Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
WOLF ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
McIntosh County, Georgia
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
June 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose and Need for the Plan .................................................................................................... 1
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ...................................................................................................... 2
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal Policy Context ..................................................................................................................... 4
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other
Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 4
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Wilderness ........................................................................................................................ 12
Class I Air Quality Area ..................................................................................................... 13
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Initiative for Watershed Excellence: Upper Altamaha Pilot Project ................................... 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Beach Erosion and Accretion ............................................................................................ 15
Control of Nuisance Wildlife .............................................................................................. 15
Protection of the Natural Functions of the Altamaha River System .................................. 16
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 16
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 16
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 18
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 18
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19
Water Quality and Quantity ............................................................................................... 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 20
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 21
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 21
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 23
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 23
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 23
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 23
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 25
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 25
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 25
ii Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 27
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 27
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 32
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 34
Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................... 34
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 35
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 35
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ......................................................................................................... 37
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 37
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 38
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 38
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 38
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 42
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 44
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 46
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 47
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .............................................................................................................. 49
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 49
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 49
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 49
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 51
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 52
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 53
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 54
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 54
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................... 55
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 56
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 56
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 57
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 59
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 59
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 59
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 60
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 60
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 60
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 60
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 61
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 63
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 65
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 65
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 65
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action) ............................................................... 65
Table of Contents iii
Alternative B: Intensive Biological Resource Management ............................................... 66
Alternative C: Ecosystem Management (Proposed Alternative) ....................................... 66
Features Common to All Alternatives ......................................................................................... 67
Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 68
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis .................................................. 74
Allow Public Access .......................................................................................................... 74
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................................... 75
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 75
Effects Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................................ 75
Environmental Justice ....................................................................................................... 75
Climate Change ................................................................................................................ 75
Other Management ........................................................................................................... 76
Land Acquisition ................................................................................................................ 77
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 77
Refuge Revenue-sharing .................................................................................................. 77
Other Effects ..................................................................................................................... 78
Summary of Effects by Alternative ............................................................................................. 78
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 78
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 78
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 79
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 79
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 79
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................... 80
Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 80
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 80
Human Resources ............................................................................................................ 92
Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity .......................................... 92
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 92
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 92
Wildlife Disturbance .......................................................................................................... 92
Vegetation Disturbance ..................................................................................................... 93
User Group Conflicts ......................................................................................................... 93
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ....................................................................................... 93
Land Ownership and Site Development ............................................................................ 93
Potential Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......................................... 93
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ......................................................................................... 94
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ......................................................................... 94
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ....................................................................................... 95
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 95
CCP Planning Team ................................................................................................................... 95
Biological Review Team ............................................................................................................. 95
Visitor Services Review Contributors ......................................................................................... 96
Other Contributors ...................................................................................................................... 96
iv Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 97
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ............................................................... 107
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ................................ 109
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........................................................................................... 123
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 123
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ................................................................ 125
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ....................................................................... 131
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 141
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 147
APPENDIX I. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 167
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................................ 10
Figure 2: Aerial photo of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge with acreages. ................................... 11
Figure 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S.
The Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem is no. 31. .................................................................. 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of projects and their associated costs and staffing needs. ................................... 55
Table 2. Step-down management plans, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ................................. 56
Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wolf Island
National Wildlife Refuge. ....................................................................................................... 68
Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. ..... 81
vi Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment to provide a foundation for the management and use of Wolf
Island National Wildlife Refuge in McIntosh County, Georgia. The plan is intended to serve as a
working guide for the refuge’s management programs and actions over the next 15 years. Fish and
wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational
activities will be allowed and encouraged as long as they are compatible with, and do not detract
from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
The plan has been prepared in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and Wildlife Service
Manual. The plan also meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969 through the inclusion of an environmental assessment (Section B), which describes the
alternatives that are being considered and their potential effects on the environment.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best meet the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. In developing the plan, the
team incorporated the input of federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, local
citizens, and the general public. This public involvement and the planning process itself are
described in Chapter III, Plan Development.
This plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering two
other alternatives, which are described in the Environmental Assessment (Section B). The plan is
being made available to federal and state agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for
review and comment. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the plan is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge’s purposes;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is consistent
with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
􀁹􇤠 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
2 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
The plan also addresses the purposes for which the refuge was established:
􀁹􇤠 Provide protection and habitat for migratory birds.
􀁹􇤠 Provide protection and habitat for endangered and threatened species.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the refuge as an undisturbed national wilderness area and Class I Airshed.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service traces its roots to 1871 with the establishment of the Commission
of Fisheries involved with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was
renamed the Bureau of Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its origins to 1886 through the establishment of a Division of Economic
Ornithology and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds
and animals to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was
changed to the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Fisheries was combined with the Department of
Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956, and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering more
than 95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, is:
... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management,
and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their
habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of
Americans.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as guidelines for
refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 fulfill the requirement of developing a comprehensive conservation plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
􀁹􇤠 maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and
􀁹􇤠 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
The following describes a few examples of the Service’s national network of conservation lands.
Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of
colonial nesting birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges
were established for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert
bighorn sheep (1936) after overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted
breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Depression focused on
waterfowl production areas, such as those that protected prairie wetlands in America’s heartland.
The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes protection of wintering habitat in
response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service began to focus on
establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, the local communities receive significant
economic benefits. In 2001, 82 million people 16 years and older either fished, hunted, or observed
wildlife, generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36
percent in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in the surrounding communities
grew to 120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into the local
economies. The 15 refuges in the 2002 study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming);
Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira
(Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay
(California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake
(California); and Tensas River (Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other
findings also validate the belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on
food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in
1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with
$4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more
than $22 million.
4 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive
conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners
and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure active public involvement in the
preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plans will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including the Service’s compatibility standards and other Service policies,
guidelines, and planning documents.
LEGAL POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties.
Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines
established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the
Fish and Wildlife Service. The treaties and laws relevant to the administration of the Refuge System
and management of national wildlife refuges are summarized in Appendix C.
These treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in
making decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and
cultural resources; and research and recreation on refuge lands. They also provide a framework for
cooperation between Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge and other partners, such as the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, private landowners, etc.
National Wildlife Refuge System lands are closed to public use unless specifically and legally
opened. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is one example of a refuge that is closed to public
access. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is
a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with
or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All
programs and uses must be evaluated based on the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act, including those that:
􀁹􇤠 contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as the purposes and goals for the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 manage and ensure appropriate wildlife-dependent visitor uses as those uses which benefit
the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and which contribute to the enjoyment of the
public; and
􀁹􇤠 ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
The Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority public
uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses
in planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuges are maintained for the benefit of
present and future generations of Americans. This policy is an additional directive for refuge
managers to follow while achieving the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the System. It
provides for the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat
resources found on the refuges and their associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate
management direction for refuges, refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to
determine their refuges’ contribution to biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at
multiple landscape scales. Sound professional judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of
refuge resources; the refuge’s role within an ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science,
including consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Because many issues affecting the protection and management of natural resources transcend
geopolitical boundaries, multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private
entities to address the environmental problems affecting regions. A large amount of conservation
and protection information defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and
ecosystem levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between
affected parties to address the declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic
environments. The conservation plans and initiatives listed below, along with issues, problems, and
trends, were reviewed and integrated where appropriate into this Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area (in which Wolf Island is located) represents a
scientifically based landbird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native landbirds, primarily nongame landbirds. Nongame landbirds have been
vastly underrepresented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This
plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. Its goal is to
return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitats.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 to address the critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial, state, and municipal governments; nongovernmental organizations; private
companies; and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. The plan’s projects are
international in scope but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection
of habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape.
6 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network is a voluntary, nonregulatory coalition that identifies and promotes the conservation of crucial
sites for shorebirds regardless of whether they are used during the breeding, migratory, or winter
seasons. It was created in 1985 as an ambitious and visionary approach to addressing shorebird
conservation needs. On October 9, 1999, the organization recognized the Altamaha River Delta in
Glynn and McIntosh counties, Georgia, as the 40th major reserve for shorebirds. This designation
highlights its importance as a stopover site for migratory and wintering birds traveling between the
Artic and South America. The Georgia Department of Natural Resources estimates that this area
supports at least 55,000 seabirds and shorebirds annually, and states, “There are very few places as
valuable to such a large and diverse number of coastal birds in all the southeast United States.”
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico that works to
ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations. It fosters an integrated
approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national
bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; Partners in Flight; Waterbird
Conservation for the Americas; and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States that works to ensure the protection and restoration of stable and self-sustaining
populations of shorebird species. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country. It identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The North American Waterbird Conservation
Plan provides a framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29
nations. Threats to waterbird populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands; the
introduction of predators and invasive species; pollutants; mortality from fisheries and industries;
disturbance; and conflicts arising from abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the
southeast region include pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island
complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood
storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations
of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to
better recommend effective conservation measures.
National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. The objective of the National Wetlands Priority
Conservation Plan (NWPCP) is to assist agencies in focusing their acquisition efforts on the more
important, scarce and vulnerable wetlands in the Nation. The NWPCP was prepared by the
Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the chief executive officer of
each state in accordance with Section 301 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act. Section 301
mandates that the Secretary of the Interior shall establish, and periodically review and revise, a
national wetlands priority conservation plan which shall specify, on a region-by-region basis or other
basis considered appropriate by the Secretary, the types of wetlands and interests in wetlands which
should be given priority with respect to federal and state acquisition.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas. The Waterbird Conservation for the Americas
(Conservación de las Aves Acuáticas de las Américas) is an independent partnership of individuals and
institutions having an interest and responsibility for the conservation of waterbirds and their habitats in the
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Americas. The partnership was created to support a vision in which the distribution, diversity, and
abundance of populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and nonbreeding waterbirds are sustained
or restored throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. In
2004, the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas initiated a project to gather and assess information in
order to strategically advance conservation for critically threatened waterbird species and sites in Central
America, the Caribbean and South America. This information will be used to raise awareness among
decision-makers and representatives from key governments and nongovernmental agencies of the
increasing threats to waterbirds and their habitats, and to inform future monitoring and management of
these resources throughout the entire Western Hemisphere.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with state
fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. This cooperation is
essential in providing the foundation for the protection and sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout
the United States.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) is a state-partnering
agency with the Service. The WRD is charged with enforcement responsibilities for
migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing the state’s natural resources and
wildlife management areas. The WRD coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and
provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management areas. The WRD’s
participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing opportunities
and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in Georgia. An essential
part of the comprehensive planning process is the integration of common mission objectives between
the Service and the State of Georgia, where appropriate.
In December 2002, the WRD began a process to develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (CWCS) for Georgia. Through its Wildlife Conservation and Reinvestment Program, the
WRD made a commitment to develop and begin implementation of this CWCS by October 1, 2005.
Funding for this planning effort came from a federal grant to WRD through the State Wildlife Grant
Program, with matching funds provided through Georgia’s Nongame Wildlife Conservation Fund. The
goal of the CWCS is to conserve Georgia’s animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive
measures emphasizing voluntary and incentive-based programs on private lands; habitat restoration
and management by public agencies and private conservation organizations; rare species survey and
recovery efforts; and environmental education and public outreach activities. Components of this
planning effort include:
1. Development of databases on rare species and natural communities;
2. Identification of high priority species and habitats;
3. Identification of high priority research and biological inventory needs;
4. Surveys for rare species on public and private lands;
5. Development of databases of conservation lands and high priority watersheds and landscapes;
6. Prioritization of conservation, education, and habitat protection needs;
7. Collaboration with state and federal agencies on habitat protection/restoration plans;
8. Technical assistance to private conservation organizations and local governments;
9. Review of existing conservation laws, rules, and policies; and
10. Public input and educational outreach.
8 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
The following goals represent important themes in the CWCS:
􀁹􇤠 Maintain known viable populations of all high-priority species and functional examples of all
high priority habitats through voluntary land protection and incentive-based habitat
management programs on private lands, and habitat restoration and management on public
lands.
􀁹􇤠 Increase public awareness of high priority species and habitats by developing educational
messages and lesson plans for use in environmental education facilities, local schools, and
other facilities.
􀁹􇤠 Facilitate restoration of important wildlife habitats through reintroduction of prescribed fire,
hydrologic enhancements, and vegetation restoration.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct statewide assessments of rare natural communities and habitats that support species
of conservation concern.
􀁹􇤠 Improve efforts to protect vulnerable and ecologically important habitats such as isolated
wetlands, headwater streams, and caves.
􀁹􇤠 Combat the spread of invasive and noxious species in high priority natural habitats by
identifying problem areas; providing technical and financial assistance; developing specific
educational messages; and managing invasive/noxious species populations on public lands.
􀁹􇤠 Minimize impacts from development and other activities on high priority species and habitats
by improving environmental review procedures and facilitating training for and compliance with
best management practices.
􀁹􇤠 Update the state’s protected species list and work with conservation partners to improve
management of these species and their habitats.
􀁹􇤠 Conduct targeted field inventories of neglected taxonomic groups, including invertebrates and
nonvascular plants.
􀁹􇤠 Continue efforts to recover federally listed species through implementation of recovery plans,
and restore populations of other high priority species.
􀁹􇤠 Establish a consistent source of state funding for land protection to support wildlife
conservation, and increase availability and use of federal funds for land acquisition and
management.
􀁹􇤠 Continue efforts to monitor land use changes statewide and in each ecoregion, and use
predictive models to assess impacts to high-priority species and habitats.
This comprehensive conservation plan for Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge was developed with
the cooperation of the WRD, and incorporates many elements of the Georgia CWCS.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is a barrier island located off the Georgia coast, 12 miles east of
Darien (by boat) in McIntosh County (Figure 1). The refuge was established by Executive Order No.
5316 on April 3, 1930, as a migratory bird sanctuary. It includes Egg Island and Little Egg Island, and
encompasses a total of 5,126 acres.
This three-island wildlife refuge at the mouth of the Altamaha River consists mainly of salt marsh and
provides critical sanctuary for rare migrating birds and nursery habitat for sea turtles. Wolf Island, the
largest island in the refuge, covers 4,519 acres. Its boundaries are defined by the South River to the
north; Little Mud River to the west; Altamaha Sound to the south; and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.
The island has only 300 acres of dune and beach along its narrow, four-mile-long eastern shoreline.
It fronts the sea in the Altamaha River Delta and forms a physical barrier between Doboy Sound to
the north and Altamaha Sound to the south. Tucked into the mouth of Altamaha Sound and directly
south of Wolf Island are Egg and Little Egg islands. They are 593 and 14 acres in size, respectively,
and support extensive salt marsh with only 70 acres of upland (Figure 2).
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Wolf Island's recorded history began on March 7, 1769, when King George III of England granted
Christopher DeBrake title to 150 acres (the upland portion) of Wolf Island. Early diaries record that locals
used the island for hunting. Additionally, the island also served as quarantine area for sailors who were
sick with yellow fever, as it was “a solitary spot washed by the waves of the Atlantic and miles from any
human habitation.” In 1828, part of the island (538 acres) was conveyed to the U.S. Government.
The strategic location of Wolf Island made it an important identification point on early navigational
charts, and the U.S. Coast Guard erected a lighthouse at the northern end. This old Coast Guard
lighthouse, which stood on the northern tip of Wolf Island, has long since disappeared into the ocean.
Today, no navigational lights or other structures now exist anywhere on the refuge.
In 1819, the Georgia legislature ceded jurisdiction of Wolf Island to the United States for the purpose
of building a 55-foot-high beacon light to complement the lighthouse across Doboy Sound on Sapelo
Island. Along with a light keeper’s house, the structure was built and was in operation by the summer
of 1822. The beacon light was pounded by periodic hurricanes and blown up during the Civil War by
Confederate soldiers who did not want the light to aid the Union Navy. After the Civil War, a larger,
grander structure was built. The beacon light was 38 feet tall with a sixth-order light that could be
seen 11.5 miles away. This lighthouse had several keepers over the years until it was destroyed by
the terrible hurricane of 1898, which killed several people on Wolf Island. The light beacon was
deactivated and the remaining structures were moved to the Sapelo Lighthouse.
In 1891, a group of hunters named the Wolf Island Club built a clubhouse on the southern end of the
island. The 1898 hurricane also swept this clubhouse away and killed a caretaker. An account of the
storm in the Darien Gazette said that the Wolf Island light keeper, Mr. James Cromley, “had a terrible
time of it and says that in the future the high land will be good enough for him.”
10 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2: Aerial photo of Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge with acreages.
12 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge was established by Executive Order No. 5316 on April 3, 1930, when the 538 acres
already in government ownership were set aside as a sanctuary for migratory birds. In 1969, the
protection of Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg islands became the goal of Jane Hurt Yarn, a prominent
Atlanta environmentalist with The Nature Conservancy in the 1970s. She bought an option on Egg
Island in 1969, which was followed by the purchase of Wolf and Little Egg. Her purchase of Egg
Island was one of the first actions taken by an environmentalist to protect the coast.
On October 3, 1972, the United States bought an additional 4,071 acres from The Nature
Conservancy for inclusion in the Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge. The rest of the refuge (517
acres) was added on December 8, 1972, by a Declaration of Taking determined by The U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Georgia (Civil No. B/1147). The refuge was closed to the hunting of
migratory birds on April 17, 1973. In addition, Congress designated the refuge as a national
wilderness area on January 3, 1975. The refuge consists of a long narrow strip of oceanfront beach
backed by a broad band of salt marsh. Over 75% of the refuge's 5,126 acres are composed of
saltwater marshes.
As a designated national wilderness area, Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is maintained as such
with its primary purpose being to provide protection for migratory birds and endangered and
threatened species such as the loggerhead sea turtle and piping plover. Because of its status as a
wilderness area, no public use facilities exist or are planned on the refuge. Although the salt waters
surrounding the refuge are open to a variety of recreational activities, all of the refuge’s beach,
marsh, and upland areas are closed to the public. Visitors must make their own arrangements to
reach the saltwater areas that surround the refuge. Marinas in the Darien, Georgia, area may offer
transportation to the waters offshore of the refuge.
Wolf Island is one of seven refuges administered by the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex. This
chain of national wildlife refuges extends from Pinckney Island NWR near Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina, to Wolf Island NWR near Darien, Georgia. Between these lie Savannah National Wildlife
Refuge, the largest unit in the complex, and the Wassaw, Tybee, Harris Neck, and Blackbeard Island
national wildlife refuges. Together they span a 100-mile coastline that encompasses a total of more
than 56,000 acres. The Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex is administered from a headquarters
office located in Savannah, Georgia.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
WILDERNESS
As noted above, the entire refuge is a designated wilderness area. Therefore, the refuge’s resource
values are maintained by natural processes. The refuge is monitored to ensure that these values
have not been compromised. Law enforcement, education, and interpretation are the primary
management tools used to relay these values.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its
primeval character and influence without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is
managed to preserve its natural conditions and which:
􀁹􇤠 generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable;
􀁹􇤠 has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation;
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
􀁹􇤠 has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size;
􀁹􇤠 does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive
development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored
through appropriate management at the time of review; and
􀁹􇤠 may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historic value.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every roadless area of
5,000 acres or more and every roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife Refuge
System, and to recommend the suitability of each such area for wilderness designation. The Act
permits certain activities within designated wilderness areas that do not alter natural processes.
Wilderness values are preserved through a “minimum tool” management approach, which requires
refuge managers to use the least intrusive methods, equipment, and facilities necessary for
administering the areas.
CLASS I AIR QUALITY AREA
Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is also designated as a Class I Airshed under the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, establishing a national policy toward
protecting and enhancing air quality. Amendments passed in 1977 and 1990 strengthened the Act,
making it a more effective tool for protecting air quality in national parks and national wilderness
areas. Sections of the Act established a Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality
permitting process. As a result, Wolf Island (one of 21 refuges designated throughout the entire
Refuge System) was selected as and remains a Class I Air Quality Area, as defined by the criteria of
the Act. This means that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the state permitting
authority must notify the federal land manager if emissions from a proposed project may impact the
air quality of a Class I area, which includes all major facilities located or proposing to locate within 100
kilometers (62 miles) of the refuge.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographic area that includes all living organisms (people, plants, animals, and
microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles that
sustain them. All of these elements are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the
others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (a single stand of pines, for example) or large
(an entire watershed including hundreds of forested stands across many different ownerships).
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems,
drawn primarily along watershed boundaries. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge lies at the
southeastern boundary of the Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem (No. 31), which includes the Altamaha
River and its associated watershed tributaries in central and eastern Georgia (Figure 3).
Expanding human populations and resulting habitat alterations are the biggest threat to natural
systems and biodiversity. Protecting land is one of the most effective ways to safeguard native
habitats, fish, wildlife, and plants. Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is located off the Georgia
coast, away from the mainland which has dramatically changed through historical land use practices
(primarily agriculture), and more recently, residential and industrial development. As a federally
14 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
designated national wilderness area, the refuge is important in a regional ecosystem context because
it contains a large area of protected natural habitats. Together with other federal and state lands
along the Georgia coast, such a network of conservation lands can help mitigate the effects of habitat
fragmentation and provide protected areas for the benefit of many species of fish and wildlife.
Figure 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated ecosystems in the conterminous U.S.
The Altamaha Watershed Ecosystem is no. 31.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
INITIATIVE FOR WATERSHED EXCELLENCE: UPPER ALTAMAHA PILOT PROJECT
The Initiative for Watershed Excellence: Upper Altamaha Pilot Project, managed by the River Basin
Center (http://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/service/iwe/iwe.htm) under the Eugene P. Odum School of
Ecology, University of Georgia, is working to serve as a model for developing watershed support
centers across the country. Funding is being provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The
initiative is bringing together a multidisciplinary consortium of faculty, staff, and students from several
colleges and universities in the Upper Altamaha basin to provide technical, organizational, and legal
assistance to stakeholder groups to increase their capacity to enhance and protect water quality.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
The Upper Altamaha watershed was selected as the location for this pilot project for many reasons.
A wide spectrum of land uses ranging from urban development to agriculture and silviculture occur
within the watershed. Because of these diverse uses, a variety of best management practices is
being explored to protect and restore the basin’s water quality. The lessons learned from this project
are likely to be applicable to many different watersheds.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
In order to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) that will establish goals and objectives
on how to manage the Wolf Island Refuge over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps were
followed. One of those steps was an internal review of known ecological threats and problems that
may hinder the ability of refuge personnel to fulfill the objectives of the refuge. This review developed
the following list of concerns:
􀁹􇤠 Beach erosion and accretion;
􀁹􇤠 Control of nuisance wildlife and invasive plants; and
􀁹􇤠 Protection of the natural functions of the Altamaha River System.
BEACH EROSION AND ACCRETION
Coastal Georgia is home to about one-third of the viable salt marsh left on the Atlantic coast. The public
owns 10 of the 18 major islands on the Atlantic coast. Unlike many other areas along the eastern Atlantic
coast, two-thirds of Georgia's islands are parks, refuges, or preserves. The population of coastal Georgia is
growing at approximately 20% per decade. This rapid population growth is intensifying the pressure to
develop environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodplains, and barrier islands. The South
Carolina-Georgia Coastal Erosion Study is a collaborative effort among researchers from the U.S.
Geological Survey, Coastal Carolina University, University of South Carolina, College of Charleston, and the
South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium aimed at understanding the processes of coastal erosion and the
factors that affect erosion rates along the South Carolina and Georgia coasts.
Georgia meets the Atlantic Ocean along the beaches of the offshore islands, which are popularly
known as the Sea Islands or the Golden Isles. The Georgia islands are several miles offshore and
are separated from the mainland by extensive marshlands, tidewater streams, and sounds. Other
islands, in addition to the barrier islands, are scattered throughout the estuarine systems. These
islands are of various origins. Some of the hammock (forested) islands are remnants of old barrier
islands formed in the past during periods of higher sea level (Hoyt and Henry 1964). The beaches
and dunes are constantly being shaped by the action of waves, currents, and wind, which interact to
keep the beaches and dunes in a dynamic state.
Refuge concerns regarding erosion and accretion will require input from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to evaluate the long-term impact to the refuge of nearby sea sand diversion and
nourishment programs, such as the one at Savannah Harbor.
CONTROL OF NUISANCE WILDLIFE
Ghost crabs, feral hogs, and raccoons are the principal natural nest predators of sea turtle eggs, as
well as the eggs and chicks of ground-nesting birds in Georgia and many other areas (National
Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). All have an uncanny ability to
locate sea turtle nests. Usually, ghost crabs are the first to arrive at a nest. They normally dig small
holes down into the nest cavity and bring several eggs to the surface. The eggs are then eaten at the
nest or transported to the nearby burrow of the crab.
16 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Raccoons are the most common natural vertebrate predators of sea turtle nests. They are common
even on the most isolated of the barrier beaches. Raccoons patrol the beaches during the nesting
season singly or in family groups to hunt for sea turtle eggs. However, most raccoons utilize food
sources other than sea turtle eggs. For the relatively few raccoons that prey on sea turtle eggs, it has
been found that they consume all the eggs they can find.
Feral hogs are an introduced (nonnative) species. They have the ability to destroy 100% of sea turtle
nests on barrier islands. Screening of nests, as used to prevent predation from raccoons and ghost
crabs, is not effective in protecting the nests from feral hogs. Feral hog populations must be
controlled or extirpated from an island to prevent predation.
Ghost crabs and raccoons are native inhabitants of the islands of the refuge and efforts to control
their populations may seem at odds with the character of a wilderness area. On the other hand,
many sea turtles are threatened and need active management protection. The resolution of
management conflicts such as these are a part of the CCP process.
PROTECTION OF THE NATURAL FUNCTIONS OF THE ALTAMAHA RIVER SYSTEM
The name Altamaha is from an immigrant Yamassee Indian group, who were descended from an
interior chiefdom, which were originally known as the Altamaha or Tama (Worth 1995). They were
located on the Oconee River just below Milledgeville, Georgia. The Spanish explorer Hernando de
Soto visited this area in 1540. It is also known as Georgia’s Little Amazon.
The Altamaha has been declared the seventh most endangered river in the United States due to the
loss of water flow that has resulted from reservoirs and power plants along its banks. The river is 137
miles long and runs from central Georgia to the southern coast of the state. The Altamaha watershed
drains about one-fourth of the state of Georgia, which makes it one of the three largest river basins
on the Atlantic Seaboard.
While no dams currently exist along the river, five proposed dams will have severe environmental
effects including loss of important habitat areas, reduced populations of aquatic species, increased
pollutant concentrations, and reduced recreational opportunities. The continued growth of Atlanta
puts a strain on the amount of freshwater demanded and extracted from the river. Each day,
approximately three million gallons of water are taken from the Altamaha River for the public sector
alone. Chemical seepage of many contaminants (including mercury) from the LCP Chemicals-
Georgia, Inc., building for 15 years has placed the site and its surroundings on the Federal Superfund
List. The Altamaha River basin has approximately 19 rivers and streams listed on the 2002 303(d)
federal list as waters not meeting designated uses.
What comes out of the Altamaha River (the amount and quality of water) has an effect on the refuge.
Lower water discharges will have yet to be determined impacts on the beach erosion and accretion
concerns noted above. Contaminated waters will impact the habitat quality on the refuge.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The coastal region of Georgia has a relatively moderate climate. Average temperatures of the islands
are slightly lower than on the mainland. Sea breezes offer relief from intense summer heat. Daily
maximum temperatures in July and August (the warmest months) are usually in the 80s and low 90s.
The islands are the only part of the state south of Atlanta that has mean daily maximum temperatures
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
below 90° Fahrenheit (F) in July and August (Carter 1967). Winters are relatively mild and short.
The average minimum temperature for December and January (the coldest months) is about 43°F.
On the average, there are 305 freeze-free days at Brunswick and 267 at Savannah (Carter 1970).
The coastal islands have an average annual rainfall of about 53 inches. Rain is most abundant in the
summer and early fall, with half of the annual precipitation occurring between June and September.
The driest period is November through February (Carter 1967). Most precipitation in late fall and
winter is of the frontal type, but most rain in the spring and summer comes as afternoon
thundershowers. Heavy rainfall in September is commonly associated with hurricane conditions.
The first recorded hurricane to cause significant damage to the Georgia coast struck the Charleston,
South Carolina area on September 15, 1752 (Carter 1970). Since that time, numerous hurricanes
have passed along the Georgia coast, but surprisingly few have caused serious damage. Hurricanes
off the eastern Atlantic coast tend to follow the path of warm, lighter air above the Gulf Stream, which
is flanked on both sides with heavier, cooler air. Brunswick, Georgia is farther (80 miles) from the
Gulf Stream and the accompanying warm air than any other place on the southeastern coast.
Consequently, the Georgia coastal area is less exposed to hurricanes than areas farther north or
south (Gibson 1948).
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The mainland rivers that flow into the Atlantic Ocean along the Georgia coast drain three major
physiographic provinces: the Blue Ridge Mountains, the Piedmont Plateau, and the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. The geology of these provinces greatly influences the amount and characteristics of surface
water, groundwater, and sediments transported to the marshes, estuaries, and continental shelf.
Many sedimentary strata tilted toward the sea overlie the Coastal Plain. These deposits were formed
during the many changes in sea level associated with glaciation during the Tertiary and Quaternary
periods. The thickest deposits are in the coastal area, tapering to a thin edge where the oldest
(Cretaceous) sediments are exposed. Progressively more recent strata occur at the surface toward
the coast, but relict coastal features, such as barrier islands and lagoons, are still evident in many
places.
The region is generally one of low seismic activity. However, a major earthquake occurred in 1886,
which had its epicenter at Charleston, South Carolina. This earthquake, registering 10 on the Richter
scale, caused 150 human deaths and damaged buildings in the Savannah area.
The elevations on the barrier islands typically range from sea level to about 25 feet above mean sea
level, although individual dunes may be higher. Broad, nearly level areas interspersed with low,
gently sloping ridges typically characterize topography of the islands. On beaches in other areas,
there are major seasonal changes in beach profiles. During the summer when wave energies are
lowest, many sand grains are not moved out with the backwash, and there is a net movement of sand
landward. This results in the gradual buildup of sand on the backshore. A horizontal bed of sand (a
berm) extends from the foot of the dunes to a pronounced beach ridge at the high-tide mark. The
berm area serves as a source of sand for replenishment and growth of the dunes. In the fall and
winter, wave energy is greater, the berm erodes, and there is a net movement of sand from the beach
to the breaker zone, where it is deposited as an offshore bar.
18 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
SOILS
The soils of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces are derived from crystalline rocks dating to pre-
Cambrian time. The two major river systems of the Atlantic drainage in Georgia have their origins in
these provinces. The headwaters of the Savannah River are in the Blue Ridge province, and the
Altamaha River originates in the Piedmont.
Upland soils are mostly porous sands derived from recently deposited marine sediments that are
resistant to weathering (Regosols). These soils have a distinct “A” horizon (surface layer) with
significant accumulations of organic matter that accounts for most of the exchange capacity (Byrd et
al. 1961). They are subject to moderate to severe leaching, and many are excessively drained.
Principal soil series include Blanton, Galestown, Klej, Lakeland, and Palm Beach (Byrd et al. 1961).
Lower, poorly drained sites are characterized by intrazonal soils of the following series: Leon, Ona,
Plummer, Rutlege, and St. Johns (Byrd et al. 1961). Most of these soil series are characteristically
very acidic, but locally on the islands they may be neutral to slightly alkaline due to the presence of
oyster shells in the profile. Dunes along Georgia beaches contain relatively few shell fragments.
The principal sources of heavy minerals and sands on the Georgia coast are (1) the Altamaha
and Savannah watersheds, which originate in the Piedmont and mountain areas of the state; (2)
the smaller Coastal Plain watersheds that are of more recent origin; and (3) suspended material
from the continental shelf.
Heavy minerals of the beaches and dunes more closely resemble assemblages from the Piedmont
rivers than they do assemblages from Coastal Plain rivers (Giles 1966). This suggests that Coastal
Plain rivers are not important contributors to present beach sediments (Giles 1966). There is also an
apparent relationship between the composition of beach sands and the mineralogy of the adjacent
continental shelf, and continental shelf material is another important sediment source (Giles and
Pilkey 1965; Giles 1966; Levy 1968).
HYDROLOGY
The Georgia beaches occur in a region of moderate wave energy, which is the lowest recorded along
the southeastern Atlantic coast (Tanner 1960). The average height of breaking waves on the
Georgia coast is 9–12 inches (Helle 1958).
Limestones of Tertiary and Quaternary age underlying the Coastal Plain form one of the most
productive aquifer systems in the country. The Tertiary limestone is several thousand feet thick and
ranges in age from Paleocene to Pliocene. The hydrologic unit of this limestone, deposited in the
period from the mid-Eocene to the mid-Miocene, is the principal artesian or Coastal Plain aquifer. It
slopes gently to the coast and appears on the continental slope as freshwater springs in the ocean.
Low areas between dune ridges on the islands commonly form sloughs containing fresh or slightly
brackish water. These ponds and sloughs play a major role in maintaining some of the more
interesting wildlife of the islands, notably alligators and wading birds.
The sloughs vary considerably in size and depth. Some dry up completely in the summer; others
contain water throughout the year. The water is usually acidic and stained so that light penetrates
only 2 or 3 feet below the surface. Consequently, if the sloughs are deep, there may be relatively
little growth of submersed aquatics and an abundance of emergent plants, rooted plants with floating
leaves, and unrooted floating plants.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
AIR QUALITY
In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which established a national policy toward protecting
and enhancing air quality. Amendments passed in 1977 and 1990 strengthened the Act, making it a
more effective tool for protecting air quality in national parks and national wilderness areas. Sections
of the Act established a Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality permitting process. As a
result, Wolf Island (one of 21 refuges designated throughout the entire Refuge System) was selected
and remains a Class I Air Quality Area as defined by the criteria of the Act. This means that the EPA
or the state permitting authority must notify the federal land manager if emissions from a proposed
project may impact the air quality of a Class I area, which includes all major facilities located or
proposing to locate within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the refuge.
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Please refer to the section “Protection of the Natural Functions of the Altamaha River System” above
for information on this topic.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Dunes form as a result of windblown sand piling up behind minor obstacles. Once started, the dune
itself becomes an obstacle to windblown sand, and the lodgment of more sand causes the dune to
grow. Dunes and dune ridges along the Georgia Coast normally grow to 10 or 12 feet in height
(occasionally much higher) and acquire a distinct morphology characterized by gentle windward and
steeper leeward slopes. Surface ripples parallel the dune ridge at right angles to the wind.
Vegetation plays an important part in the formation and stabilization of dunes. Salt-resistant beach plants
trap windblown sand, forming little mounds of sand or dunelets that grow as the plants respond with
increased growth and trap more sand. These foredune plants must have the ability to withstand salt
spray, roots that will endure exposure, and stems that will withstand burial by shifting sands. They must
be perennials able to keep above the sand, spread laterally, and withstand drought (Cowles 1899).
Few species of vascular plants can survive the extremely harsh physical environment of the beaches
and dunes. In order to inhabit this area, plants must possess characteristics that enable them to
withstand the combined effects of salt spray, constant wind, full light intensity, high evaporation, and
high temperatures. They must be capable of becoming established in and keeping above the shifting
sands. Distance from the surf and location relative to dunes or protective vegetation on the seaward
side will determine the exposure of a site to these limiting factors. Thus, there is a gradient or a
zonation of vegetation from mean high tide toward the interior of the island, which is commonly a
result of the modifying effect of the dunes.
Plants occurring on the beach include sea rocket, beach hogwort, beach sandspur, salt meadow
cordgrass, salt wort, sea-purslane, beach-spurge, and seashore-elder. Principal plants of the
foredunes include sea oats, sea beach panic grass, railroad vine, beach pennywort, and Spanish-bayonet,
as well as some of the plants of the beach (e.g., seashore elder, beach spurge, and sea
rocket). Annuals such as camphorweed may temporarily colonize dunes until killed out by salt spray.
The foreslope and the crest of the foredunes are subject to the greatest intensity of salt spray (Boyce
1951). Little salt is deposited on the lee slope of the foredunes or in the interdune area. In addition
to some of the species previously mentioned, principal species in these areas include little bluestem,
prickly pear, seaside goldenrod, beach primrose, juniper, yaupon, wax myrtle, and live oak. Bluestem
20 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
occupies the drier sites. Low, flat areas behind breaks in the foredunes that are periodically
inundated by unusually high tides may be occupied by stands of salt meadow cordgrass (Oosting and
Billings 1942; Oosting 1945).
Salt spray, after passing over the interdune area, next contacts the windward slope of the rear dunes
and is deposited on the vegetation that occurs there. Consequently, sea oats and other salt-tolerant
plants of the windward slope of the foredunes are also dominant there. Behind the crest of the rear
dunes, sites are more protected and vegetation is more diverse. Shrubs and trees may dominate this
area. Trees and shrubs most commonly occurring in this zone are live oak, red bay, wax myrtle,
juniper, yaupon, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, and groundselbush.
Shrubs and trees are commonly pruned by the wind and salt spray, producing a sloping, sheared
appearance. Studies by Boyce (1954) have shed light on the mechanism by which the salt spray
produces this effect. Salt enters the leaves through abrasions caused by the lashing of wind action.
High chloride ion concentration produces necrosis and death of exposed leaves and branches. They
are not translocated to the leeward side of the tree in injurious quantities, so only the windward sides
of the plants are killed. This produces an asymmetrical form. Pruning stimulates vigorous sprouting.
This results in the rapid formation of a dense canopy that reduces the efficiency of deposition on the
plant and on the individual stems. Most dune plants have a uniformly closed crown.
Wolf Island contains 300 acres of uplands (6.6%), including a long, narrow four-mile strip of
oceanfront beach and several small (less than 20 acres) spoil sites along the Little Mud River.
The highest elevation recorded on the island is 10.57 feet above mean low water and is located
on one of the spoil sites. The remainder of the island (4,219 acres) is salt marsh, small marsh
hammocks, and tidal creeks that flood daily with lunar tides of five to nine feet. Tidal action
constantly influences the physical shape of the island. Each high tide flows across low-lying
portions of the northern dunes and has resulted in a wide mud flat through the central marsh.
High spring and flood tides inundate most of the refuge.
The vegetation on the upland portions of Wolf Island consists of sea oats, sand spurs, and other
beach-dune perennials. The only woody growth consists of wax myrtle and cedars on the highest
elevations. The salt marsh is dominated by salt marsh cord grass, sea ox-eye, needle grass, and
grasswort in a narrow band around the spoil sites and higher elevations.
Egg Island contains 200 acres of uplands (33.7%) ranging from six to ten feet above mean low water.
Approximately 70 acres of this island are above nine feet. This acreage has a dense growth of cedar,
greenbrier, and blackberry plus a small number of oak and pine. The remaining upland acres are
dominated by wax myrtle except for a long narrow stretch (one and one-half miles) of ocean front
beach, which is dominated by sea oats, sand spurs, and other beach-dune perennials. The rest of
the island (393 acres) is salt marsh dominated by salt marsh cord grass.
Little Egg Island (14 acres) is a low salt marsh dominated by salt marsh cord grass. This island is
completely inundated during high tides with only the tops of the tallest grasses exposed.
WILDLIFE
Brown pelicans, least terns, piping plovers, red knots, loggerhead sea turtles, and diamondback
terrapins are significant species that utilize the refuge. Loggerhead sea turtles occasionally nest on
the beaches but rarely are successful due to tidal inundation or predation. Diamondback terrapins
use the higher dunes for nesting. Raccoon predation of turtle nests is heavy along the entire
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
southeast coast. Shorebirds and marsh birds utilize the refuge extensively. Migratory waterfowl
winter on the refuge and its surrounding waters. Scaup, scoters, black ducks, mergansers, and
buffleheads are the most common species.
Saltwater fishing and crabbing are popular activities during the summer and fall along the creeks that
intertwine through the refuge.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) provides the framework for federal review
and consideration of cultural resources during federal project planning and execution. The implementing
regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800) have been promulgated by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. The Secretary of the Interior maintains the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) and sets forth significant criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register.
Cultural resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a
federal undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v)
define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or
indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal
agency; those carried out with federal financial assistance; those requiring a federal permit, license or
approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or
approval by a federal agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed in the NRHP by
the Secretary of the Interior and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion.
Like all federal agencies, the Service must abide by Section 106 of the NHPA. Cultural resources
management in the Service is the responsibility of the Regional Director, but is not delegated for the
Section 106 process when historic properties could be affected by Service undertakings, for issuing
archeological permits, and for Indian tribal involvement. The Service’s Regional Historic Preservation
Officer (RHPO) advises the Regional Director about procedures, compliance, and implementation of
the several cultural resources laws. The Refuge Manager assists the RHPO by informing the RHPO
(early in the process) about Service undertakings; by protecting archeological sites and historic
properties on Service-managed and administered lands; by monitoring archeological investigations
by contractors and permittees; and by reporting violations.
Wolf Island NWR follows these procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving any cultural legacy
that may potentially occur on the refuge. Because this refuge is designated as a wilderness area, no
construction activity is expected and certainly none requiring any excavation with heavy earth-moving
equipment such as tractors, graders, and bulldozers. If, for any reason, such activity were required in the
future, the refuge would contract with a qualified archaeologist/cultural resources expert to conduct an
archaeological survey of the subject property prior to such activity. The results of this survey would be
submitted to the RHPO as well as the Georgia State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO
would review such surveys and determine whether cultural resources will be impacted. In other words,
the SHPO will determine whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected.
If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge must notify the
SHPO immediately. To date, two properties on the refuge have been identified as possibly eligible for the
NRHP: the remains of an old lighthouse and old canoe pieces.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Agricultural development of the Altamaha Delta began soon after the founding of the Georgia Colony
in 1733. About 25 plantations were located on the low-lying islands and shores by the 19th century.
22 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
These plantations took advantage of the rich alluvial flow and annual inundation of water required by
some crops. The first major crop was indigo. When the demand for indigo faded, rice and cotton
took its place. A major storm in 1824 destroyed much of the town of Darien and put many of the
islands under 20 feet of water. The Civil War ended the plantation system, and many of the island
plantations disappeared under heavy brush and new growth of pine forests.
Today, in McIntosh County, retail trade is the largest employment sector providing 37.7% of the
jobs. The other predominant employment sectors are services and government. The service
industry is the largest employment sector for the state, contributing 25.6% of the state's jobs. In
the year 2000, the average weekly wage for all the employment sectors in McIntosh County was
$334. This amount was less than the statewide average of $622. The county’s per capita
personal income in 1999 was $16,450, as compared with $27,324 for Georgia and $28,546 for
the United States. McIntosh County's median household income in 1997 was $24,357. This
amount was less than the state's median household income of $36,372 in that same year.
Nationally, the median household income in 1999 was $37,005.
According to the 2000 Census, 61.3% of the residents in McIntosh County were white and 36.8% were
black. Hispanics, who could be identified as either white or black in the Census data, made up 0.9% of
the county's population. In Georgia, 65.1% of residents were white, 28.7% were black, and 5.3% were
Hispanic. In McIntosh County, 28.0% of the county’s residents were age 18 or younger, and 11.8% were
age 65 or older. In Georgia, 26.5% were age 18 or younger and 9.6% were age 65 or older.
The Census reports 7.8% of McIntosh County's households were headed by females with children
under 18 years of age, compared with 9.0% statewide. Total households with children under 18
comprised 31.0% of all households in the county and 35.0% of those in the state. Between 1996 and
2000, McIntosh County School System reported an average high school dropout rate of 10.1%, for
students in grades 9 to 12. Statewide, this rate is 6.8% for the same period of time. Between 1996
and 2000, McIntosh County's annual unemployment rate was higher than the state's rate, averaging
5.6% compared with the state's average of 4.2%. Nationally, the unemployment rate for the same
period averaged 4.8%. During 1997, 22.2% of the county's population lived below the poverty level,
compared with Georgia's rate of 14.7% and the national rate of 13.3%. In addition, 35.1% of the
children under the age of 18 lived below the poverty level in McIntosh County. Nationally, 19.9% of
the population under the age of 18 years lived below the level of poverty.
Data provided by the latest National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(USDI 2003) show that for the year 2001, 1.2 million people participated in fishing, hunting, and
wildlife-watching activities in Georgia. This group was comprised of 1.1 million anglers (88% of all
outdoor sports enthusiasts) and 417,000 hunters (34%). The percentage is greater than 100%
because many participated in both activities.
Anglers spent $544 million on fishing expenses in Georgia in 2001. Trip-related expenditures
including food and lodging, transportation, and other related expenses totaled approximately $246
million (45% of all their fishing expenditures). Anglers spent $106 million on food and lodging and
$71 million on transportation. Other trip related expenses such as equipment rental, bait, and
cooking fuel totaled $70 million. Each angler spent an average of $236 on trip-related costs in 2001.
Anglers spent approximately $262 million on equipment in Georgia in 2001, which was 48% of all
fishing expenditures. Fishing equipment (rods, reels, line, etc.) totaled approximately $105 million
(40% of the equipment total). Auxiliary equipment expenditures (tents, fishing gear, etc.) and special
equipment expenditures (boats, pickups, etc.) amounted to $156 million, 60% of the equipment total.
The purchase of other items such as magazines, membership dues, license, permits, stamps, and
land leasing and ownership amounted to $35 million (6% of all fishing expenditures).
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Hunters spent $504 million on hunting expenses in Georgia in 2001. Trip-related expenditures
including food and lodging, transportation, and other related expenses totaled $192 million (38% of all
their hunting expenditures). They spent $93 million on food and lodging and $45 million on
transportation. Other trip-related expenses such as equipment rental, bait, and cooking fuel totaled
$54 million. Each hunter spent an average of $459 on trip-related costs in 2001. Hunters spent
approximately $200 million on equipment in Georgia in 2001, 40% of all hunting expenditures.
Hunting equipment (guns, ammunition, etc.) totaled $146 million (73% of the equipment total).
Auxiliary equipment expenditures (tents, hunting gear, etc.) and special equipment expenditures
(boats, pickups, etc.) amounted to 27% of the total equipment expenditure for hunting. The purchase
of other items such as magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, stamps, and land leasing and
ownership amounted to approximately $112 million (22% of all hunting expenditures).
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The refuge consists of the three islands: Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg. There are no current plans for
refuge expansion. However, additional islands in the near vicinity may be considered for acquisition
at some future date.
VISITOR SERVICES
Due to its status as a wilderness area, no public use facilities are planned on the refuge. Although
the refuge’s salt waters are open to a variety of recreational activities such as fishing and crabbing, all
beach, marsh, and upland areas are closed to the public. Wildlife observation and photography are
possible from boats.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Because Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge is a designated wilderness area, little active
management is pursued. Natural processes are allowed to take their course in maintaining the
refuge and its habitat and wildlife. The only significant management tool used is law enforcement,
which is required to keep the public off the island.
24 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
III. Plan Development
OVERVIEW
The comprehensive planning process has allowed the Service, governmental and nongovernmental
partners, and the public the opportunity to take a detailed look at Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
and its management, resources, and future. The Service’s comprehensive planning process provides
for public involvement in developing a plan for the future management of a refuge. Comprehensive
conservation plans (CCPs) are revised every 15 years or earlier, if monitoring and evaluation
determine that significant changes are needed to achieve the refuge’s purposes, vision, goals, and/or
objectives. The basic steps of the CCP planning process involve the gathering of information; scoping
for public input; developing the draft plan; gathering public input on the draft plan; developing the final
plan; and implementing and monitoring the actions identified in the final plan.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations,
public involvement has been an important factor in developing the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Wolf Island National Wildlife
Refuge. The plan has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation
organizations, and other federal, state, and local agencies. The participation of these stakeholders
and their ideas has been of great value in setting the refuge’s management direction. The Service as
a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are grateful to each individual who has contributed time,
expertise, and ideas to the planning process.
Scoping refers to the process by which the planning team gathers input from a variety of internal and
external sources on the key issues, concerns, and opportunities that need to be addressed in the
comprehensive conservation plan. Sources of internal scoping include the refuge staff itself and
other Service biologists and professionals. External scoping sources include representatives of state
and local agencies; nongovernmental conservation organizations; research and educational
institutions; refuge neighbors; and citizens of the local community. These various interests are
referred to collectively as “stakeholders,” that is, those individuals and groups that have a stake in
how the refuge is managed. In developing this comprehensive conservation plan for Wolf Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the planning team conducted both internal and external scoping.
The planning process began in May 2006 with various data-gathering sessions. As part of this
process, the Service established a biological review team to conduct a wildlife and habitat
management review of the refuge. The members of this biological review team included several
Service biologists and one representative from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. In
addition, the Service established a CCP planning team in June 2006 that obtained input from the
biological review team, expert contributors, and the public. The participants on the biological review
team and other contributors are identified in Chapter V, Consultation and Coordination, in the
Environmental Assessment (Section B).
The biological review took place during the week of May 2–4, 2006. It involved onsite evaluations to
help the refuge meet its purpose and determine the role(s) the refuge could play regarding wildlife
needs and objectives at various geographic scales (local, ecosystem, regional, and national). The
approach was to take a holistic look at achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs,
while still giving priority to accomplishing the original purposes for which the refuge was established.
26 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
The team produced a biological review report with recommendations to the refuge staff and CCP
planning team. In keeping with the terminology and expected outcomes of the CCP process, these
recommendations were presented in the form of goals, objectives, and strategies for management of
the refuge’s biological resources. These preliminary goals, objectives, and strategies were studied by
the CCP planning team and modified and adapted for this Draft CCP.
Although no public access is allowed on Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge, a brief visitor services
review was also incorporated as part of the biological review. This visitor services review assessed
the types of public uses that could be provided, considering the restricted nature of the refuge. Two
public use managers from the Service contributed comments and recommendations on the refuge’s
visitor services, environmental education, and interpretation programs.
The CCP planning team met for the first time on June 21, 2006. The team consisted of four staff
members from the Service and a contracted consultant from the Mangi Environmental Group. This
team was the primary decision-making team for the CCP. The key tasks of this group involved
defining the vision for the refuge; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; defining the goals;
outlining the alternatives; and drafting the plan. The CCP planning team members are:
􀁹􇤠 Jane Griess, Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS
􀁹􇤠 W. Shaw Davis, Deputy Project Leader, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS
􀁹􇤠 John Robinette, Biologist, Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex, USFWS
􀁹􇤠 Debra Barnard, Biologist, Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge, USFWS
􀁹􇤠 Randy Williams, Consultant, Mangi Environmental Group (Service contractor)
The planning team reviewed the recommendations of the biological review team and visitor services
experts, and conducted a comprehensive review of the refuge’s overall natural resource management
and public use programs. It also conducted additional internal scoping and prepared a preliminary
schedule, a mailing list, and plans for public involvement. A Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP for the
refuge was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2006.
The planning team then held an open house and public scoping meeting on January 24, 2007, at The
Nature Conservancy’s Georgia Conservation Office on U.S. Highway 17 south of Darien, Georgia, on
Butler Island adjacent to the Altamaha Waterfowl Management Area headquarters. The meeting was
publicized in advance in several ways. Information packets including a letter and invitation to attend,
a public comment form, and a mailing list request form were mailed to approximately 100 individuals
representing different federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, state and federal
congressional offices, private citizens, and other interested parties. News releases announcing the
public scoping meeting were also sent to local newspapers, and a public service announcement was
sent to local radio stations. Five citizens attended the open house and scoping meeting. The
attendees were able to meet and interact with the refuge staff, ask questions, view the exhibits and
maps on hand, and provide comments.
The meeting began with brief overviews of the refuge and the comprehensive planning process,
followed by a facilitated open-floor question and comment period. The attendees were given the
opportunity to ask questions and voice their thoughts about the refuge and how it should be managed
in the future. In addition, a public comment form was distributed for the attendees and other
interested parties to submit written comments. The written comments could be submitted either at
the meeting or subsequently by mail or e-mail.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Two citizens offered their comments at the public scoping meeting. No public comment forms were
received. One citizen submitted comments by e-mail. These comments were considered and
evaluated in the preparation of the draft comprehensive conservation plan. Appendix D, Public
Involvement, provides a summary of the public scoping comments.
The Service is now seeking comments regarding this draft plan as the next stage of public
involvement. All comments are welcomed and will be considered in the development of the final plan.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife population management; habitat management; resource protection; land acquisition; visitor
services; and refuge administration. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state
mandates and applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the
process of obtaining public input through the public scoping meeting, comment packets, and personal
contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered. However, some issues that are
important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be addressed
within this planning process. The team did consider all issues that were raised through this planning
process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding
important issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment, are the
most significant to the refuge. The significant issues are summarized below.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
Threatened and Endangered Species
Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle and Other Sea Turtles
Four species of sea turtles inhabit the waters around Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and
in the Altamaha River basin. These include the loggerhead, Kemp’s ridley, leatherback, and green
sea turtles. The most common sea turtle, the loggerhead, is protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and is listed as threatened. The other three species are listed as endangered.
The loggerhead is the primary turtle nesting in Georgia waters (approximately 1,200 nests per year).
Throughout all of the Georgia coast, all other species combined account for five to ten nests per year
(Johnson et al. 1974).
The waters adjacent to the refuge are an important feeding ground for all of the sea turtle species
stated above except for the leatherback, which is typically found in an open oceanic environment
feeding on jelly-like organisms. Loggerheads and ridleys prefer horseshoe crabs and other crabs,
whelks, and other food in which they have the ability to catch and ingest (Caldwell 1959). Green sea
turtles are vegetarians and prefer sea grass beds and seaweed. In addition, juvenile turtles use the
waters adjacent to the refuge as a safe haven from large ocean-dwelling predators such as sharks.
West Indian Manatee
One breeding group of West Indian manatees exists behind Wolf Island. The refuge has an interest
in maintaining high water quality, but beyond that, no additional objectives are identified for this
species.
28 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Piping Plover
Piping plovers occur in three distinct nesting populations: (1) the Atlantic population, which includes North
Carolina to Maine in the United States and the Canadian maritime provinces (about 1,700 pairs); (2) the
Great Lakes group (less than 50 pairs); and (3) the Plains population, including the plains states in the
United States and Alberta and Saskatchewan in Canada (about 1,400 pairs). The Great Lakes
population is federally listed as endangered. The populations that nest in the rest of the country are listed
as threatened. Individuals from all three populations migrate through or winter along the Atlantic coast,
with critical habitat specifically designated for the endangered Great Lakes population.
In Georgia, the Altamaha Delta is an important site for wintering piping plovers. It is the most
important wintering area for the endangered Great Lakes population, with numbers that vary from
year-to-year but are consistently high relative to other wintering sites. Therefore, much of the
Altamaha Delta has been established as “Critical Habitat” for piping plovers, including Wolf Island,
Egg Island Bar, Little St. Simons Island, and Pelican Spit. Because the over-winter survival of young
may be the most critical conservation issue for this species, the availability of high quality winter
roosting and foraging habitat may be crucial for the recovery of piping plovers. Wolf Island NWR
contributes to the recovery of this species by providing critical habitat for wintering piping plovers.
Other Protected Species and Species of Concern (Wood Stork and Bald Eagle)
The endangered wood stork feeds in the marshes and tidal creeks within the refuge. Although wood
storks do not nest on the refuge, the refuge is within the feeding range of 12 coastal Georgia wood stork
colonies. The Altamaha River system is relatively unaltered by human actions as compared to other river
systems within the United States. Therefore, this river system is still comparatively healthy and very
productive, as demonstrated by the fish and wildlife populations supported within the system. It produces
a very rich feeding ground for wood storks and other wading birds within the Altamaha Delta. Wood
storks are tactile feeders and require a very concentrated food source. Severe tidal amplitudes,
combined with the refuge’s extremely productive marsh and aquatic habitats, provide the concentrations
of small fish needed to produce an exceptionally high quality feeding area for wood storks.
Bald eagles nest on Blackbeard Island NWR, 10 miles north of Wolf Island NWR. Bald eagles are
frequently seen on Wolf Island NWR, either perched in the trees on Egg Island or on the beach on
Wolf Island. They feed on the abundant fish and birds utilizing the refuge. Bald eagles can cause
disturbance to nesting and feeding shorebirds and wading birds, but they create far less impacts to
the avian resources than other predators such as raccoons.
Nesting Waterbirds, Wading Birds, Marshbirds, and Sparrows
Nesting and Foraging Colonial Beach Nesting Waterbirds
Wolf Island NWR does not presently support high levels of beach-nesting colonial waterbirds.
However, large colonies of brown pelicans, royal terns, black skimmers, and small numbers of
sandwich and gull-billed terns exist at nearby Egg Island Bar directly south of the refuge. The royal
tern colony represents the largest one (9,000 pairs) on the Atlantic coast. The pelican colony on Egg
Island Bar is currently the largest colony on the Atlantic coast. The beaches of the refuge provide
important roosting habitat for nesting and post-fledging birds from the Egg Island Bar colony. In
addition, these birds use the waters within and around the refuge for foraging. The Altamaha Delta is
a very important region in the southeastern United States due to its ability to support large numbers
of nesting and foraging waterbirds.
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Nesting and Foraging Long-legged Wading Birds
The estuaries and marshes of Wolf Island NWR and the surrounding area provide important foraging
habitat for long-legged wading birds. A small freshwater wetland on Egg Island supports a breeding
colony of 30 pairs, including great blue herons, great egrets, snowy egrets, white ibis, and tri-colored
herons. This wetland potentially could become a nesting site for the roseate spoonbill and wood
stork. A variety of wading birds uses the entire Altamaha Delta and its associated wetlands to forage
on small fish and estuarine invertebrates. Notably, an increasing number of post-breeding reddish
egrets have been observed in the area. These are primarily dark-plumaged adults, and although no
nesting has been documented in the state, this species has been expanding its range northward in
Florida. It is reasonable to expect that nesting may occur in the Delta some time in the near future.
There is some concern that the food resources for these species have been impacted and could
suffer greater impacts in the future. The introduction of flathead catfish into the Altamaha River
system has caused a severe reduction in the abundance of sunfish and bullhead catfish, which are
preferred forage for wood storks and other wading birds. In addition, reductions in water quality
and/or quantity would have negative impacts on forage species.
Wintering and Breeding Marshbirds and Sparrows
Nearly 5,000 acres of wetlands are inside the boundary of Wolf Island NWR. These wetlands are
primarily emergent estuarine marshes dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass). Other
wetland types include a small amount of higher marsh and open salt marsh habitat. During winter
(August through May), coastal cordgrass marsh is critically important for the saltmarsh sharp-tailed
sparrow and Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow. These two species typically forage on insects and
cordgrass seeds during winter. These birds are extremely secretive and limited to this specific
estuarine salt marsh habitat. Other secretive marshbirds such as the seaside sparrow and clapper
rail utilize the refuge's salt marshes for nesting. Black rails have been identified as a species of very
high concern in the regional waterbird conservation plan. A small amount of habitat for black rails
may be available on Wolf and Egg islands.
A specific monitoring protocol has been developed for secretive marshbirds as part of the National
Marshbird Monitoring Program. This program is designed to (1) field-test marshbird monitoring
protocols for eventual use in a continent-wide survey effort; (2) evaluate the effectiveness of call
broadcasts in increasing the detection probability of certain species; (3) provide estimates of
population trends of marshbirds on lands managed by program participants; and (4) evaluate the
effects of wetland management practices on marshbirds. The program also has a centralized
database where the survey results are compiled and stored.
Migratory Birds
Wolf Island NWR was established with the explicit purpose of providing habitat for migratory birds.
As part of the surrounding state and private lands and waters in the Altamaha Delta, the refuge
represents the most important habitat for beach-dependent migratory birds in the entire state of
Georgia. On April 28, 2000, the entire Altamaha Delta was designated as a Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSHRN) site of regional importance. The WHSHRN site extends from
Nannygoat Beach on Sapelo Island to Little St. Simons Island. It includes all of Wolf Island NWR.
The only other designated WHSRN site on the Atlantic coast is at Cape Romain, South Carolina,
which is of international importance.
30 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Nesting Shorebirds
Because of its importance for nesting shorebird and colonial beach nesting birds, the American Bird
Conservancy has listed the refuge and the adjacent Altamaha River Delta as one of the top 500 Important
Bird Areas. The refuge provides nesting habitat for Wilson's plovers, American oystercatchers, and
willets. Wilson's plovers and American oystercatchers are both species of significant conservation
concern, listed as High and Extremely High Priority Species, respectively, in the regional shorebird
conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000). Willets and black-necked stilts are both listed as Moderate Priority
in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000) but are still worthy of consideration.
Predators such as raccoons are present on Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg islands but are not considered to be
a conservation issue for these shorebirds. Wilson's plover nests appear to be less susceptible to raccoon
predation than American oystercatchers, because they are located in less exposed areas near vegetation.
Ghost crabs have been documented as a key predator of Wilson's plover nests in North Carolina, but do
not seem to be an issue for nesting plovers at the refuge. The highest density of American oystercatchers
and willets in Georgia can also be found on Egg Island Bar, which has as many as 24 pairs of American
oystercatchers and approximately 35 pairs of willets.
Nonbreeding, Migrating, and Overwintering Shorebirds
Wolf Island NWR and the surrounding Altamaha Delta provide important stopover habitat for a variety of
shorebirds that are of conservation concern. This area represents the largest roosting site for American
oystercatchers during their southbound migration and supports individuals that have been color-banded
from every nesting population on the Atlantic coast. American oystercatchers are listed as an Extremely
High Priority Species in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
The Altamaha Delta is one of two locations in Georgia that has been identified as important
during winter for marbled godwits. Every year, 300–500 individuals arrive in August–September,
presumably from the declining South James Bay population. These birds spend the winter either
in the Delta or in St. Catherine's Sound. They show high wintering site fidelity. Marbled godwits
are identified as a species of High Priority for conservation in the regional shorebird conservation
plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Approximately 6,000 red knots annually stop off in the Altamaha Delta during September to forage on
surf clams and other bivalves. On the northbound migration, red knots from different breeding
populations are found in the Delta and other sites in Georgia. In April to mid-May, birds from the
southeastern U.S. wintering population are present foraging primarily on bivalves, especially Donax
and surf clams. During mid- to late May, birds from the Tierra Del Fuego (TDF) wintering population
arrive to take advantage of the availability of horseshoe crab eggs during the spawning season. The
number of red knots varies on the northbound route; it can be thousands in some years and hundreds
in other years. The subspecies rufa, which winters in TDF and potentially on the southeastern U.S.
coast, is of special concern as the population has experienced a precipitous decline from 30,000 to
17,000 individuals between 2004 and 2005. Recently, the Service received a proposal for
emergency listing of this subspecies due to these population declines. Red knots are considered to
be an Extremely High Priority in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Other species of importance that use the refuge during migration include the long-billed curlew, short-billed
dowitcher, and whimbrel. These species use the refuge’s beaches for roosting, and forage in
the shallow waters surrounding the refuge as well as on exposed mudflats during low tides. These
three species are all identified as High Conservation Priority species in the regional shorebird
conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Waterfowl and Other Open Waterbird Species
Wolf Island NWR provides limited habitat for waterfowl and other open water species. Some use of
the tidal creeks by red-breasted mergansers, hooded mergansers, lesser scaup, bufflehead, horned
grebe, and red-throated loons has been documented during the nonbreeding season. The red-throated
loon and horned grebe are both identified as species of concern requiring immediate
management and management attention, respectively, in the regional waterbird conservation plan.
Their status is primarily due to habitat loss and interactions with fishing gear (i.e., fishing line). Lesser
scaup populations have been declining, and this species is also of concern. The refuge is closed to
waterfowl hunting; however, the navigable waters around and through the refuge are under state
jurisdiction. Some hunting occurs in the large tidal creek through Wolf Island, but it is not considered
to be a conservation issue.
Breeding, Wintering, and Migrating Landbird Species
Upland habitat, excluding dunes and beaches, is limited to the small strip of maritime forest on Egg
Island (200 acres) and the dredge spoil deposition areas on the back side of Wolf Island
(approximately 20 acres). The maritime forest is dominated by oaks, cedar, pine, and shrub species.
The dredge spoil deposition areas are primarily covered with wax myrtle and cedar. These areas
provide limited habitat for landbirds during winter, migration, and breeding. The area has not been
monitored for landbird use, but it is likely that several pairs of painted buntings are nesting annually in
the maritime forest of Egg Island.
Other Species
Altamaha River - Interjurisdictional and Anadromous Fisheries
Prior to 1980, the Altamaha River held a large healthy population of striped bass and supported a
sustainable fishery. The Georgia state record striped bass was caught in the Oconee River (a tributary of
the Altamaha River) in 1957 and weighed 63 pounds. Today, the striped bass population is depressed,
and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has begun a restoration effort. Fish numbers
are too low to obtain a population estimate using standard recapture methods. Stocking began in 2003,
and from 2003–2005, 15,000 fish were stocked annually. The Georgia DNR believes these efforts may
make it possible to raise striped bass numbers sufficiently to obtain a population estimate and age class
structure, and definitively establish the cause(s) of the declining population.
South Atlantic populations of striped bass are riverine and not truly anadromous as are the north Atlantic
populations. In the southern range of this species, summertime water temperatures can be lethal,
especially to fish five years and older. Therefore, a thermal refuge is required during the summer months
to allow survival of older mature fish. The prime suspect in the decline of the striped bass population in
the Altamaha River is water withdrawal from the Floridian aquifer. This reduces and/or eliminates
groundwater discharge into the bed of the river. In addition, the fish are extremely concentrated during
summer months around areas of groundwater discharge and thus become very susceptible to harvest by
fishermen. Another potential source of excessive harvest is by shad fishermen using set nets. However,
the number of shad fishermen on the Altamaha River has declined in recent years, and this by-catch of
striped bass may not now be a significant cause of mortality.
The Altamaha River contains a healthy population of American shad and sustains a commercial
fishery. The American shad population was estimated at 122,000 adult fish in 2005. Approximately
20% of this population was harvested by fishermen. The population is increasing at present, and it is
presumed this may be due to the reduced number of fishermen in recent years.
32 Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge
Dams on many of the river systems that empty into the Atlantic Ocean have restricted or eliminated
the passage of American shad to their traditional spawning areas. The Altamaha River has no dams
in the downstream portion of the river and shad migrations are not restricted. American shad spawn
in the Altamaha River from January through March. The juvenile shad begin their migration from
October through November and spend the next four to six years in the Bay of Fundy. The males are
four to five years of age and the females five to six years old when they return to the Altamaha River
to spawn. The southern population of American shad dies following spawning, while the northern
populations can spawn for several years.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Very little is known about the herpetofauna on the refuge. With the complete inundation of Little Egg
Island, reptiles are probably nonexistent there. Wolf Island has a few hammocks of shrub-scrub habitat,
and reptiles may be present but probably in low numbers. Egg Island (with its presence of a small
maritime forest) is said to have a high number of eastern diamondback rattlesnakes, but the density is
unknown. Since rattlesnakes are present, the refuge staff suspects that other species of snakes and
lizards may also be there. Nothing is known about the presence or absence of amphibians.
Diamondback terrapins are abundant in the waters adjacent to the refuge, and the refuge staff suspects
high numbers are nesting on Egg and Wolf islands. Presently, the two largest threats to the species in
the Altamaha River basin are depredation of nests by raccoons and drowning in crab pots. The University
of Georgia’s Marine Extension Service (MAREX) recently completed a study examining the effectiveness
of several terrapin excluder devices on crab traps. Funded by The Environmental Resources Network,
MAREX personnel examined five excluder devices in the St. Simons and St. Andrew estuaries during the
summers of 2003 and 2004. A serious problem could occur to the diamondback terrapin population if a
commercial crab fishery was initiated, such as the one that occurred in the Chesapeake Bay years ago,
which almost caused a total loss of the local terrapin population.
HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Wolf and Egg islands are both primarily (75%) composed of estuarine emergent wetlands dominated
by smooth cordgrass. During high tide, the wetlands can be completely inundated. As the water
level rises in the marsh, it carries with it aquatic organisms including fish, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates. Estuarine wetlands are very important as nursery habitat for juvenile fish, crabs, and
shrimp that take refuge among the vegetation for protection from predators. When the tide recedes,
these organisms often remain in the marsh trapped in pools of water at lower elevations until the next
high tide. Such pools provide excellent foraging opportunities for birds, as the aquatic organisms
may be highly concentrated within these pools.
The wide variety of organisms supported by estuarine marshes is linked to the range of salinities that
occur there. When rain falls in the Altamaha River drainage, it flows downstream and discharges into the
estuaries surrounding Wolf and Egg islands. This freshwater temporarily lowers the salinity in the
estuaries, which makes them habitable for organisms that prefer fresher water. Alternatively, when
rainfall is limited and salinity levels rise in the estuaries, more saline-tolerant species can move in from the
Atlantic Ocean, and those that are intolerant of the high salinities migrate upstream into the river system.
The diversity and abundance of fish and aquatic invertebrates in the estuary are very important for
shorebirds and fish-eating waterbirds. Terns, gulls, and skimmers forage along the top of the water
column—from the surface to one meter deep—of tidal creeks and wetland edges, looking for small
Section A. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
fish or shrimp. Pelicans also use these resources but may dive deeper, as do loons and grebes.
Shorebirds utilize shallowly flooded or exposed mudflats, especially in the interior of the marsh at low
tide. During higher tides, these areas are flooded and available for fish-eating birds such as wading
birds, terns, and skimmers. The constantly changing environment of the Altamaha Delta and its
associated wetlands represents one of the most productive habitat types in the world.
Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars
Because of dredging operations up the coast in the Savannah River Delta, the barrier islands in the
Altamaha Delta are sand-starved. Littoral drift occurs from north to south. Therefore, sand that
historically came out of the Savannah harbor drifted south to deposit along the barrier islands
including Wolf Island. This sand is now dredged from the river and deposited on upland disposal
sites, which robs the system of its sand supply. Wolf Island has been eroding for the past 70–80
years, as evidenced by its change in size and shape.
Dunes, beaches, and sand bars are critical for migratory birds as loafing and roosting habitat. Even
more critical for shorebirds are the invertebrate prey populations these habitats support. Horseshoe
crabs spawn in the intertidal zone during high tides in May. The eggs produced by this effort provide
excellent high quality food resources for migrating shorebirds, including the red knot, short-billed
dowitcher, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, and American oystercatcher. In addition, burrowing
benthic organisms such as Donax spp., surf clam Mulina, angelwing, arc, and other small bivalves
are eaten, which provide additional critically important food resources. Crustaceans including fiddler
crabs, ghost shrimp, and other small shrimp are utilized by the Wilson’s plover, gull-billed tern,
whimbrel, marbled godwit, long-billed curlew, and American oystercatcher.
Maritime Forest
Wolf Island NWR contains 200 acres of maritime forest located on Egg Island. The 593 acres of Egg
Island contain a freshwater depression (pond) surrounded by maritime forest. This maritime forest is
bounded by tidal salt marsh on three sides and a thin strip of beach on the eastern end of the island.
The maritime forest is dominated by live oak, southern magnolia, and cabbage palm. The dominant
understory species are red bay, yaupon, American holly, wax myrtle, and saw palmetto. Loblolly
pines and slash pines are interspersed throughout and on the fringes (younger portion) of Egg Island.
A disruptive event (such as a severe storm or wildfire) would shift the dominant overstory to the
faster-growing pine species. The frequency of such events would dictate the climax community.
Frequent storms and/or wildfire would result in the maintenance of a “fire climax” pine-dominated
community. This could be controlled, to an extent, by using prescribed fire during the winter months
to reduce the fuel loads and foster a far less severe wildfire potential. However, the remoteness of
the island, the difficulty of accessing the forest, and the small size of this forest community would not
make prescribed fire economically feasible.
Maritime Shrub-Scrub (Dredge Spoil)
Spoil was deposited on the west and south s