six pollutants
commonly found throughout the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM10 and PM2.5).
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (EPD), Air
Protection Branch, Ambient Monitoring Program, conducts monitoring to satisfy Clean Air Act
monitoring requirements and has monitored air quality in Georgia for more than 30 years. The
Air Sampling Network currently collects data at 65 locations in 37 counties in Georgia. Air
quality monitoring sites surround the refuge. The three sites nearest the refuge are to the south
in the Macon metropolitan statistical area (MSA): Allied Chemical (site 130210007), Georgia
Forestry Commission (site 130210012), and Lake Tobesofkee (site 130210013). There are also
24 monitoring sites in the Atlanta MSA and one in the Athens MSA. Furthermore, there are
three that are not in a MSA – one in each of Baldwin, Wilkinson, and Washington Counties
(Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2008).
Two criteria pollutants – PM2.5 and ozone – have the greatest ability to impact refuge
management activities. In July 1997, EPA issued NAAQS for PM2.5. There are two standards:
an annual standard of 15 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and a 24-hour standard of 65 μg/m3, based on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations. In 2006, the 24-hour standard was: 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3.
EPA also issued new NAAQS for ozone in 1997, replacing those that had been in place since
1979. The new standard is 0.08 parts per million, averaged over 8 hours.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Areas that meet the NAAQS are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting the
standards are termed “non-attainment” areas. While the two counties the refuge is in – Jones
and Jasper – are currently in attainment status, many of the surrounding counties are not
(Figure 4). Smoke from refuge prescribed fires has the potential to impact these non-attainment
areas (Hu et al. 2008).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Piedmont NWR supports a diversity of wildlife species common to the Piedmont physiographic
region of Georgia. The current wildlife list for the refuge contains over 200 species of birds, 45
mammals, 14 amphibians, 41 reptiles, and many fish species. Although many different species
occupy the same general area, the specific habitat needs of each species vary in some degree
from those of every other species. The particular food and cover requirements of a given
species may be general, or they may be very specialized. As such, a diversity of habitats tends
to encourage and support a diversity of wildlife species.
Georgia's Department of Natural Resources, in its Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (2005), lists sixteen high priority communities for the Piedmont region. Several of
these occur on the refuge:
Beaver Ponds; Freshwater Marsh – Beaver ponds are temporary impoundments created by
beaver on small- to medium-sized streams. Freshwater marshes develop in shallow beaver
ponds and along the edges of larger lakes and ponds. Dominants include a variety of sedges,
rushes, grasses, and forbs, with scattered buttonbush, red maple, swamp dogwood, and tag
alder. Few Georgia examples exist that are not invaded by the exotic weed, Murdannia. These
wetlands provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife species.
Bottomland Hardwood Forests – Forested wetlands of alluvial river floodplains, characterized by
a diverse association of deciduous hardwood trees. Canopy dominants vary, but may include
water oak, willow oak, overcup oak, cherrybark oak, swamp chestnut oak, green ash,
sweetgum, bitternut hickory, and pignut hickory. Shrub layer may be dense or relatively sparse,
containing a variety of mesophytic or hydrrophytic woody plants and often a significant woody
vine component. Many of these habitats have been impacted by invasive exotic species such
as Chinese privet and Nepalese browntop.
Canebrakes – Thickets of native cane (Arundineria gigantea) found along rivers and creeks
under sparse to full tree cover. Canebrakes represent important wildlife habitat for a variety of
neotropical birds and insects. These habitats require fire or other form of periodic disturbance
for maintenance. Most canebrakes on the refuge are relatively small and fire-suppressed, often
occurring along the edges of fields and other clearings.
Mesic Hardwood Forests – Non-wetland forests of floodplains, ravines, and north-facing slopes
in the Piedmont. These may include species such as American beech, white oak, northern red
oak, bitternut hickory, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory, bigleaf magnolia, yellow poplar,
blackgum, dogwood, black cherry, and loblolly pine. Typical shrubs include spicebush,
sweetshrub, pawpaw, Oconee azalea, rusty viburnum, and pinxter-flower.
32 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Non-attainment areas for National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
established by EPA
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Oak Woodlands and Savannas – Rare upland hardwood habitats found in scattered locations in
the Piedmont. These xeric or subxeric oak-dominated woodlands are influenced by edaphic
conditions (i.e., thin soils, mafic rocks) and periodic fire. Dominants may include southern red
oak, scarlet oak, post oak, and blackjack oak, sometimes with shortleaf pine. Sparkleberry and
hawbushes are common shrub components. A particularly rare type, the post oak-blackjack
oak savanna, was apparently much more common in pre-settlement times; only small, fire-suppressed
remnants of these habitats exist today.
Oak-Hickory-Pine Forest – Considered the climax forest of the Piedmont, this forest type
formerly covered 50 to 75 percent of the region; most examples on fertile soils were eliminated
by conversion to agricultural uses. Remaining examples are often found in rocky areas that
were difficult to convert to agricultural fields. These typically include a variety of hardwood
species such as white oak, black oak, southern red oak, pignut hickory, shagbark hickory,
mockernut hickory, red maple, blackgum, shortleaf pine, and loblolly pine, with dogwood, rusty
viburnum, hog plum, dwarf pawpaw, and various hawbushes in the understory. American
chestnut was formerly a major component of the canopy. Examples over circum-neutral soils
influenced by mafic or ultramafic bedrock are often floristically richer, and may contain species
such as Oglethorpe oak, basswood, red mulberry, redbud, and fringetree.
Streams – In the upper Piedmont, streams are low to moderate gradient and typically contain well-defined
riffles and pools. Substrate consists of gravel, pebble, sand, and silt; some bedrock may
also be present. Lower Piedmont streams are lower gradient, have fewer riffles and pools, and their
substrates have a higher proportion of silt, clay, and detritus than upper Piedmont streams.
Turbidity is highly variable, but most of these streams become highly turbid after rain.
Upland Depression Swamp – A non-alluvial open swamp with water oak, southern shagbark
hickory, Oglethorpe oak, and loblolly and shortleaf pine. Coastal plain elements in the
understory include swamp palmetto and parsley haw. Usually found on Iredell or Enon soils in
the lower Piedmont. These sticky, plastic soils hold water in the spring, resulting in swampy
conditions for a portion of the year.
Xeric Pine Woodlands – Pine-dominated habitats of dry, rocky ridgetops and granitic outcrops.
Dominants are loblolly, shortleaf, and Virginia pine. These woodland habitats are maintained by
a combination of edaphic factors and periodic fire.
The refuge's 34,995 acres are subdivided into 34 approximately 1,000-acre management
compartments. Ninety-eight percent (34,322 acres) of the refuge is forested. Seventy-two
percent (25,537 acres) is pine, 25 percent (8,785 acres) is hardwood, and non- forest habitat
types (open fields, roadsides, utility rights-of-way, ponds, and impoundments) comprise less
than 4 percent of the refuge acres (Figure 5).
The refuge’s forests were originally classified into three broad forest types in the refuge’s first
Timber Management Plan: pine, upland hardwood, and bottomland hardwood (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1948). These were then associated with a Society of American Forester’s
(SAF) forest cover type. The SAF defined forest type as a “group of stands of similar
character … by which they may be differentiated from other groups of stands.” A cover type
“is a forest type now occupying the ground.” SAF’s classification of forest cover types was
based on the existing tree cover (Evans et al. 1932). The pine was considered as SAF forest
cover type 68 – loblolly pine-shortleaf pine, the upland hardwoods SAF type 71 – loblolly pine-white
oak, and the bottomland hardwoods SAF type 81 – red gum-swamp red oak. Each
cover type was then subdivided into condition classes based on size class (1 = pre-
34 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
commercial, 2 = pulpwood, and 3 = sawtimber) and canopy closure (A = dense crown canopy
70 to 100 percent canopy closure; B = semi-dense crown canopy 40 to 70 percent canopy
closure; C = sparse crown canopy 40 percent or less canopy closure).
Later management plans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1968, 1982) increased the number of
cover types associated with the broad forest types, using updated SAF forest cover types
(Society of American Foresters 1954, Eyre 1980). They maintained the basic approach of the
original plan, except condition classes were no longer assigned to hardwoods.
A standardized method of classification is a step forward in the ability to manage and protect
ecosystems for the following reasons: (1) It allows data integration across administrative units;
(2) it more precisely defines ecosystem units; and (3) it provides a structure for framing and
answering questions about patterns and processes.
One such system is the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). This system is a
systematic approach to classifying a continuum of natural, existing vegetation. It uses a
combined physiognomic-floristic hierarchy, using both qualitative and quantitative data
appropriate for conservation and mapping at various scales (Grossman et al. 1998). The
physiognomic hierarchy is:
 Class – forest, woodland, shrubland, herbaceous, etc.
 Subclass – evergreen, deciduous, mixed
 Group – leaf characteristics such as broadleaf, needleleaf, etc.
 Subgroup – natural/semi-natural or cultural
 Formation – environmental factors, structural factors, hydrologic modifiers
The floristic hierarchy is:
 Alliance – a physiologically uniform group of plants, usually defined by the dominant
vegetation
 Association – a plant community type of definite floristic composition, uniform habitat
conditions and uniform physiognomy
The NVCS alliance is roughly equivalent to the SAF forest cover type. Those that occur on the
refuge, by broad forest type, are shown in Table 2.
There is a possibility that several protected plant species, known to occur in Jones or Jasper
Counties, may be found on or near the refuge. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources
lists the following protected plants in Jones and Jasper Counties, along with management
recommendations (Patrick et al. 1995):
 Pink ladyslipper (Cypripedium acaule) – avoid disturbance. May require periodic
thinning and winter prescribed fire to maintain an open-canopy pine habitat.
 Oglethorpe oak (Quercus oglethorpensis) – avoid draining the site. This is a state listed
threatened species.
 Relict trillium (Trillium reliquum) – avoid disturbance. Will only tolerate hand thinning of
trees in the vicinity. Control exotics, especially Japanese honeysuckle. This is a state
and federal listed endangered species.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Piedmont NWR has approximately 35 miles of permanent creeks/streams. There are 12
impoundments/ponds totaling 118 acres created by damming sections of these creeks. These
impoundments/ponds range in size from 1.8 to 45.8 acres. Most of the ponds were constructed
with the trees in place to provide both waterfowl and fish habitat; many snags and stumps from
those trees remain today. A variety of fish species are commonly found in these ponds.
Invasive species tend to aggressively colonize lands and ecological niches, displacing
native plants and animals. Not all invasive species are non-native (i.e., originating outside
of North America). Some species of both plants and animals are indigenous to the area or
native to North America, but are still considered invasive and problematic because they
spread quickly and become abundant, to the detriment of native flora and fauna, and thus
indigenous biodiversity.
Most river floodplains and valleys in the Piedmont Region are overrun with invasive plants such
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese Privet (Ligustrum japonicum) and Nepalese
browntop (Microstegium vimineum). Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) is a major
component of the understory in many upland forest stands. Non-native plants species such as
Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis), Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), Chinaberry (Melia azedarach),
and privet are commonly found around the remains of old home sites on the refuge and have
become invasive around these sites.
WILDLIFE
The refuge is home to over 200 bird species; 14 amphibians and 41 species of reptiles; 45
mammals; 85 species of butterflies; and many fish species. Lists of the flora and fauna
which have been observed (on at least one occasion) in the vicinity of Piedmont NWR are
given in Appendix I.
Terrestrial Species
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources identified “high priority species” using criteria such
as global and state rarity rankings, population and habitat trends, range of occurrence, number of
protected populations, and importance of Georgia efforts to the global conservation of the species
(Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2005). Some species not globally imperiled but
considered indicators of habitat quality over a large area or region were also included. An effort was
made to use existing criteria used by the Georgia Nongame Wildlife and Natural Heritage Section.
These criteria utilize the basic Global (G) and State (S) rarity rankings:
1 – Critically imperiled globally (5 or fewer occurrences or less than 1000 remaining individuals)
2 – Imperiled globally (6 to 20 occurrences or between 1,000 and 3,000 remaining individuals)
3 – Vulnerable to extirpation (21 to 100 occurrences or between 3,000 and 10,000 remaining
individuals)
4 – Apparently secure (more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals)
5 – Secure (more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals)
Some additional criteria include:
G#G# - used to indicate the range of uncertainty about the exact status of the species
T - The status of subspecies or varieties (taxa) are indicated by a "T-rank" following the species'
global rank
? – An inexact or uncertain numeric rank
36 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Land cover types – Piedmont NWR 2008
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Table 2. Forest types, SAF forest cover types, and NVCS Alliances that occur on the
refuge
Broad
Forest
Types
FRES
Ecosystems
(Garrison et al.
1997)
SAF Forest Cover
Types
(Eyre 1980)
NVCS Alliances
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/
Pine Loblolly-Shortleaf
Pine (13)
Shortleaf Pine (75)
Shortleaf Pine-Oak
(76)
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf
Pine (80)
Loblolly Pine (81)
Loblolly Pine-
Hardwood (82)
Shortleaf Pine Forest (A.119)
Loblolly Pine-Shortleaf Pine Forest (A.129)
Loblolly Pine Forest (A.130)
Loblolly Pine-(White Oak, Southern Red
Oak, Post Oak) Forest (A.404)
Shortleaf Pine Woodland (A.515)
Longleaf Pine Woodland (A.520)
Loblolly Pine Woodland (A.526)
Upland
Hardwood
Oak-Pine (14)
Oak-Hickory (15)
White Oak-Black Oak-
Northern Red Oak
(52)
White Oak (53)
Yellow Poplar-White
Oak-Northern Red
Oak (59)
Shortleaf Pine-Oak
(76)
Loblolly Pine-
Hardwood (82)
American Beech-White Oak Forest (A.228)
American Beech-Northern Red Oak -
White Oak Forest (A.229)
Sweetgum Forest (A.234)
Tuliptree Forest (A.236)
White Oak-(Northern Red Oak, Hickory
species) Forest (A.239)
White Oak-(Southern Red Oak, Post Oak)
Forest (A.241)
Loblolly Pine-(White Oak, Southern Red
Oak, Post Oak) Forest (A.404)
Post Oak - Blackjack Oak Woodland
(A.625)
Bottomland
Hardwood
Oak-Gum-
Cypress (16)
Elm-Ash-
Cottonwood
(17)
Sweetgum-Yellow
Poplar (87)
Swamp Chestnut-
Cherrybark Oak (91)
Sweetgum-Willow Oak
(92)
Sugarberry-American
Elm-Green Ash (93)
Sycamore-Sweetgum-
American Elm (94)
American Beech - White Oak Forest
(A.228)
Sweetgum-(Tuliptree, Red Maple)
Temporarily Flooded Forest (A.287)
(Swamp Chestnut Oak, Cherrybark Oak,
Shumard Oak)-Sweetgum Temporarily
Flooded Forest (A.291)
(Willow Oak, Water Oak, Diamondleaf
Oak) Temporarily Flooded Forest
(A.292)
Giant Cane Wooded Shrubland (A.794)
Giant Cane Temporarily Flooded
Shrubland (A.795)
38 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
The following state high-priority species are on the refuge species lists in Appendix I:
Common Name Global Rank State Rank
Red-cockaded woodpecker G3 S2
Bachman’s sparrow G3 S3
Bald eagle G4 S2
Least bittern G4 S3
Loggerhead shrike G4T3 S?
Swainson’s warbler G4 S3
King rail G4G5 S3
Northern bobwhite G5 S4
Two of these species are specifically mentioned with respect to the refuge in the Georgia
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: the federally endangered Red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis).
The Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) was listed in the Federal Register as endangered in
1970 (35 FR 16047), and received federal protection under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Once a common bird distributed across the southeastern United States,
by the time of listing the RCW had declined to fewer than 10,000 individuals (Jackson 1971).
The RCW prefers mature, older age open canopy pine stands with low ground cover of
grasses and forbs. Its decline has been traced to the loss of older age open pine forest in
the south, a fire dependent ecosystem to which the RCW has adapted. Because fire is a
historic disturbance agent, and critical to the continued existence of the RCW's habitat, the
refuge uses prescribed fire on a 3-year rotation to manage RCW habitat. Piedmont NWR
had 44 active clusters in 2009.
Bachman’s sparrow is traditionally associated with mature pinelands in the south. It has
declined in the southern portion of its range. Historically, Bachman's sparrows were found in
mature to old growth southern pine forests that had frequent fire. Declines in the southern
portion of its range are due to changing forestry practices that emphasize intensively managed
pine plantations instead of mature natural pine forests (Dunning and Watts 1990). Bachman
sparrows occur on the refuge where habitat is managed for red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Aquatic Species
Piedmont NWR has approximately 35 miles of permanent creeks/ streams. There are 12
impoundments/ponds totaling 118 acres created by damming sections of these creeks. These
impoundments/ponds range in size from 1.8 to 45.8 acres. The ponds have suitable habitat for
warm-water fish populations. The most common fish species within the refuge ponds are
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear sunfish
(Lepomis microlophus), and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). Other non-sportfish species
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
are brown bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis), golden shiner
(Notemigonus crysoleucas), and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus) and redeye bass (Micropterus coosae) are present in small numbers in the
larger creeks and streams located throughout the refuge.
The Altamaha shiner (Cyprinella xaenura), a state listed endangered species, and the
Goldstripe darter (Etheostoma parvipinne), a state high-priority species, may occur in the refuge
streams (Ozier et al. 1999). The Altamaha shiner inhabits small tributaries and rivers, usually in
small pools with rocky to sandy substrates. The Goldstripe darter is usually found in small
streams and spring seeps with organic debris, or slow-moving riffle pools. Conserving both of
these fish species depends on maintaining and restoring habitat and water quality. It is
essential to minimize sediment runoff from land disturbing activities. Implementing Georgia’s
Best Management Practices for Forestry (Georgia Forestry Commission 2009) is critical to the
protection of this species on the refuge.
The freshwater submergent and emergent vegetation found in many impoundments consists of
naiad (Najas spp.), pondweeds (Potamogeton spp.), cattails (Carex spp.), watershield (Brasenia
schreberi), coontail (Ceratophyllum spp.), and various sedges. The vegetation varies in density
from pond-to-pond, and in most cases provides a benefit to waterfowl and does not pose a
threat to the fishery resource.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Few archaeological and historical investigations have been conducted on Piedmont NWR.
Since its establishment in 1939, all archaeological investigations and historic building
assessments have been conducted primarily to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (Cobb 1983 and 1984; Kanaski 2000; 2002-2003; n.d.;
Thomas, Holland and Stanyard 2000; Wright and Perry 1978). An exception is the refuge’s
effort to document historic period cemeteries.
To date over 125 historic properties have been identified on the refuge. These properties
include precolumbian lithic and ceramic scatters, rock mounds, 19th – early 20th farm sites,
agricultural terraces, and cemeteries. Efforts, primarily driven by the refuge’s prescribed fire
and forestry programs, are underway to systematically document and map the historic period
farm sites.
Cemeteries
Cemeteries located on Piedmont NWR are a link to the settlers that once lived on this land.
Headstones are inscribed with dates leading as far back as the 1700s, and mark the graves of
several generations. There are Revolutionary War as well as Civil War veterans' graves, and
several cemeteries are regularly visited by family and friends. The gravestones are cultural
artifacts that can teach us much about our American forebears.
Thirty-two cemeteries have been documented on the refuge since the late 1990s. All of the
cemeteries share certain characteristics, such as old cedars, large mature oaks, and dogwood,
growing within them. They are often located on ridges or hills and have old roadbeds leading to
and around them. Three cemeteries have limestone or concrete block walls built around
several graves. There are indications that several cemeteries had ornamental metal or wrought
iron fences around them or around individual family plots. Often ornamental shrubs or trees,
such as red cedar, mark the corners or boundary lines of the cemetery.
40 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
There are several different types of grave markers on the refuge. One of the most common
markers is an engraved or carved tabletstone. Often these stones are set on a base and
accompanied by a footstone that may be carved with initials of the deceased. Another type of
marker is a large tabletop stone either set flush on the ground or placed on a stone box or vault.
Tabletop stones are rectangular-shaped markers about three feet wide by six feet long and two
inches thick. At least one cemetery has vaulted crypts or boxtombs, which are variation of the
flat tabletop markers. Monuments, such as obelisks, are present in several of the refuge's
cemeteries. Rectangular rock cairns, seen in the Beeland Cemetery, were occasionally placed
over the grave. Uncarved fieldstone markers, sometimes accompanied with smaller footstones,
are used in a number of the cemeteries. A number of graves are not marked, but visible only as
oval or rectangular indentations that range from 3 to 5 feet in length.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMY
Piedmont NWR is in rural central Georgia approximately 30 miles north of Macon, Georgia, a
city of about 100,000 people. The refuge is predominately located in northwestern Jones
County with a smaller portion of the refuge extending into southern Jasper County. Four
counties (Jones, Jasper, Monroe and Bibb) lie within 10 miles of the refuge boundary. Middle
Georgia residents account for a significant number of refuge visitors. The nearest metropolitan
area, Atlanta, Georgia, is a city of more than 5,000,000 people, located about 75 miles
northwest of the refuge.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 2006 population estimate of Jones County was 26,973.
The county's population is largely rural and about one-fourth of the county is federally owned.
Natural resources in the county include crushed stone, timber, and pulpwood. The largest and
only incorporated city in the county is Gray, the county seat, with a population of about 2,000.
The city of Gray represents approximately 10 percent of the population of Jones County. Jones
County is about 75 percent white versus 25 percent nonwhite. From 2000 to 2006, the population
grew by about 14.1 percent, lagging slightly behind Georgia's population growth of 14.4 percent.
The economic area for the refuge is defined as Jones, Jasper, Bibb and Monroe Counties. It is
assumed that refuge visitor expenditures occur primarily in this 4-county area.
OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL ECONOMICS
The resources of the Piedmont NWR are economically important (U.S. Department of the
Interior and U.S. Department of Commerce 2006). The refuge provides numerous sites for
hiking, recreational fishing, and wildlife observation. As our country's population increases and
the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the refuge will become even more
important to our community. The refuge benefits the community directly by providing
recreational and employment opportunities for the local population and indirectly by attracting
tourists from outside the area to generate additional income to the local economy. Whether it is
gas used to travel to and from the refuge, a meal at a local restaurant, ammunition, or an
overnight at a local motel, visitors to the refuge add substantially to the regional economy.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Figure 6. Double brick chimney site photo by Rick Kanaski, FWS
42 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Piedmont NWR had 50,000 visitors in 2007. The majority of recreation visits were for
hunting and fishing. About 65 percent of recreation visits were undertaken by visitors that
live more than 30 miles from the refuge. Total expenditures were almost $2.3 million with
visitors that live greater than 30 miles from the refuge accounting for 90 percent of the total
expenditures (Caudill and Henderson 2005). Piedmont NWR has a 13-person staff and an
annual budget in excess of $750,000.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
Management policies of Piedmont NWR are designed to conserve, restore, and enhance in
their natural ecosystems all threatened and endangered plants and animals, manage for the
diversity of resident flora and fauna that naturally occur in the Piedmont region, and
perpetuate the migratory bird resource. Creating and maintaining habitat for the
endangered RCW is a high-priority activity. The two primary forest management methods
used to create and maintain a diverse array of forest structures, including RCW habitat, are
timber harvesting and prescribed fire.
Forest Management
Refuge annual narrative reports indicate forest management was used as a refuge development
tool starting in 1940. Utilizing harvesting as a land management tool was first considered in
1942. In 1945, timber operations as a management tool began. Timber harvesting as a land
management tool continues to this day.
The overall goal of forest management is to create a variety of forest condition classes to benefit a
diversity of wildlife. A specific goal is to manage pine forests for the RCW and associated species of
concern such as the Bachman’s sparrow and brown-headed nuthatch.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed fire has been used as a management tool on the refuge since 1940. Burning
stopped in 1948, resumed in 1962, and continues to this day. Most of the refuge is under some
active management regime, including burning areas on a 2- or 3-year interval. It is used to
reduce the severity of wildfire and enhance habitat for resident and migratory wildlife.
Prescribed burning is essential to the management, conservation, and recovery of the RCW.
Fields and Streams
Openings account for less than 1 percent of the refuge area and include fields, roadsides, pond
dams, and power lines. Open areas are maintained by mowing and/or burning. Some fields
have been converted to native warm season grasses for improved wildlife benefit. Invasive
species such as Johnson grass, tall fescue, and Sericea lespedeza provide little wildlife value
and reduce the benefit of open area wildlife. These openings are important feeding and nesting
areas for many species of birds and animals.
Numerous clear flowing creeks and beaver ponds provide wetlands used by waterfowl.
Eleven ponds are managed for wildlife and fish. Wood duck boxes have been placed
around these ponds to provide nesting structures. The refuge manipulates water levels in
two areas for wintering waterfowl. These sites primarily serve as demonstration areas.
Other water bodies are not manipulated but serve as permanent water sources for those
species dependent on wetland environments.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
VISITOR SERVICES
The Improvement Act and E.O. 12996 emphasize the importance of providing compatible
wildlife-dependent educational and recreational opportunities on national wildlife refuges. A
variety of public use opportunities has been available on Piedmont NWR for over 30 years. The
Visitor Center is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays. General public access for birding and
hiking along with environmental education began in the early 1980s. Hiking and wildlife
observation are encouraged on Piedmont NWR. Access through the refuge is available on 50
miles of graveled roads and numerous county clay roads. Except during severe rain events that
flood the stream crossings, the refuge road system is open most of the year. Some roads are
closed to vehicles in March and April for turkey hunt season. The Little Rock Wildlife Drive
offers a 6-mile auto tour route over narrow graveled roads. The refuge can be accessed from I-
75 in Forsyth or Highway 11 between the cities of Gray and Monticello. The Round Oak -
Juliette Road, which bisects the refuge, has been designated as part of a state scenic byway.
Hunting
The refuge has a long history of public hunting that dates back to the late 1940s. The big game
hunting program is one of the largest in the Service’s Southeast Region and began in 1961.
Throughout the year, the refuge offers small game, opossum, and raccoon hunting, along with
white-tailed deer and turkey hunting. White-tailed deer and turkey gun hunting is offered as
quota drawn hunts. Hunting is permitted on approximately 34,000 acres of the refuge. The
hunt program also includes 3,400 acres of Hitchiti Experimental Forest, which is owned by the
USDA Forest Service. Hunting is permitted within the framework of state regulations. All
hunters must possess applicable valid state hunting licenses in order to hunt on the refuge,
along with a special use permit issued by the refuge. In addition to federal regulations, State
Game and Fish laws and regulations are adopted and in effect unless they have been further
restricted by federal laws and regulations. Hunting seasons and limits are coordinated with the
State of Georgia every two years. For an example of hunting opportunities see Table 4.
Fishing
Sport fishing on Piedmont NWR is permitted only in creeks and on ponds designated as open to
fishing from April 1 through September 30 annually. A free permit is required to fish and all
state regulations are in effect. Boats with electric trolling motors are permitted in Allison Lake
and Pond 2A only. Portable non-motorized boats are allowed in all ponds opened to fishing.
The Children's Pond (Pond 21A) offers family fishing for children 15 years of age or younger.
Species that may be taken include 5 catfish, 15 sunfish and 5 bass, with a minimum 12 inches
in length. Fishing piers are located at Pond 2A, Allison Lake, and the Children's Pond.
Piedmont NWR offers environmental education programs, which can fit the needs to
students from elementary through college. The Visitor Center contains exhibits describing
refuge wildlife and habitats. It is open Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Other
facilities include an auditorium, picnic area, and hiking trails. Interpretive kiosks are at
several locations. The refuge has limited availability to provide staff-led trail walks and
programs. Schools and other groups are encouraged to contact the refuge to schedule field
trips to enhance their classroom learning experience.
44 Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Hunting and fishing opportunities available in 2009 – 2010
Species Type hunt Season Permit
White-tailed deer Archery
September – 24 days Free permit
Disable Hunt
Wheel chair bound only
October -2 days
2 deer limit
Free special
use permit
Gun hunt
Quota 1250 hunters/
hunt
October – November
- 3 day either sex
- 3 day primitive weapon
- 3 day either sex
- 3 day either sex
2 deer limit
$12.50 fee
special use
permit
Turkey Gun
Quota 300 hunters/hunt
3 five day hunts from the
end of March through
April
State limit applies
$12.50 fee
special use
permit
Small game
Squirrel
Rabbit
Quail
Gun State season except no
small game hunting during
any deer hunts
Free permit
Raccoon / opossum 8 nights in January Free permit
Fishing Designated ponds and
all creeks
April 1 – Sept 30
Bank and small boat
Free permit
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Walking, Hiking and Wildlife Observation
Wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation are all
supported and encouraged at Piedmont NWR. There are over 5 miles of walking trails on the
refuge, which are available throughout the year. Three foot trails are accessible from the Visitor
Center and Allison Lake. Two other foot trails are located on the Little Rock Wildlife Drive.
A parking area and three interconnecting wildlife trails are located adjacent to Allison Lake and
the visitor center. These trails are limited to foot travel and involve some moderate walking over
uneven and hilly terrain. The 0.9-mile Allison Lake Trail and the 1.3-mile Pine and Creek Trails
interconnect and provide foot access through hardwood and pine habitat and views of Allison
Lake. Allison trail provides viewing opportunities for wintering waterfowl. The Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker Trail is 2.9 miles starting at Allison Lake and traveling through an active cluster
site. Cavity trees are characterized by accumulations of white pitch and are marked by a
painted white stripe at the base of the tree. The best time to view RCWs along the trail is during
the nesting season in May and June.
There are two hiking trails located near Pond 21 (Children's Pond) on the Little Rock Wildlife
Drive that provide additional hiking opportunities. The Dragonfly trail is a 0.6-mile loop around
the 10-acre pond. The Little Rock trail is a 1-mile loop along a graveled road through open
native grass fields and seasonally flooded impoundments. This trail is seasonally opened from
February 16 to November 14 and is closed to reduce disturbance to waterfowl.
The wildlife drive offers a 6-mile auto tour route through representative habitats of the refuge.
Public access through the refuge is available on 50 miles of refuge graveled roads and
numerous county clay roads. There are over 100 miles of woods roads that provide foot access
deeper into the refuge for the public. These woods roads are maintained to provide refuge
vehicle access for monitoring and management.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Piedmont NWR is administered as an independent refuge and complex headquarters for Bond
Swamp NWR, approximately 30 miles to the south. The refuge has a good base of facilities and
equipment to support management operations on site. The staff is responsible for maintaining
over 120 assets including buildings, roads, parking lots, foot trails, ponds, impoundments, and a
fleet of heavy equipment, passenger vehicles, and small equipment. The refuge has 12 full-time
employees and 1 position assigned to Bond Swamp NWR, with collateral duties at Piedmont
NWR. The Piedmont NWR budget supports all activities and staff on both refuges.
The annual budget of Piedmont NWR varies. In FY06 and FY07, basic refuge funding for
Piedmont was $789,000 and $751,200, respectively. This does not include the fire program
($282,000 and $262,100 - FY06 and FY07 resp