Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

October 2008
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
WACCAMAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, 

South Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

October 2008 
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 1

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................3

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 6

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations

 ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 6

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 9

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 14

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 14

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 16

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................17

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 17

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 18

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 19

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 19

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 19

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 20

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 20

Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 20

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 21

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 21

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................26

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 29

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 30

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 31

Prehistoric and Historic Background ................................................................................. 32

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 33

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 35

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 35

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 39

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 43
ii Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 45

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 45

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 46

Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................... 46

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 47

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 48

Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 48

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 49

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 49

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 49

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 50

Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 50

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 59

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 66

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 70

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 77

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 81

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 81

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 81

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 81

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 81

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 82

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 82

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 82

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 83

Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 84

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 85

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 86

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 86

APPENDICES 

I. GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 87

II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ........................................................................... 97

III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................. 101

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 115

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 115

Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................. 115

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 115

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 116

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 117

Summary of Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses .................................................... 117

Affiliations of Commenters .............................................................................................. 117
Table of Contents iii

Comment Media .............................................................................................................. 121

Geographic Origin of Commenters ................................................................................. 121

Summary of Comments/Concerns and Service’s Responses ........................................ 121

V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 133

VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 141

VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................................... 171

VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 181

IX. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................................... 185

X. BUDGET REQUESTS .................................................................................................................. 197

XI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 205

XII. SEA LEVEL AFFECTING MARSHES (SLAMM) MODEL .......................................................... 207

XIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................................. 220

XIV. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................. 228
iv Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR .............................................................................................. 10

Figure 2. Protected lands within authorized acquisition boundary of Waccamaw NWR .................... 11

Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR .............................................................................. 12

Figure 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous 

United States with Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem (#33) highlighted ......... 15

Figure 5. Waste treatment, storage, disposal, and discharge sites in vicinity of refuge ..................... 23

Figure 6. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR ................................................................................. 24

Figure 6. Current organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR .............................................................. 84

Figure 7. Proposed future organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR ................................................ 84

Figure 8. Federally listed species near Waccamaw Refuge ............................................................. 172

Figure 9. Location map of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................... 175

Figure 10. Bull Island Wilderness Study Area on Waccamaw NWR ................................................ 184

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Habitat types and acreages within the Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary ................... 22

Table 2. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry ....................................... 34

Table 3. Comparison of demographic statistics for Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties .......... 36

Table 4. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 83

Table 5. Waccamaw NWR step-down management plans ................................................................ 85

Table 6. Lands evaluated as potential wilderness inventory units .................................................... 182
Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) to guide the 

management of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (Waccamaw NWR) in Georgetown, Horry, and 

Marion Counties, South Carolina. The CCP outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the 

next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Before the Service began preparing this CCP, it conducted a biological review of the refuge’s wildlife 

and habitat management program and a visitor services’ review of the refuge’s efforts to 

accommodate public use. At the outset of the CCP process, we conducted public scoping meetings 

to solicit public opinion of the issues the CCP should address. The biological review team was 

composed of biologists from federal and state agencies and non-governmental organizations that 

have an interest in the refuge. The visitor services’ review team consisted of Service personnel with 

expertise in public use. The refuge staff held two public scoping meetings to solicit public input on 

issues, concerns, and opportunities that should be addressed in the CCP. Also, a 30-day public 

review and comment period of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment was provided. 

The Service developed and analyzed four alternatives. Alternative A was a proposal to maintain the 

status quo. Under this alternative, Waccamaw NWR would continue its current management. No 

active, direct management of waterfowl populations would occur. With regard to neotropical 

migratory birds, the refuge would continue to conduct informal surveys on swallow-tailed kites and 

Swainson’s warblers on an occasional basis. Incidental observations of black bear on the refuge 

would be compiled. Threatened and endangered species would continue to be protected on 

appropriate refuge habitats. Each of the recreational uses as identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 would continue. 

Alternative B proposed habitat restoration and enhancement on Unit 1 of the refuge. Under this 

alternative, the refuge would focus on habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on Unit 1, 

which consists of 34,784 acres (including acreage within the acquisition boundary not owned by 

the refuge) and is made up entirely of alluvial and black water floodplain forested wetlands. The 

refuge would aim to improve wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 600 acres on Unit 1 by 

restoring hydrology. With regard to neotropical migratory birds and black bears, Alternative B 

would be the same as Alternative A. With regard to threatened and endangered species, 

Alternative B’s proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 would enhance its existing wood stork 

rookery. All existing recreational uses would be continued and additional wildlife-dependent 

public uses would be implemented. 

Alternative C proposed to restore and enhance habitats on all units (1, 2, and 3) of the refuge. Under 

this alternative, the refuge would focus habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on all units. Unit 

1 consists of 34,784 acres of alluvial and black water floodplain forested wetlands. Unit 2 consists of 

12,046 acres, with approximately 6,362 acres of upland longleaf pine forest and tidal forested and 

emergent wetlands. Unit 3 consists of 2,902 acres and contains historic rice fields, many of which 

remain intact and are managed for wintering waterfowl. Management of migratory waterfowl and 

neotropical migratory birds would be the same as Alternatives A and B. Management of black bears 

would be more active under this alternative. Refuge acquisition and habitat restoration efforts within 

wetland corridors would be targeted to improve connectivity between bear populations. Management 

of threatened and endangered species would generally be the same as Alternative B, restoring the 

hydrology on Unit 1 to enhance the existing wood stork rookery. In addition, it would restore wood 

stork feeding areas on Unit 3 and red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. 
2 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Recreational use of the refuge would remain the same as Alternatives A and B, but would expand 

hunting opportunities. It would explore the potential for a youth waterfowl hunt on managed wetlands. 

In addition, opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation would be expanded. 

Alternative D proposed to optimize habitat management and visitor services throughout the refuge. 

Management of waterfowl and migratory birds would be the same as Alternatives B and C; however, 

management of black bears would be stepped up from that of the previous three alternatives. This 

alternative would conduct annual surveys of black bears and attempt to enlist public participation in 

gathering, recording, and compiling sightings. Management of threatened and endangered species 

would generally be the same as Alternative C – restoring the hydrology on Unit 1 to enhance the 

existing wood stork rookery, restoring wood stork feeding areas on Unit 3, and red-cockaded 

woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. Recreational use of the refuge would continue. 

This alternative would expand on hunting opportunities for deer and hog by considering a hunt by 

mobility-impaired individuals. It would potentially include a youth waterfowl hunt on refuge 

management lands. Over the lifetime of the CCP, this alternative would call for reducing deer herd 

density to improve herd health and to improve habitat quality for other species. This alternative would 

identify the 4,600-acre Bull Island as a proposed Wilderness Study Area. The Service would 

maintain its wilderness character, and within 10 years of approval of the CCP, would prepare a 

wilderness study report and additional NEPA documentation on whether Bull Island should be 

formally designated by Congress as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 

refuge would prepare and implement a Visitor Services’ Plan and expand most wildlife-dependent 

public uses in a number of ways. 

 

The Service selected Alternative D as its preferred alternative and this choice is reflected in this CCP. 

While each of the alternatives offered benefits for wildlife, habitat, and public use, Alternative D was 

the most ambitious of the alternatives, yet was still judged to be feasible. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (Waccamaw 

NWR) was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife 

conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be 

allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of 

the refuge or the purposes for which it was established. 

A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the 

refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this CCP was 

made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general 

public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development 

of this CCP, describing the Service’s preferred plan. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the CCP is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose; 

attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge System 

mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife management. 

Specifically, the plan is needed to: 

y Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction; 

y Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service 

management actions on and around the refuge; 

y Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education 

programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and 

y Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and 

capital improvement needs. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved 

with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of 

Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 

The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology 

and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals 

to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to 

the Division of Biological Survey in 1896. 

The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of 

Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the 

Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries 

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 
4 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of people through Federal programs relating to wild birds, 

endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife 

research activities (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering 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, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national 

fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service 

enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird 

populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps 

foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that 

distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state 

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources 

and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the 

first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Actions were initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to 

complete comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with 

full public involvement, help guide the management of refuges by establishing natural resources and 

recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as 

the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each 

refuge shall be managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

y Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of 

the Refuge System; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System; 

and 

y Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are 

legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine 

compatible public uses. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island 

National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting 

birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for 

American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after 

over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought 

conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. 

Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on “waterfowl production areas,” i.e., protection 

of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes 

protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the 

Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species. 

Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in 

their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local 

communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife, 

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002, on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent 

in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 

per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 

refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); 

Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); 

Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna 

Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River 

(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief 

that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and 

transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each 

federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in 

recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, 

volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at 

more than $22 million. 

The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that 

ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must 

be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat 

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation 

with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a 

process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision of the 

15-year plans. 

All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will 

guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The 

CCP will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal 

mandates, including Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, guidelines, and 

planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
6 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT 

LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the 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. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates. 

Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making 

decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural 

resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation 

between Waccamaw NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (SCDNR), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), South Eastern Wildlife and Environmental 

Education (SEWEE) Association, Historic Ricefield Association (HRA), Winyah Bay Focus Area Task 

Force, and private landowners. 

Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and 

management of the Waccamaw NWR are provided in Appendix III. 

Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No 

refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that, 

in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with, or detract 

from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs 

and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates 

are to: 

y Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals; 

y Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats; 

y Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants; 

y Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish 

and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and 

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public 

uses in planning and management. 

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY 

The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 

environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow 

while achieving refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration 

and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and 

associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, 

refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound 

professional judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of refuge resources; role of the 

refuge within an ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science, including consultation 

with others both inside and outside the Service. 

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the 

environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection 

information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem 

levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected 

parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The 

conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and 

integrated where appropriate in this CCP. 

This CCP supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan. 

North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, 

academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NABCI 

works to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an 

integrated approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. NABCI includes the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, 

and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP) is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. 

NAWMP’s goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and 

upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed NAWMP in 1986 in reaction to critically low 

numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. NAWMP is a 

partnership of federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, 

private companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the 

benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species, and people. 

NAWMP’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels through 12 habitat 

joint ventures. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture includes South Carolina and involves federal, 

provincial/state and local agencies, and private conservation organizations. The Winyah Bay Focus 

Area is a project of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and represents a creative, cooperative initiative to 

protect a nationally significant South Atlantic coastal wetland ecosystem, which is made up largely by 

the refuge acquisition boundary. The refuge plays a significant role in contributing to the protection of 

habitat and wildlife species across the North American landscape. 

Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the 

South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird 

conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land 

birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in 

conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and 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. 
8 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort 

throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird 

species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies, 

organizations, and shorebird experts from separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation 

goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach 

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 

Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the 

conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird 

populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive 

species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from 

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the Service’s Southeast Region include 

pelagic areas, marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen 

species of waterbirds are federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, 

Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of 

brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan is the standardization of data collection efforts to 

better recommend effective conservation measures. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure 

timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other dtate fish and game agencies and tribal 

governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas 

and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the 

overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of South Carolina. 

SCDNR is a state-partnering agency with the Service, charged with enforcement responsibilities 

relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing state natural resources, 

coastal marshes, and wildlife management areas. This agency directs the state’s wildlife 

conservation program and provides public recreation opportunities on state wildlife management 

areas. The participation of the SCDNR throughout this planning process provided ongoing 

opportunities for an open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in South 

Carolina. A key aspect of the planning process is the integration of common objectives between the 

Service and the state agency, where appropriate.

The Heritage Trust Program of the SCDNR was created in 1976 to preserve natural features and 

cultural remains, which are quickly disappearing as the state’s rate of development and population 

increases. The program’s purpose is to inventory, evaluate, and protect the elements considered the 

most outstanding representatives of South Carolina’s heritage. SCDNR manages 68 heritage 

preserves, 19 fishing lakes, 1 fish hatchery, and 20 wildlife management areas on more than 83,000 

acres. The 46 state parks and historic sites, covering more than 72,000 acres, are administered by 

the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. Additionally, the state agencies 

provide and direct public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program 

on wildlife management areas and parks. 

SCDNR’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing 

opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State 

of South Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common 

mission objectives where appropriate, such as at the Bucksport and Sandy Island Wildlife 

Management Areas (WMAs).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Waccamaw NWR is located in South Carolina’s “Lowcountry,” about 60 miles north of Charleston, within 

Georgetown, Horry and Marion counties (Figure 1). Its 54,000-acre acquisition boundary contains 

portions of the Great and Little Pee Dee rivers and the Waccamaw River. These river systems and 

associated wetlands comprise a large portion of the Winyah Bay drainage basin and are an important 

component of the Winyah Bay ecosystem. Waccamaw NWR is one of four refuges in the South Carolina 

Lowcountry Complex, along with Ace Basin, Cape Romain, and Santee. 

As of 2007, Waccamaw NWR has acquired 97 tracts, comprising a total of 10,590 acres within its 

authorized acquisition boundary. In 2006, the Service entered into a long-term lease agreement with 

the SCDNR, allowing the Bucksport WMA to be added to Waccamaw NWR, bringing the acreage of 

lands administered by the refuge up to 18,251 acres. The Service continues to actively acquire lands 

from willing sellers within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, and private and public partners within the 

Winyah Bay Focus Area have protected other significant tracts within Waccamaw NWR’s acquisition 

boundary (Figure 2). The refuge is divided into three management units (Figure 3). Each unit is 

defined by a dominant habitat type. Unit 1 includes 34,784 acres and is made up entirely of alluvial 

and black water floodplain forested wetlands. Unit 2 consists of 12,046 acres and is made up of 

approximately 6,362 acres of upland longleaf pine forest and tidal forested and emergent wetlands. 

Unit 3 consists of 2,902 acres and contains historic rice fields, many of which remain intact and are 

managed for wintering waterfowl.

The wetland diversity of this refuge is what sets it apart from most others found along the east coast. 

Waccamaw NWR’s tidal freshwater wetlands are some of the most diverse freshwater wetland systems 

found in North America today, and offer important habitats for abundant migratory birds, fish, and resident 

wildlife. More than 400 species of animals are supported by the variety of habitats within the refuge 

acquisition area, including several endangered species. Birds, such as the swallow-tailed kite, osprey, 

wood stork, white ibis, and prothonotary warbler, along with many species of waterfowl, can be observed 

on a seasonal basis. Mammals, like the American black bear, frequent Waccamaw NWR’s forests yearround. Notably, the refuge acquisition area supports the highest density of nesting swallow-tailed kites in 

South Carolina and is the northernmost documented nesting area for this raptor within its range. 

Additionally, Waccamaw NWR’s wetlands play a critical role in the filtration and storm water retention 

of the primary drinking water resource for the greater Grand Strand region. 

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

The lands and waters that comprise Waccamaw NWR have a rich history. Humans have used the 

area’s natural resources in various ways since prehistoric times in order to survive. Early Native 

Americans lived off the land and waters – and their wildlife and fish resources – for many centuries 

prior to the arrival of European colonists who settled in the area. 

The area's American Indian tribes included the Seewees, the Santees, the Sampits, the Winyahs, the 

Pee Dees, and the Waccamaws. As early as 1683, in the Winyah Bay area, British colonists 

established trade relations with these groups. Indian groups were decimated by European-introduced 

diseases, liquor, and intertribal and colonial conflicts. By 1715, the Waccamaws consisted of 610 

individuals dispersed among six villages on Waccamaw Neck. The Winyahs were reduced to one 
10 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Protected lands within authorized acquisition boundary of Waccamaw NWR 
12 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

village of 106 individuals. In 1720, the Yamasee War ended both the Indian threat and trade in the 

area. Colonists turned to the preparation of naval stores as their main economic pursuit. From 1700-

1720, the English established settlements at Georgetown, on the Winyah Bay, and up the Black, Pee 

Dee and Waccamaw watersheds. By 1705, large-scale rice cultivation formed the foundation of the 

Carolina lowland economy. Rice agricultural practices transformed the landscape with the 

widespread clearing of forested wetlands and construction of dike sand tidal gates. By 1850, a 

number of plantations existed along the Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Black rivers. 

From 1792 to the 1880s, several families operated ten rice plantations on Sandy Island. The plantations 

were Oak Hampton, Ruinville, Brickville, Mount Arena, Sandy Knowe, Oak Lawn, Oatland, Holly Hill, Pipe 

Down, and Hassell Hill. Many of the plantation owners who fled their estates during the Civil War returned 

to their lands in 1865-66. The newly freed African-American Sandy Islanders formed communities at 

Mount Arena, Brickville, Ruinville, and Pipe Down. They continued to work the island's rice fields under 

contract, providing themselves with wages and a portion of the harvest. 

From 1893-1911, a string of hurricanes devastated the area's already economically stressed rice 

economy. These storms destroyed much of the infrastructure of the rice fields, as well as the rice 

crop nearly ready for harvest. On Sandy Island, freed slaves continued to grow rice on lands that 

were given to them by their former owner and the rice grown by them was of major economic 

importance until the mid-1940s. By the early 20th century, many of the area's rice plantations had 

fallen into disrepair. A number of these estates were bought by wealthy individuals primarily for 

waterfowl hunting and other sporting purposes. 

Today, many of these plantations have been permanently persevered through voluntary conservation 

easments with organizations such as Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and the Low Country 

Open Land Trust. In 1994, the Service was requested to study the feasibility of establishing a new 

national wildlife refuge to futher protect lands that were former rice planatations. 

 

The Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to fulfill the purpose for which it was 

established and also the mission of the Refuge System. If there is a conflict between the two, the 

purposes for which the refuge was established takes precedence. 

Waccamaw NWR was established in 1997. Its establishing and acquisition authorities include the 

Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661-667-E), Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)), and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

(16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1)). The refuge was established to: 

y Protect and manage diverse habitat components within an important coastal river ecosystem 

for the benefit of threatened and endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fish, 

migratory birds, and forest wildlife, including a wide array of plants and animals associated 

with bottomland hardwood habitats; and 

y Provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation for present 

and future generations. 

Waccamaw NWR has operated under the following management goals: 

y Provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, neotropical migratory birds, 

and resident species; 
14 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y Provide opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation; 

y Protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands, and their 

associated habitats on a landscape-scale; 

y Protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they 

depend; 

y Manage national wildlife refuges to serve as models for effective conservation of natural 

resources; and 

y Increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation to carry out the Service’s 

mission through cooperative outreach efforts. 

In sum, the Waccamaw NWR was established to protect a biologically diverse system of wetland and 

upland habitats for the benefit of numerous plants and animals that form an integral part of the 

ecological functions and productivity of the Winyah Bay Focus Area. Waccamaw NWR is also 

managed to provide public access to traditional, wildlife-dependent outdoor recreational activities. 

Objectives are achieved using habitat management tools that include timber management, water 

management, prescribed burning, removal of noxious non-native species, protected sanctuary where 

appropriate, and partnerships, as well as environmental education and interpretation. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

Waccamaw NWR does not contain any lands under special designation by the Federal Government, 

such as congressionally designated wilderness areas, oil and gas activities, federally designated wild 

and scenic rivers, demonstration areas, or research natural areas. 

The State of South Carolina has designated the Little Pee Dee River as a Type I Natural State Scenic River 

between U.S. Highway 378 to the confluence with Great Pee Dee River. The Great Pee Dee River is also a 

Type 1 Natural State Scenic River from U.S. Highway 378 down to the confluence of the Black River. 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Service has 

found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems, drawn primarily along 

watershed boundaries (Figure 4). Waccamaw NWR lies within the Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers 

Ecosystem, which spans portions of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia (USFWS, no date-b). 

An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the 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 aspen) or large (an entire 

watersheds including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United 

States with Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem (#33) highlighted 

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because it cannot just look at a 

single animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that is around it. Conservation will not be 

achieved within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge, aquatic resources will not be restored 

with a national fish hatchery, and listing an endangered species is not going to conserve the system. 

All of these are interconnected. If one is disturbed or managed, all of the others will be affected. 

The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a 

watershed and it considers the economic health of communities within that watershed. A watershed 

is the total land area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean. 

The goals of the Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee Ecosystem Team are (USFWS, no date-c): 

1. To protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands, and their 

associated habitats on a landscape scale. 

2. To recover and enhance threatened, endangered, and species of special concern and the 

habitats upon which they depend. 

3. To protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they 

depend. 
16 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

4. To manage national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries to serve as models of effective 

conservation of natural resources. 

5. To increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation in carrying out the 

Service’s mission through cooperative outreach efforts. 

6. To protect, enhance, and manage interjurisdictional and diadromous fish populations (those that 

regularly migrate between freshwater and saltwater) and the habitats upon which they depend. 

7. To perpetuate healthy native plant and animal communities threatened by invasive native and 

non-native plants and animals. 

REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES 

The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program began in Fiscal Year 2002. Under this new program, 

Congress provided a historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to 

design and implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. 

A requirement of SWG was that each state would complete a Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS was intended to 

identify and focus management on “species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects 

that SWG funds be used to manage and conserve declining species and avoid their potential 

listing under the Endangered Species Act. 

In May 2002, SCDNR began a process to develop the CWCS that was funded through the SWG 

Program. The SCDNR committed to developing the CWCS and begin implementing the conservation 

actions by October 1, 2005. The goal of the CWCS was to emphasize a cooperative, proactive 

approach to conservation while working with federal, state and local governments; local businesses; 

and conservation-minded individuals to join in the effort of maintaining the fish and wildlife resources 

of South Carolina (SCDNR, no date). 

South Carolina’s 2005 CWCS deemed the following actions to be critical: (1) increase baseline biological 

inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of native species; (2) increase 

commitment by natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, and academia toward establishing 

effective conservation strategies; (3) increase financial support and technological resources for planning 

and implementation of these strategies; and (4) create public-private partnerships and educational 

outreach programs for broad-scale conservation efforts (SCDNR 2006). 

South Carolina possesses diverse wildlife. Its habitats range from the Appalachian Mountains to the 

Atlantic Ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as 

many of these groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, 12 

taxonomic groups are included: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, diadromous 

fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels, freshwater snails, and 

insects (both freshwater and terrestrial). 

The CWCS identified 1,240 species to include on the State’s Priority Species List. Reports were 

prepared for each species, guild, or indicator; in these reports, authors described the species; their 

status, population and abundance; habitat needs; challenges; conservation accomplishments; and 

conservation actions. This approach allows for identification of both general conservation strategies 

for wildlife and habitats in South Carolina, as well as development of species-based conservation 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

strategies. SCDNR also identified habitats critical for the priority species considered in the CWCS. 

Both terrestrial and aquatic habitats were considered and reports were prepared for 38 habitats 

(terrestrial and marine) organized within five ecoregions, as well as 13 ecobasins, which characterize 

the freshwater aquatic habitats of the state. 

Eight categories of conservation strategies (Conservation Action Areas, or CAAs) were developed: 

Education and Outreach; Habitat Protection; Invasive and Nonnative Species; Private Land Cooperation; 

Public Land Management; Regulatory Actions; Survey and Research Needs; and Urban and Developing 

Lands. Within each CAA, actions were condensed from the recommendations prepared for each animal 

on the Priority Species List. Some of the actions identified will affect all species included in the CWCS; 

others may affect only a few species. Each of these actions was prioritized and measures that indicate 

success of implementing the action were identified. 

The CWCS considers monitoring to be crucial. Project leaders are required to produce annual 

progress reports for review by a steering committee and the CWCS coordination team. These reports 

will be evaluated for insight into adaptive management needs and reassessments of the CWCS. 

South Carolina’s CWCS also places strong emphasis on partnerships. Successful conservation 

efforts are advanced through a strong collaborative involvement between all resource stakeholders, 

whether private or public, governmental or non-governmental. Task forces were convened to assist 

in determining important natural resource issues in South Carolina. Taxa teams were assembled to 

determine challenges to species and conservation actions to address those challenges. SCDNR also 

held public meetings to gather input from the citizens of the state. Prior to submission of the CWCS, 

SCDNR began creating Conservation Action Committees around the CAAs identified above. 

ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS 

HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION 

Threats to wildlife in South Carolina and the nation first began to be recognized a century ago in the 

form of habitat destruction from unrestrained logging and the spread of agriculture, as well as 

unregulated harvest for sporting and commercial purposes. After World War II, the challenges 

associated with sustaining wildlife populations began to accelerate and change dramatically. Many 

states, among them South Carolina, entered a period of rapid, sustained economic expansion and 

human population growth. During these “boom times,” South Carolina’s economy and workforce 

began to shift away from those based primarily on agriculture. Migration into the state from other 

states (and later from other countries) increased substantially and the urban populations began to 

dominate the rural population demographically (SCDNR 2006). 

Statewide, more than 100,000 acres per year were converted from forests, farmland, and other open 

space to urban uses from 1992 to 1997, making South Carolina the ninth-ranked state nationally in terms 

of total land area developed annually (USDA 1997). According to the same report, the National 

Resources Inventory, prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), the growth rate from 1982 to 1992 was only 40,000 acres per year. 

Thus, land conversion was accelerating during this 15-year period. These recent urban land conversion 

rates represent a major burst of growth; this development trend and the conversion of rural lands to 

urbanized uses – with their attendant impact on habitat for wildlife – continue unabated today. 
18 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strong economic forces are also transforming South Carolina’s agricultural economy. Rising costs 

and falling prices are creating hardships for many family farms. As of 1997, there were approximately 

4.5 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina, representing an 18 percent drop since 

1982. Long-term declines in farmland are even more dramatic: in 1954, 124,203 farms were 

producing goods in South Carolina, and 57 percent of the land in the dtate consisted of farms. By 

1992, the number of farms in the dtate had been reduced to only 20,242, comprising 23 percent of 

South Carolina’s land use (SCDNR 2006). 

As South Carolina’s population continues to grow, placing ever greater pressure on undeveloped lands in 

the State, and driving conversion from rural to urban land uses, new challenges threaten its fish and 

wildlife. Additionally, long-standing downward trends in numbers of some species that previously had 

been overlooked have become more evident. In a recent state-by-state analysis of biodiversity conducted 

for The Nature Conservancy, South Carolina ranked 14th among all states in total number of native plant 

and animal species and 15th in terms of risks to native species. In a planning exercise conducted in 

1994, SCDNR biologists estimated that as many as one third of the state’s vertebrate species were 

already then, or would soon be, experiencing serious declines (SCDNR 2006). 

Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Atlantic 

Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in South Carolina. The species 

most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special habitat. 

Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species, primarily 

through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 200 species of breeding migratory 

songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species have 

declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These species 

need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence. 

Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as 

biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed 

most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of 

connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife 

between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The 

severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and 

diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable 

to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel 

corridors to allow movement is of critical importance. 

ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY 

The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands 

and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on 

topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to 

forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships. 

In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there 

have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel 

modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic 

systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of 

flooding throughout the entire Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem, in terms of both 

extent and duration of flooding, in comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment 

of the flooding regime has had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated 

wetland-dependent species. 

In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due to 

atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include erosion, 

sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather disturbances. 

Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in 

the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of 

native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to 

movement prevent anadromous fish from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many 

other aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from 

land surface pollution runoff are exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural 

wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes 

to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes. 

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic 

vegetation like alligator weed and water hyacinth. Static water levels caused by the lack of 

annual flooding and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created 

conditions favorable for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic 

plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further 

threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural 

aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often 

prevents recreational use. 

Various species of non-native wildlife and fish also flourish in this southern coastal climate. Animals 

such as feral hogs, flathead and blue catfish, and Asian clams have caused extensive habitat 

damage and alterations. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

Coastal South Carolina where the refuge is located has a humid, warm-temperate climate typical of 

the southeastern United States. The area’s climate is influenced by the coastal waters of the Atlantic 

Ocean. The average yearly rainfall, as measured in Georgetown from 1971-2000, is 56 inches, with 

rainfall reasonably well distributed throughout the year, although summer is the wettest season 

(NOAA, no date). August is the wettest month at 7.4 inches and April is the driest at 2.67 inches. 

Thunderstorms occur on about 50 days each year, and most occur in summer. The refuge is subject 

to the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes from June through September. Snowfall is rare. In 90 

percent of winters, there is no measurable snowfall. When snow does fall, it is usually little more than 

a trace and of short duration. 
20 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

January is usually the coldest month, with an average temperature of 48 degrees Fahrenheit, with an 

average daily minimum of 38 degrees (NOAA, no date). July is normally the hottest, with 

temperatures averaging about 80 degrees, with an average daily maximum of 90 degrees. Winters 

are mild, with temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. Summers are hot and humid 

with average relative humidity at about 85 percent. The prevailing wind is from the south-southwest, 

and the average wind speed is highest in spring at 10 mph. 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

Wetlands dominate the landscape of the refuge acquisition area. Of the refuge’s 49,500-acre 

acquisition boundary, approximately 88 percent are classified as wetland habitats. The remaining 12 

percent of land is upland forest. Geographically, the refuge is situated in a coastal zone within the 

primary floodplains of the Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw rivers. The southern portion of the area 

consists of emergent tidal wetlands. The central and northern portions are mostly hardwood-forested 

wetlands, except for Sandy Island, which contains most of the area’s upland forests and is 

characterized by a rolling ridge and swale topography. Elevations range from near sea level to 76 

feet above mean sea level, which is the highest point in Georgetown County. 

SOILS 

Large portions of the refuge acquisition area are dominated by poorly drained, acidic soils with a 

perched water table due to a subsurface clayey hard pan. The surface soils are generally sandy to 

loamy and sub-surface soils silty to clayey. Nearly all of these soils are used for wildlife habitat. 

The following soil types and series predominate in the refuge acquisition area (NRCS, no date): 

y Levy – entisol, silty clay loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained 

y Hobonny – histosol, muck, very acidic, very deep, very poorly drained 

y Lakeland – entisol, sand, acidic, deep, excessively drained 

y Rutlege – inceptisol, loamy sand, very deep, very poorly drained 

y Chastain – inceptisol, loam, acidic, very deep, poorly drained 

y Johnston – inceptisol, mucky loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained. 

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

Three major rivers, the Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee, are the main sources of 

freshwater inflow to the refuge acquisition area. The Little Pee Dee River is a Type I Natural 

State Scenic River between U.S. Highway 378 to the confluence with Great Pee Dee River. The 

Great Pee Dee River is also a Type 1 Natural State Scenic River from U.S. Highway 378 down to 

the confluence of the Black River. 

Two of the rivers, Waccamaw and Little Pee Dee, are classified as blackwater rivers because of their 

tea-colored water, the result of tannin leached from vegetation adjoining the rivers. Blackwater rivers 

originate in the Coastal Plain, are typically acidic, low in suspended sediments, and support a 

diversity of native animal species. In contrast, alluvial rivers like the Great Pee Dee originate in the 

Piedmont and carry high sediment loads. These rivers and their tributaries combine to form an 

incredibly diverse wetland landscape. The Little Pee Dee River flows into the Great Pee Dee River 

just inside the northern boundary of the refuge acquisition area, the Lynches River flows into the 

Great Pee Dee River about 27-river-miles to the north, and the Waccamaw River flows through the 

refuge acquisition area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

The flows of each river fluctuate from month-to-month and year-to-year. However, long-term 

discharge records show consistent seasonal flow patterns. The lowest average flows typically occur 

from September through November, with the highest flows occurring from February through April 

(USFWS 1997). Overbank flooding is common during the high-flow periods. 

Water regimes depend on daily tidal fluctuations, flooding related to seasonal high-volume river flows, 

state of dike disrepair, bed elevations and channelization, encroachment of aquatic plants, past and 

present forestry and agricultural practices, alteration in runoff caused by man-made development, 

and natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and heavy rain. 

Water quality within the Great Pee Dee River Basin ranges from excellent to degraded, depending on 

local point source water discharges, non-point source runoff, and natural conditions. Rivers and 

tributaries in the refuge acquisition area generally have naturally occurring low levels of dissolved oxygen 

(DO) and low pH (USFWS 1997). Because of the Waccamaw River’s low DO levels, the State of South 

Carolina has established a site-specific standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) rather than 5 mg/l for the 

river. The refuge acquisition area is relatively undisturbed due to its proximal isolation from the rapid 

growth and development of the Grand Strand, with no evidence of industrial pollution. One known 

contaminant problem is that of mercury. High levels of mercury were found in several species of fish in 

1994, but not in river water or sediment samples. Although one or more sources for this high level of 

mercury have yet to be identified, significant contributions to atmospheric deposition have been linked to 

coal-fired power plants, of which there are several located within the local air shed. 

Figure 5 is a map showing waste and hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and discharge sites 

facilities and disposal sites in the vicinity of the refuge. 

AIR QUALITY 

Georgetown County has generally good air quality and is considered to be in attainment with the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including lead, particulate matter below 2.5 

microns in diameter (PM-2.5), particulate matter below 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), and sulfur 

dioxide. In 2003, there was no exceedance of NAAQS for these parameters. Georgetown County’s 

median Air Quality Index in 2003 was 28 on a scale where 0-50 is good, 50-100 is moderate, 100-200 

is unhealthful, 200-300 is very unhealthful, and 300-500 is hazardous. The residents of Georgetown 

and Horry counties were exposed to less air pollution than those of any other county in all of South 

Carolina (Scorecard 2005). 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

HABITAT 

Wetlands comprise nearly 88 percent of the refuge acquisition area and are of national and regional 

importance. The area’s wetlands meet the assessment threshold criteria of the National Wetlands 

Priority Conservation Plan. Accordingly, they are listed as part of the Winyah Bay wetland system in 

the Service’s Regional Wetlands Concept Plan for the Southeast Region (USFWS 1997). 

Furthermore, riparian and bottomland hardwood forested wetlands were recently identified as a 

nationally threatened ecosystem, having experienced a 70-84 percent decline. 

Twelve land cover types, including 8 wetland types, an upland type, and an open water category, 

have been identified for the refuge acquisition area (USFWS 1997) (Figure 6). All habitats in the 

refuge acquisition area are fresh water. 
22 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

As noted earlier, the refuge acquisition area is divided into three units. Unit 1 is the northernmost and 

largest unit consisting of approximately 34,784 acres (not including open water). Ninety-three 

percent of this area is wetlands, consisting primarily of large, unbroken tracts of deciduous forested 

wetlands located along floodplains of the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee rivers. Unit 2 is the most 

ecologically diverse and covers approximately 12,046 acres (not including open water). It consists of 

about 32 percent uplands and 68 percent wetlands. All wetland types described below are found in 

this unit. Unit 3 is the southernmost and smallest unit, covering approximately 2,902 acres (not 

including open water) of which 99 percent is wetland. Virtually the entire unit shows the influence of 

historic rice culture. The abandoned rice fields are in various successional stages of regrowth by 

emergent vegetation, trees, and shrubs. The majority of managed wetlands are located in this unit. 

The habitat types and acreages of each by unit are summarized in Table 1. 

Table 1. Habitat types and acreages within the Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary 

Habitat Type Unit 1 (acres) Unit 2 (acres) Unit 3 (acres) 

Forested Deciduous Wetlands 29,799 5,428 1,185 

Forested Deciduous/Evergreen Wetlands 832 92 31 

Forested Deciduous/Shrub Wetlands 21 33 0 

Forested Evergreen Wetlands 476 299 0 

Forested Evergreen/Shrub Wetlands 0 34 0 

Emergent Wetlands 143 1,563 1,472 

Shrub Wetlands 725 942 189 

Riverine Wetlands 1,967 776 135 

Freshwater Ponds 49 39 6 

Total Wetlands 34,012 9,206 3,018 

Uplands 2,598 3,764 0 

Total Area 36,610 12,970 3,018 

Source: USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory online 

Open Water 

This category includes all unvegetated water bodies, consisting mainly of rivers. Most of the open 

water is regulated by the State of South Carolina. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Figure 5. Waste treatment, storage, disposal, and discharge sites in vicinity of refuge 
24 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 6. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Freshwater Marsh 

This category includes freshwater wetlands dominated by emergent vegetation. The majority of this type 

is tidally influenced. Freshwater marshes remain flooded or saturated except during extremely dry 

weather periods. Most of the freshwater marshes are crisscrossed with abandoned dikes and canals that 

were constructed for rice cultivation during the 18th and 19th centuries. Plant diversity is greater here 

than within any other wetland habitat type in the refuge acquisition area. Among the most common 

species are giant cutgrass, pickerelweed, wild rice, jewelweed, water parsnip, smartweeds, yellow pondlily, water hemlock, arrowhead, rose mallow, soft-stem bulrush, giant cordgrass, cattail, loosestrife, white 

water lily and alligator weed. Woody vegetation, such as tag alder, bald cypress, buttonbush, tupelo and 

black gum, may be interspersed on the old rice field levees. 

Managed Wetlands

This category includes former rice field areas impounded by dikes and levees, where the hydrology is 

usually manipulated for the purpose of raising plants attractive to waterfowl. The hydrologic regimes 

are controlled by the impoundment managers. Most impoundments are managed for emergent 

vegetation, including waterfowl foods such as smartweed, panic grass, wild millet, red root, water 

shield, spikerush, arrow-arrum, white water lily, southern naiad, Asiatic dayflower, soft-stem bulrush, 

wild rice, and water grass. Cultivated grains may also be planted during drawdown periods. 

Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Temporarily and Seasonally Flooded Tidal

Areas included in this category are periodically influenced by tidal fluctuations. Flooding, often from a 

combination of extreme lunar tides and high river flows, normally occurs in the winter through late spring. 

Inundation may last only a few days or weeks in winter and early spring to well into the summer season. 

These areas are the most diverse of the tidally influenced forested habitats within the study area. 

Common trees include red maple, overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, laurel oak, water 

hickory, green ash, sweet gum, river birch, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and loblolly pine. 

Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Semipermanently Flooded Tidal

These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout most years except during extreme drought 

periods. Water depth may periodically fluctuate as a result of tidal influences. Plant community 

composition is relatively homogeneous. Dominant species include swamp tupelo, bald cypress, 

green ash, water tupelo, and red maple. 

Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Regularly Flooded Tidal 

These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout most years. Water depths fluctuate regularly with 

tides. Tree species composition is very similar to the immediately preceding habitat type. Shrubdominated habitats within this type include species such as swamp privet, buttonbush, and tag alder. 

Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Temporarily Flooded or Saturated

These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout the winter and for brief periods during the spring. 

Diurnal tides have little or no influence on the hydrology of this wetland type. This habitat type 

usually occurs at the higher elevations within the floodplain. Typical plant species include swamp 

chestnut oak, water oak, cherrybark oak, loblolly pine, several species of hickories, white oak, tulip 

poplar, ironwood, sycamore, and sweetgum. 
26 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Seasonally and Semipermanently Flooded 

These areas are flooded for very long periods during the growing season to almost continuously 

throughout the year. Diurnal tides have little or no influence on the hydrology of this wetland type. 

Typical species in the drier portions of this type include water oak, green ash, American elm, and 

sweetgum. In the wetter areas, overcup oak, water hickory, water tupelo, swamp tupelo, and bald 

cypress predominate. 

Evergreen Forested and Shrub Wetlands 

Most of these areas are rarely flooded but may be periodically saturated to the surface. This type 

usually occurs at the very highest elevations within the floodplain, on poorly drained flats, and in 

depressions outside of the floodplain. Within the floodplain, these areas are at the driest end of the 

wetland spectrum and are vegetated by species such as loblolly pine, spruce pine, live oak, and 

American holly. Outside of the floodplain, these areas are commonly called bay swamps, pine 

savannahs, or wet pine flatwoods and are vegetated by pond pine, loblolly bay, sweet bay, red bay, 

titi, fetter-bush, wax myrtle, zenobia, and sweet gallberry. 

Upland Forests 

This category includes any area that does not meet the definition of wetland or deepwater habitat as 

classified by Cowardin et al. (1979). A large portion of this habitat type occurs on Sandy Island. The 

upland plant communities on Sandy Island are highly diverse and include a maritime sandhill 

community, longleaf pine savannahs, and flatwoods with intermittent inclusions of small evergreen 

and deciduous depressions, pocosins, freshwater depression meadows, broad-leafed deciduous 

swamps, and pond pine woodlands. The maritime sandhill community on Sandy Island appears to be 

the only known site of its type in the State. The predominant vegetation community on Sandy Island 

is the longleaf pine/turkey oak type. Longleaf pine forests and savannahs were recently identified as 

a national critically endangered ecosystem. 

WILDLIFE 

Mammals 

Temporarily flooded bottomland forests provide ideal habitat for many species of mammals. Food and 

cover are abundant and diverse, and a variety of mammalian species are present. About 40 species of 

mammals potentially inhabit the refuge acquisition area (USFWS 1997). They include the black bear, 

which is primarily associated with upland forests joined by extensive forested wetland corridors. Seven 

species of bats may be found. Additionally, the refuge acquisition area contains roosting and foraging 

habitat for at least two rare bats: the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and the southeastern myotis. Both 

species hold state-listed rankings of concern. Other mammals include forest wetland inhabitants, such as 

deer, bobcat, raccoon, beaver, mink, river otter, marsh rabbit, and squirrel. 

Amphibians and Reptiles 

About 100 species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur within and adjacent to the refuge 

acquisition boundary. Aquatic salamanders common to the area include the greater siren, eastern 

lesser siren, two-toed amphiuma, dwarf water dog, and broken-striped newt. The most common 

terrestrial salamanders are the marbled salamander and the South Carolina slimy salamander. The 

most commonly encountered frogs are the bull frog, southern leopard frog, and green treefrog. The 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

American alligator is the largest reptile in the area. The brown water snake and eastern cottonmouth 

are probably the most widespread and abundant snakes. The Florida cooter and the yellowbelly 

slider are the most commonly encountered turtles. 

Fish 

The area is noted for its abundant and productive fishery. Within the refuge acquisition boundary, the 

Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee rivers provide unimpeded upstream and downstream movement for 

all associated fish species. The composition of fish populations reflects the area’s varying flooding 

regimes and physical and chemical characteristics of the water, as well as their proximity to tidal 

influence. About 70 species of fish are associated with the refuge acquisition boundary, including 

freshwater, anadromous (fish that move up the rivers from the sea to spawn), catadromous (fish that 

live in fresh water and return to the sea to spawn), estuarine-dependent, and marine fish 

(USFWS 1997). Anadromous fish known to occur include the striped bass, American shad, hickory 

shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. One catadromous fish species, 

the American eel, is known to occur in the area. There is excellent year-round recreational fishing for 

freshwater fish, such as the largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, 

pumpkinseed, black crappie, chain pickerel, redfin pickerel, bowfin, and numerous species of native 

catfish, as well as one introduced species, the flathead catfish. 

Birds 

Colonial nesting birds, raptors, woodpeckers, shorebirds, and passerine birds all use bottomland 

hardwood habitat. Some species are relatively restricted to bottomland hardwood habitat, including 

barred owl; red-shouldered hawk; wood duck; yellow-crowned night heron; yellow-billed cuckoo; 

acadian flycatcher; American redstart; and the prothonotary, Swainson’s and northern parula 

warblers. Other birds prefer bottomland hardwood sites because of food availability, such as 

woodpeckers that use areas of dead or dying timber. 

Floodplain forests of the South Atlantic Coastal Region support a rich assemblage of breeding birds, 

over 50 percent of which are neotropical migratory birds. Bald cypress-tupelo forests provide 

important breeding habitat for numerous insectivorous species of flycatchers, vireos, and warblers. A 

large number of species are also dependent on mature southern pine forests, including northern 

bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, wintering Henslow’s sparrow, southeastern American kestrel, brownheaded nuthatch, and prairie warbler. The refuge acquisition area also provides habitat for wild 

turkey. Approximately 200 species of birds have been recorded in the refuge acquisition boundary. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds

The mosaic of wetland habitats on the refuge acquisition boundary, along with a specialized flora 

composition associated with each component, provides habitat for breeding neotropical migratory 

birds. This wetland habitat diversity is important to several high-priority species, such as the swallowtailed kite, black-throated green warbler, Swainson’s warbler, and prothonotary warbler. Additionally, 

contiguous forested wetland ecosystems, such as represented within the Great Pee Dee and 

Waccamaw watershed, serve as important habitat for transient neotropical migratory species, as well 

as feeding, foraging, and nesting habitat for other temperate migratory and resident species. 
28 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Swallow-tailed kite nesting activity has increased significantly throughout the refuge acquisition 

boundary over the past ten years. Nest surveys, conducted by SCDNR from 1999 through 2004, 

documented that the refuge acquisition boundary had the highest nesting density in South Carolina 

from 2001- 2004. Fledgling survival rates were also higher within the Great Pee Dee River corridor 

than anywhere else in the state. The nests within the refuge acquisition boundary also represent the 

northernmost nests ever documented within their nesting range (SCDNR Report 2004). 

It is unclear whether a population of black-throated green warblers currently exists anywhere in the 

Winyah Bay Focus Area, and the refuge acquisition boundary is not likely to directly contribute to the 

conservation of this species. The preferred habitat for Swainson’s warblers corresponds closely with 

the Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Temporarily and Seasonally Flooded Tidal type, which is found 

in the refuge acquisition area around Bull Island and along the Great Pee Dee River drainage. This, 

along with larger, more contiguous patches upstream along the Great Pee Dee River outside of the 

refuge acquisition area, can support this species. The prothonotary warbler is the highest priority 

species most likely to have healthy populations occurring in forested wetland patches of less than 

6,000 acres. The refuge acquisition boundary can undoubtedly support one large population. 

Waterfowl

South Carolina’s coastal wetlands, in particular the Winyah Bay drainage area, play an important role 

for many species of migrating waterfowl by providing wintering grounds and staging areas for 

migrating waterfowl that winter elsewhere. From 1954 to 1987, South Carolina wintered an average 

of 30 percent of the dabbling ducks within the Atlantic Flyway (USFWS 1997). Since 1970, South 

Carolina has wintered an average of 54 percent of American green-winged teal, 50 percent of the 

northern shovelers, 35 percent of the mallards, 32 percent of the northern pintails and American 

wigeon, and 31 percent of the gadwall in the flyway. 

The Winyah Bay drainage area, which includes the entire refuge acquisition boundary, has gained 

national recognition for its importance to migratory waterfowl by having the most extensive, intact 

wetland complexes in the southeastern United States. Acre-for-acre, the managed wetlands in this 

area winter more ducks than any comparable habitat in South Carolina. River systems, such as the 

Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw, serve as flight corridors for waterfowl migrating along the coastal 

wetland wintering grounds. In addition, the extensive forested floodplains of these systems provide 

resting and feeding areas for waterfowl during their stopovers. 

Waccamaw NWR provides year-round nesting and brood rearing habitat for wood ducks. There is an 

abundance of wood ducks in the refuge acquisition area and Sandy Island likely serves as an 

important roost and sanctuary. 

Marsh and Wading Birds

All of the priority marshbirds that are found in the refuge acquisition boundary require tall emergent 

vegetation as part of their habitat. All are breeding species, except the American bittern. Breeding 

populations of pied-billed grebe and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest. 

Among the marshbirds of conservation interest, the king rail is of highest concern, followed by the 

least bittern and purple gallinule. 

Most waterfowl-oriented management, especially for wintering populations, is geared away from 

promoting tall emergent vegetation. Most available habitat at Waccamaw NWR is supported in 

former rice fields where there appears to be substantial tall emergent habitat available, which should 

support king rails and least bitterns in healthy numbers. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Nesting long-legged wading birds have plenty of habitat but the issue remains of how much 

disturbance these nesting birds can tolerate. Species of conservation interest in the South Atlantic 

Coastal Plain include little blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned 

night heron, wood stork, and white ibis. 

Shorebirds

Shorebirds suspected or known to occur within the refuge acquisition boundary include the killdeer, 

greater and lesser yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, common snipe, and American woodcock. 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Six federally listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur or potentially occur within 

the refuge acquisition boundary. These include two species of birds, one species of fish, and three 

species of plants (USFWS 1997). The peregrine falcon, which occurs occasionally at Waccamaw 

NWR, and was once listed as endangered, is now considered to be recovered and was de-listed by 

the Service in 1999. 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) – Endangered 

Red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to nest in the refuge acquisition boundary with the principal 

population residing in the mature pine forest of Sandy Island. Specific data on this population and its 

status are lacking because the area was privately owned until recently and access to conduct surveys 

was not provided. 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) – Endangered 

Although no nesting has been documented on refuge-owned lands, nesting is occurring within the 

refuge acquisition boundary, including one known rookery that is immediately adjacent to a refugeowned tract. In addition to nesting habitat, the contiguous mature block of wetland ecosystems 

provides suitable habitat for wood storks to forage and roost. Wood storks have been observed 

foraging and loafing on refuge-owned tracts throughout the refuge acquisition boundary. 

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) – Endangered 

The shortnose sturgeon is found in the rivers and creeks. The waters throughout the Winyah Bay 

drainage, including within and above the refuge acquisition boundary, contain important spawning habitat. 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) – Endangered 

The pondberry is a plant that inhabits seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, and 

swampy depressions. There are 40 currently known populations of pondberry in the southeastern 

United States. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary, potential habitat is 

present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) – Endangered 

The Canby’s dropwort inhabits a variety of coastal plain habitats, including natural ponds dominated 

by pond cypress, grass-sedge dominated bays, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and 

cypress-pine swamps. There are currently 53 known populations of Canby’s dropwort in the 

southeastern United States. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary, 

potential habitat is present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 
30 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) – Endangered 

American chaffseed is an inhabitant of pine flatwoods and savannahs with a history of frequent 

burning. There are 145 known occurrences of American chaffseed, with 63 of these now considered 

extirpated. Known occurrences are widely dispersed across the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal 

plains. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary, potential habitat is present 

on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Recently de-listed as Threatened 

The number of occupied breeding areas for bald eagles in South Carolina was at a low of 13 in 1977, 

when studies began, and had increased to 181 in 2003. The bald eagle is primarily associated with 

coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. There is one documented 

nest within the refuge acquisition boundary, which is nearby to one of the refuge-owned parcels in Unit 3. 

Eagles have been documented feeding and roosting throughout the refuge acquisition boundary. In 

addition, a few migratory bald eagles have been noted passing through the area. 

Species of Concern 

Ten species of plants and animals, considered by the Service to be Species of Special Concern, are 

known to occur or potentially occur within the refuge acquisition boundary. These species include the 

Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii), 

Southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius), Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei), 

eulophia (Pteroglossaspis ecristata), Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier), pondspice (Listea aestivalis), 

Carolina birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea caroliniana), Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) 

and Well’s pixie moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). 

INVASIVE SPECIES 

Invasive species include native and non-native species of plants and animals that tend to 

aggressively colonize lands and ecological niches, displacing native plants and animals of higher 

value. Not all invasive species are non-native (i.e., originating outside of North America). Some 

invasive species of both plants and animals are indeed indigenous to the area or native to North 

America, but are still considered invasive and problematic because they spread quickly and become 

abundant, to the detriment of native flora and fauna, and thus indigenous biodiversity. 

Two of the most important invasive upland plant species at Waccamaw NWR are kudzu and Chinese 

privet. Kudzu is native to Asia and was introduced to North America in the late 1800s for erosion 

control, although it is also used for ornamental purposes. This fast-growing vine persists along 

roadbanks and appears to be spreading into disturbed areas, fields, and the edges of forests; it is 

now widespread in the southeastern United States. It reproduces both by seeds and its tuberous 

roots and is difficult to eradicate (USACE 2002). Chinese privet was introduced from China and 

Europe in the early to mid-1800s for use as an ornamental. This shade-tolerant, aggressive shrub 

often forms dense thickets, particularly in bottomland forests and along fencerows. It colonizes by 

root sprouts and spreads widely by abundant bird- and other animal-dispersed seeds (Miller 2003). 

Water hyacinth and phragmites are the two main invasive aquatic plants known to occur on the 

refuge. Water hyacinth, a native of South America, was first introduced to the United States at the 

Cotton States Exposition in New Orleans in 1884. Since then, this free-floating herb has become 

widely naturalized in the southeast, often forming monotypes across large areas. Water hyacinth 

invades lakes, ponds, rivers, marshes, and other wetland habitats. It reproduces mainly by 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

vegetative means and can form dense floating mats of vegetation. These mats restrict light 

penetration, reducing the availability of light for submerged plants and aquatic invertebrates, and 

depleting oxygen levels (Invasive and Exotic Species 2006). Phragmites australis, or common reed, 

is particularly widespread in brackish and freshwater marsh habitats along the Atlantic Coast. Its 

origins are unclear, and recent genetic research shows that both native and introduced varieties 

occur in North America. Vegetative spread by below-ground rhizomes can result in dense clones of 

phragmites, with up to 200 stems per square meter. Invasion by phragmites alters the structure and 

function of marsh ecosystems by changing species composition, nutrient cycles, and hydrological 

regimes. Dense stands decrease native biodiversity and quality of wetland habitat, particularly for 

migrating wading birds and waterfowl (Invasive Species 2003). 

One of the most important invasive animal species is the feral hog. Feral hogs are currently limited to 

the lower portions of the refuge acquisition boundary. These animals were introduced to the eastern 

United States from Eurasia by early European settlers as a source of food. The feral swine 

population that exists today is a combination of domestic, escaped, or neglected domestic swine, 

Eurasian wild boar, or feral pigs that have been captured for the purpose of starting wild, free-living 

populations. The rooting and wallowing activities of wild pigs cause serious erosion to river banks 

and areas along streams. Wild hogs carry diseases, such as swine brucellosis (APHIS 2005). 

They also compete for food with native wildlife, particularly acorns, which are an important food for 

both wild turkey and deer. Furthermore, feral hogs create wallows in wet sites, impinging on the 

integrity of the plant and soil community (Georgia Wildlife Web 2000). 

Two other invasive animal species of concern are the flathead catfish and the Arkansas blue catfish. 

Both species were introduced into South Carolina rivers in the early 1990s, and both have had 

significant adverse impacts on native fish populations, particularly the redbreast sunfish. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of 

Access To "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic 

resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible 

for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and 

remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of 

traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for 

inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an 

American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that 

is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest. 

Waccamaw NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the 

cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken 

that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and 

bulldozers used in the development of moist-soil units, the refuge contracts with a qualified 

archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the site. The results 

of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, as well as the 

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The South Carolina SHPO is a program of 

the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the State Historic Preservation Officer is 

Director of that Department (SHPO, no date). 
32 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that 

is, whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural 

resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO 

immediately. To date, the Yauhannah Bluff tract is the only refuge property that has been 

recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This determination 

was made after a phase 2 archaeological survey was conducted in 2006, to mitigate potential 

impacts associated with the construction of an environmental education center on this tract 

(Archaeological Investigations at the Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18), Yauhannah Bluff, 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, Georgetown County, SC May 1, 2006). 

PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND 

The area of the Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee, and Little Pee Dee rivers, with its ecology and diverse 

flora and fauna, possesses a rich historical past. Small highly mobile groups initially settled the 

southeast during the Paleoindian Period ca. 12,000-10,000 Before Present (B.P.), carrying with them 

a unique and specialized stone tool kit. The geographic extent of the Paleoindians’ territories are 

poorly understood, but are thought to range from 50 to 250 miles in extent and often appear to center 

around quarries of high-quality stone (USFWS 1997). Isolated finds of fluted points have been 

reported from Horry, Marion, and Georgetown counties. 

Between 8000-5000 B.P., Archaic Period sites were located along swamp margins and terraces 

overlooking floodplains. The period is generally characterized by increasing population, defined 

territories and decreased mobility, development of stone containers and ceramics, and increased 

reliance on locally available lithic raw materials and plants. Late in the period, small-scale gardening 

of domesticates, such as squash and gourd, appeared. 

Sedentary villages began to appear during the Woodland Period (ca. 3000-500 B.P.), as well as 

burial and temple mound complexes. Woodland groups increasingly relied on agricultural crops. 

Maize became the major crop and staple toward the end of the period. Chiefdom level societies 

appeared through the southeast. 

The Contact and Historic Periods date ca. 500-200 B.P. The area’s American Indian tribes at the 

time included the Seewees, the Santees, the Sampits, the Winyahs, the Pee Dees, and the 

Waccamaws. As early as 1683 in the Winyah Bay area, British colonists established trade relations 

with these groups. The focus of colonial trade was enslaved Indians bound primarily for the West 

Indies, skins, and white-tailed deer pelts. Indian groups were depleted by European-introduced 

diseases, liquor, and inter-tribal and colonial conflicts. By 1715, the Waccamaws consisted of 610 

individuals dispersed among six villages; the Winyahs were reduced to one village of 106 individuals. 

In 1720, the Yamasee War ended both the Indian threat and trade in the area. 

European presence in the Lowcountry began tentatively in the first half of the sixteenth century. A 

short-lived Spanish settlement, San Miguel de Guadalupe, was established near the southern tip of 

Waccamaw Neck in 1526. A second Spanish settlement, Santa Elena, became the capital of the 

Spanish colony “La Florida,” from 1577-1578 near present-day Beaufort, South Carolina. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Charleston was settled by the English in 1670. From 1700-1720, the English established 

settlements, including Georgetown, on the Winyah Bay and up the Black, Pee Dee and Waccamaw 

watersheds. Initial impetus for these settlements was fur, deer, skin, Indian slave trade, and the 

manufacture of naval stores. By 1705, large-scale rice cultivation formed the foundation of the 

Lowcocountry economy. Enslaved Africans replaced Indians as the labor force and by 1708 formed 

the majority of the colonial population. Rice agricultural practices transformed the landscape with the 

widespread clearing of forested wetlands and construction of dikes and tidal gates. 

By 1850, many plantations existed along local rivers. From 1792 to the 1880s, several families 

operated ten rice plantations on Sandy Island. Many of the plantation owners who fled their estates 

during the Civil War returned to their lands in 1865-66. The newly freed African-American Sandy 

Islanders formed communities on the island. They continued to work the island’s rice fields under 

contract and eventually also bought land on the island. Sandy Island culture has a rich oral tradition 

and history and it represents one of the last remaining “Gullah” communities in South Carolina. 

From 1893-1911 a series of hurricanes devastated the area’s already foundering rice economy. 

These storms destroyed much of the infrastructure of the rice fields, as well as the rice crop itself. On 

Sandy Island, rice continued to be of major economic importance until the mid-1940s. By the early 

20th century, many of the area’s rice plantations had fallen into disrepair. A number of these estates 

were bought primarily for waterfowl hunting and other sporting purposes. 

To date, the Yauhannah Bluff Tract is the only refuge property that has been systematically surveyed 

for cultural and archaeological resources. This tract was originally identified in 1972, prior to refuge 

acquisition. According to the site form, “slipware, potsherds, flakes, and projectile points” were 

collected. A portion of this site was examined by researchers from Coastal Carolina University in the 

early to mid-1990s through the excavation of shovel tests and test units. In 2002, Yauhannah Bluff 

was acquired by the Service and the entire tract was surveyed by New South Associates, using a 

shovel test pit method. In 2006, a Phase 2 data recovery survey was conducted by New South 

Associates on portions of the tract closest to the Great Pee Dee River, as a precursor to a future 

environmental education center. The area surveyed is also the area which an earlier archaeologist 

believed was the location of an early 18th century Indian trading post. This area also contained 

remains of a plantation main house complex, dating from the 18th to early 19th centuries. While 

prehistoric remains also existed in this area, the densest portion of that occupation was determined to 

be to the west of the Phase 2 survey area during the test pit survey. Artifacts were found dating as 

early as the Early Archaic Period on up through the Mississippian Period (Adams and Botwick 2002). 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

Waccamaw NWR includes portions of Georgetown, Horry, and Marion counties between the cities of 

Georgetown and Conway, about 16 miles north of Winyah Bay. Three primary urban centers are 

associated with the study area: the cities of Georgetown, Conway, and Myrtle Beach. The major area 

of growth is the Grand Strand, a 60-mile stretch of coastline between the Atlantic Ocean and the 

Waccamaw River in Georgetown and Horry counties. The Grand Strand is one of the nation’s top 

vacation destinations, stretching from Pawley’s Island north to the town of Little River near the South 

Carolina-North Carolina State line. The area has both a large resident population and a large tourist 

population, both of which are rapidly growing. 
34 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Georgetown County is about half as densely populated as the state (69 people per-square-mile vs. 

133 people per-square-mile) but growing faster. In 2004, the county’s estimated population was 

59,790, about 1 percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county 

population grew by 7.2 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent growth 

in the same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Georgetown County grew 20.5 percent compared to 

South Carolina’s 15.1 percent in the same decade. 

Horry County is more densely populated as the state (173 people per-square-mile vs. 133 people 

per-square-mile) and also growing faster. In 2004, the county’s estimated population was 217,608, 

about 5 percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county population 

grew by 10.7 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent growth in the 

same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Horry County grew 36.5 percent compared to South Carolina’s 

15.1 percent in the same decade. 

Marion County is also about half as densely populated as the state (72 people per-square-mile vs. 

133 people per-square-mile) but growing more slowly. In 2004, the county’s estimated population 

was 35,086, about 0.8 percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county 

population declined by 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent 

growth in the same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Marion County grew 4.6 percent, compared to 

South Carolina’s 15.1 percent growth in the same decade. 

In 2004, of the data available, accommodation and food services were the largest of twenty major 

economic and employment sectors in Georgetown and Horry counties, followed by retail trade (STATS 

Indiana 2006). Horry County is promoting rapid growth and development, while Georgetown County is 

striving to provide an environment more conducive to a slower pace of development. Manufacturing was 

the largest sector in Marion County. Employment by major industrial sectors is shown in Table 2. 

Table 2. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry 

Industry Georgetown County Horry 

County 

Marion 

County 

Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting 2.2% 0.3% N/A 

Mining 0.2% 0.1% N/A 

Construction 7.4% 8.5% 3.0% 

Manufacturing 9.4% 4.1% 28.3% 

Wholesale Trade 1.8% 1.9% N/A 

Retail Trade 13.7% 17.1% 13.0% 

Transportation and Warehousing 1.5% 1.5% 3.8% 

Utilities 0.4% 0.3% N/A 

Information 0.8% 1.5% N/A 

Finance and Insurance 2.2% 3.8% 2.8% 

Real Estate 2.8% 4.0% 0.3% 

Professional and Technical Services N/A 2.6% N/A 

Management of Companies N/A 0.4% N/A 

Waste Services 4.6% 4.8% N/A 

Educational Services 0.3% 0.3% 10.2% 

Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 7.5% 8.4% 

Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 3.5% 5.0% 0.5% 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

Industry Georgetown County Horry 

County 

Marion 

County 

Accommodation and Food Services 15.3% 23.6% 6.6% 

Other Services 2.3% 2.5% 1.8% 

Public Administration 5.5% 3.5% 7.3% 

Source: STATS Indiana 2006 (Note: N/A = data not available) 

South Carolina’s statistics are slightly below the national averages for persons below the poverty line, 

median household and per capita income, and educational attainment levels (USCB 2006). Georgetown 

and Horry counties conform to this profile, but Marion County fares a little worse (Table 3). In terms of 

race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and the state populations. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The increasing human population in the Grand Strand area brings a host of challenges to the area in 

general and to the refuge in particular. Higher resident and tourist populations will require more 

resorts, services, and commercial development, especially along the ocean shore and major rivers. 

Additional demands for housing, government services, and infrastructure will also be required, 

including increasing demand for recreational areas and more extensive transportation systems. 

These demands, in turn, will exert greater pressures on the area’s natural environment. Human 

population, real estate development, and economic growth are contributing factors to the decline of 

wildlife and wildlife habitat; open space, such as rice plantations and timber plantations; and 

traditional lifestyles within local communities (e.g., Sandy Island residents). These factors are 

affecting land use within and outside the refuge acquisition boundary. 

At present, no major interstate highway traverses the refuge acquisition area. The primary roads in 

the vicinity include U.S. Highways 17 and 501 (both multi-lane) and State Highway 544 and U.S. 

Highway 701 (both two-lane). The only primary highway that crosses the refuge acquisition area is 

U.S. Highway 701. Due to the large seasonal population attracted to the Grand Strand, 

transportation is an important key to the economy of the local area. However, because of the rapid 

growth in the area, many of the area’s highways suffer from extreme traffic congestion. The South 

Carolina Department of Transportation is considering several highway construction projects to 

improve traffic flows and to establish more efficient hurricane evacuation routes. One proposed new 

construction project is the South Conway Bypass that would potentially join U.S. Highway 701 with 

State Highway 544, with a portion of the construction potentially located within the refuge acquisition 

boundary. Another project is a road widening of U.S. Highway 701 and bridge replacement. 

The refuge does not have management jurisdiction over any of the waterways within and outside the 

refuge acquisition boundary. The state-managed waterways have a variety of wildlife disturbances, 

including motor boats, jet skis, houseboats and associated dumping, and other recreational 

pressures. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, which overlays a portion of the Waccamaw River, 

serves as an important route for commercial and recreational boat traffic. 

Riverfront properties along the Pee Dee River, a South Carolina State-designated Scenic River, are 

being developed into single family residences with associated docks and boat ramps.
36 Waccamaw Na

Table 3. Comparison of demographic statistics for Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Car

Location 

Median 

Household 

Income 

Per 

Capita 

Income 

% Below 

Poverty 

% High 

School 

Graduates 

% 

Bachelor 

Degree 

% 

White 

% 

Black 

% 

Hispanic % 

Georgetown County $35,312 $19,805 17.1 75.2 20.0 59.7 38.6 1.6 Horry County 

$36,470 $19,949 12.0 81.1 18.7 81.0 15.5 2.6 

Marion County $26,526 $13,878 23.2 68.0 10.2 41.7 56.3 1.8 South Carolina $37,082 $18,795 14.1 76.3 20.4 67.2 29.5 2.4 USA $41,994 $21,587 12.4 80.4 24.4 75.1 12.3 12.5 

Source: USCB, 2006 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Land Acquisition 

The Service acquires lands and interest in lands, such as easements, and management rights in 

lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other congressional 

guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlifedependent public use for recreational and educational purposes. 

The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means, 

such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. When 

land is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the 

minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full 

consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the 

impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged. 

The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of 

condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however, 

requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing 

sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the 

property’s appraised market value, as established by an approved appraisal that meets professional 

standards and federal requirements. 

The refuge currently is composed of 10,590 acres in fee title with $14 million in acquisitions since 

1997. An additional 7,661 acres are leased form the SCDNR, bringing the total of refuge-managed 

lands to 18,251 acres. The refuge acquisition boundary is 54,480 acres. There are approximately 

150 land ownerships within the refuge acquisition area, many of which are small tracts ranging from 

under an acre to several hundred acres. About 40 percent of the area is contained in a few large 

tracts owned by the timber industry. 

Most notable acquisitions for the refuge include several International Paper Company parcels, Bull 

Island, Thoroughfare Island, and the Causey Tract, a recently acquired, 380-acre tract on the east 

side of the refuge. The Causey Tract is located near Conway and is within just a few miles of Coastal 

Carolina University and Horry-Georgetown Technical College. Plans are underway to develop this 

tract as the refuge’s first recreation area. In addition to these noteworthy tracts, the Yauhannah Bluff 

tract was acquired in 2002, and plans are underway to build a state-of-the-art environmental 

education center on this tract, which will provide a view shed of Bull Island, the Great Pee Dee River, 

and Yauhannah Lake. Future acquisitions or leases may include the portion of Sandy Island owned 

by Brookgreen Gardens, Longwood Island, and any tracts available that adjoin the Causey Tract. 

Protecting Scenic Values on the Pee Dee River 

The portion of the Little Pee Dee River between the U.S. Highway 378 Bridge and the confluence of the 

river with the Great Pee Dee River has been designated as a State Scenic River. Additionally, a 70-mile 

segment of the Great Pee Dee River between the U.S. Highway 378 bridge and the U.S. Highway 17 

bridge has been designated as a State Scenic River. SCDNR promotes the conservation, protection, and 

enhancement of the state's natural resources. A scenic river or river segment is defined as essentially 

free flowing and possesses shoreline largely undeveloped and with limited road access. Adjacent lands 

are partially or predominantly used for agriculture, silviculture, or other dispersed human activities that do 

not substantially disturb the natural character of the river corridor. 
38 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scenic rivers must be managed in a manner that best maintains and enhances the scenic values of the 

river and the adjacent land while at the same time preserving the right of riparian landowners to use the 

river for customary agricultural, silvicultural, or other similar purposes. The refuge’s goal includes 

programs and management strategies that promote a pristine, unencumbered viewshed and to prevent 

further degradation. Because these effects may occur outside the refuge, there is little direct action that 

the refuge can take to control local development. However, the refuge manager is an active member of 

the Great Pee Dee Scenic River Advisory Council and through this council, a watershed protection and 

management plan is being developed to help promote the state scenic river guidelines. 

Private Lands Program 

The importance of Waccamaw NWR to waterfowl and other migratory birds is well known; however, 

the potential to provide additional habitat for the benefit of federal trust species (i.e., migratory birds) 

on nearby private lands has not been fully explored. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is 

the Service’s primary mechanism for delivering voluntary on-the-ground habitat improvement projects 

on private lands for the benefit of federal trust species. Technical and financial assistance is provided 

to landowners to help meet the habitat needs of federal trust species on private lands. The objectives 

of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program are to promote and implement habitat improvement 

projects that benefit federal trust species; provide conservation leadership; promote partnerships; 

encourage public understanding and participation; and work with USDA to implement its conservation 

programs. Habitat improvement practices include habitat restoration, enhancement, and 

establishment. The highest funding priority status is awarded to proposed projects on private lands 

that will complement activities on Refuge System lands or contribute to the resolution of problems on 

refuges that are caused by off-refuge land use practices. 

Wildland Fire Management 

It is the policy of the Service to use fire when it is the most appropriate management tool for reaching 

habitat objectives. Wildfires, however, would be aggressively suppressed unless such natural fires 

are a part of an approved fire management plan. Protection of people and property is the top priority 

within the fire management program. 

Opportunities to use prescribed fire as a management tool on the refuge are limited due to the fact 

that the majority of the refuge is currently comprised of forested and emergent tidal wetlands. Refuge 

staff and resources have been used to assist with prescribed burning on an as needed basis when 

The Nature Conservancy is conducting annual burning on Sandy Island. Additionally, the refuge has 

installed several fire breaks in the refuge-owned upland areas where future fuel reduction burns may 

be needed especially in fire-prone wildland urban interface areas. As refuge lands are added in the 

future, fire management needs and strategies will change, for instance if a system of managed 

wetland is added to the refuge. Management of emergent wetlands can be accomplished through 

some combination of burning, mowing, and/or disking to manipulate vegetation or to control woody 

shrub encroachment. 

The Service is also providing financial and technical assistance to the Sandy Island Rural Fire 

Department and several other rural fire departments located around the refuge acquisition boundary. 

This assistance includes funding for fire equipment needed for wildline fire fighting needs, as well as 

training that will allow these fire departments to be qualified and ready as first responders if/when a 

wildfire is reported on the refuge. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

VISITOR SERVICES 

Executive Order 12996 and the Improvement Act recognized six priority public uses on national 

wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, which “have been and are expected to continue to be 

generally compatible uses.” However, these uses are by no means the only permitted public uses of 

national wildlife refuges; other uses have been and can continue to be permitted, provided that they 

are determined to be compatible with the refuge purposes, including walking dirt/gravel roads, biking 

dirt/gravel roads, canoeing, horseback riding, and general boating. Horseback riding is confined to 

gravel roads only. All-terrain vehicles are not permitted. 

Popular recreation uses include hunting and recreational fishing. Hunting for white-tailed deer, 

waterfowl, and small game is very popular. Recreational fishing is primarily limited to the main river 

systems and smaller tributaries that are not blocked and not considered private property. 

Recreational boating, waterskiing, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, bird watching, and wildlife 

observation are also very popular activities conducted in this area. Boat access within and adjacent 

to the refuge is provided by eight state- or county-maintained public boat launching ramps and four 

privately owned commercial marinas, making these activities more feasible. Boat landings exist near 

Bull Island on the Waccamaw and Pee Dee rivers. 

Nearby ecological attractions include: Conway River walk, Huntington Beach State Park, Lewis 

Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve, Myrtle Beach State Park, Sandy Island, Washo Reserve, Samworth 

WMA, and Waccamaw River Heritage Preserve. Other nature-based tourist attractions available in 

the local area include the Bellefield Nature Center, Brookgreen Gardens, Francis Marion National 

Forest, and the SEWEE Center at Cape Romain NWR. Overnight camping facilities are located at 

the Myrtle Beach and Huntington Beach State Parks and other commercial campgrounds. Several 

nature-based guided and self-guided tours are offered nearby. 

According to the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, a large seasonal tourist population is 

attracted to the Grand Strand's extensive beaches and over 90 golf courses. In 2003, an estimated 

13 million tourists visited the Grand Strand area (USFWS 2005). 

Most visitors to the Grand Strand area are from out-of-state and typically visit for a period of four to 

seven days. Over 50 percent of the area’s tourists make return visits. Although most visitors 

concentrate on beach activities, many seek a diverse recreational experience. The basic appeal of 

the Grand Strand is its family-oriented recreational activities, including beaches, water parks, golf 

courses, fishing, historical sites, cultural events, hiking, and tennis/sports. As more people are 

attracted to the area, visitor activities that are not related to water have also grown in importance. 

Nature-based tourism is being targeted at both the state and local levels. Aggressive marketing 

programs are being developed by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism 

to foster tourism and job growth in rural areas and small towns. These programs are expected to 

attract even more visitors, both foreign and domestic, in the foreseeable future. 

Anticipated demand for non-motorized boating (kayak, canoe), bird watching, nature photography, hiking, 

camping, and environmental education and interpretation is expected. Visitors also expect to be able to 

participate in these activities and feel safe during the gun hunting season in the fall and winter. Some 

areas are currently set aside for these activities; however, more areas will need to be acquired. 
40 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Fishing 

About 70 species of fish are associated within the refuge acquisition boundary area, and fishing is 

very popular on state jurisdiction waters within the acquisition boundary. These waters provide 

excellent year-round recreational fishing for freshwater fish, such as largemouth bass, redbreast 

sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, pumpkinseed, black crappie, chain pickerel, redfin 

pickerel, bowfin, and numerous native species of catfish, as well as two introduced species, the 

flathead and the Arkansas blue catfish. 

The Waccamaw and the Great Pee Dee rivers furnish unimpeded upstream and downstream 

movement for all associated fish species. Currently, the rivers provide areas where visitors with boats 

can fish. These waters provide nursery areas for freshwater and estuarine species, such as red drum, 

tarpon, striped mullet, and flounder. The rivers, in turn, are connected to a myriad of oxbows, creeks, 

and small feeder streams interspersed throughout the floodplains and forested wetlands, forming a 

dynamic aquatic system that supports populations of both sport and commercial fish. 

The State of South Carolina has jurisdiction over all the creeks and rivers bisecting the refuge; 

therefore, the refuge has little control over this major public use program. There are several popular 

county and private boat launches along the Great Pee Dee River and the Waccamaw River. The 

refuge does not have its own boat launching facilities. Access to most of the refuge is facilitated by 

state and private boat ramps along the Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw rivers, and access does not 

appear to be limited by boat launching facilities. Currently, the two rivers within the acquisition 

boundary provide the only areas where refuge visitors with boats can fish. Bank fishing on refugeowned parcels is allowed; however, these opportunities are limited because there are few road 

access areas for anglers. 

Recreational fishing success is dependent on river elevations, turbidity, and daily tidal influences. 

Recreational fishing is primarily limited to the main river systems and smaller tributaries that are not 

blocked and not considered private property. Freshwater commercial fishing within the refuge 

acquisition boundary has also been a traditional livelihood for many native South Carolinians. 

Seasonal shad fishing and year-round cat fishing contribute substantially for many family incomes, 

including the families that reside on Sandy Island. However, as stated previously, the State of South 

Carolina has jurisdiction over all the creeks and rivers bisecting the refuge; therefore, the refuge has 

little control over this traditional use. 

Littering, gray water discharge primarily from house boats, and jet skis are continual issues that 

degrade the angler experience within the refuge boundary waterways. 

Hunting 

Hunting is a primary public use of the refuge. Hunting activities range from waterfowl to both 

small and big game hunting, with waterfowl and big game hunting being the most popular. 

Waccamaw NWR has one of the more liberal hunt programs of all the refuges in South Carolina 

(due in part to hunting being included as one of the purposes for which the refuge was 

established). The refuge has an approved hunt plan dated February 2007 (USFWS 2007). A 

hunting brochure describing all the hunt species and regulations is available. The brochure also 

serves as a permit and is required of all hunters. All refuge hunters under the age of 16 must 

show proof of successfully completing a state-approved hunter education program and must be 

directly supervised by a properly licensed adult of at least 21 years of age. The refuge has a 

youth turkey hunt. Hunters must wear a hat, coat, or vest of solid visible fluorescent orange 

during all big game hunts (deer, hog) except wild turkey. Non-toxic shot is required. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Waccamaw NWR offers a variety of hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer, turkey, feral hog, 

squirrel, and waterfowl in accordance with state regulations and seasons (USFWS 2007). Hunting is 

allowed throughout Units 1 and 3. A refuge self-issuing permit and hunter safety training are required. 

Big game hunting, primarily for white-tailed deer, has been a traditional recreational use in the local 

area and on the refuge. Moreover, deer hunts have proven to be not only compatible with refuge 

objectives but also beneficial in meeting them: deer harvest is essential to maintain the herd at or 

below habitat carrying capacity on refuge lands (USFWS 2007). Overpopulation leads to starvation, 

increased car-deer collisions, poor overall herd health, and damaged habitat. Both still hunting and 

dog drives have been traditionally used on private lands. Because of the extensive tracts of land and 

seasonal vehicular accessibility, many of the forested wetlands throughout the acquisition boundary 

have been hunted by hunting clubs, which routinely conduct organized dog drives. The refuge allows 

hunting of white-tailed deer with archery, muzzle loader, and modern weapons. 

Hunting feral hogs is also permitted at Waccamaw NWR. This extremely invasive introduced nonnative species is found on all three refuge units. Feral hogs can harbor several infectious diseases, 

some of which may be fatal to native wildlife. They degrade wildlife habitat by rooting and wallowing. 

Damage includes erosion along waterways and wetlands and the loss of native plants. Additionally, 

feral hogs compete directly for food with native species, such as deer, bears, turkeys, squirrels, and 

many other birds and mammals. Furthermore, they are predators of reptiles, small mammals, and 

deer fawns, as well as ground-nesting birds, such as turkeys (USFWS 2007). 

The refuge also supports a small wild turkey hunt, which is limited to four half-day hunts for four 

youths during the spring. Youth hunters are selected annually through a lottery system, which 

allows each hunter one half-day hunt on tracts adjacent to the Great Pee Dee River. Hunting of 

small game (snipe, waterfowl, rabbit, gray squirrel, raccoon, and opossum) is permitted in 

designated areas with seasonal regulations that may vary by refuge units. Dogs can be used 

only for duck, snipe, raccoon, and squirrel. 

Waterfowl hunting has traditionally concentrated around the managed wetlands and rice fields, which 

often attract large concentrations of wintering waterfowl. The refuge currently does not own or manage 

any managed wetlands. Waterfowl hunting on refuge-owned lands is limited to Saturdays only in 

bottomland hardwood habitats located along the Great Pee Dee River within Unit 1. Waterfowl hunting on 

public waters throughout the refuge acquisition boundary is not controlled by the refuge. 

Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife viewing and photography programs are being developed on the refuge to the extent that funding 

and staffing will allow. Several areas of the refuge provide potential visitors with opportunities for good 

wildlife observation, photography, and hiking experiences. The Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area is 

currently under construction and to date most of the funding for this project has been made available 

through private donations. This recreation area is closed to hunting and once open will allow year-round 

access for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. In addition to the new recreation area, a new 

environmental education center has been designed and is under contract and should be open to the 

public in 2008. Hiking trails on this site, along with tracts located nearby, will offer numerous other 

opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. Sensitive areas where wildlife disturbance 

or conflicts with other user groups could become problematic may be closed to the public on a seasonal 

or permanent basis to resolve these issues. The potential for partnerships, lease agreements, or other 

arrangements that would allow visitors to observe and/or photograph red-cockaded woodpeckers on the 

Sandy Island properties exists and the refuge continues to pursue these partnerships. 
42 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

When appropriate, wildlife observation areas will be developed to allow visitors opportunities to view 

focus species, such as bald eagles, swallow-tailed kites, wading birds, waterfowl, and deer. At this 

time, tools, such as spotting scopes, binoculars, remote cameras trained on wildlife, videos that show 

wildlife that visit during different times of the year, and web sites, are not provided. 

Potential conflicts between wildlife observation/photography opportunities and hunting activities have 

been eliminated by closure of one area to hiking during designated refuge hunts. During hunting 

periods, hiking/wildlife observation is permitted on at least one day/week. 

Hiking is permitted along the Great Pee Dee River and Bull Creek at the Highway 701 Bridge just 

north of Yauhannah Lake. Excellent opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography 

can be found by boating through Big and Little Bull creeks. 

Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Currently, Waccamaw NWR participates in an Earth Stewards Program developed by the SEWEE 

Association. Earth Stewards is a multi-week program for students with classes both in their 

classroom and on the refuge lands. The initial program is an eight-week program for the fifth grade, 

with a focus on freshwater wetlands which is correlated to South Carolina Educational Standards. 

The program at Waccamaw NWR began with Brown’s Ferry and Plantersville Elementary schools in 

2003. These students learn about the flora and fauna of the refuge through hands-on, experiential 

lessons taught by their teachers, refuge and SEWEE staff, and volunteers. They have at least three 

visits to the refuge or the SEWEE Center in Awendaw during their studies. In 2006, this program was 

reviewed and a shortened version was created to allow more students to participate. This new 

version (called SES Brevis) includes several lessons with students in their classrooms followed by 

one full day of lessons on the refuge. SES Brevis is now being conducted with all fifth graders at 

McDonald and Pleasant Hill Elementary schools. 

Refuge and SEWEE staffs have also worked with some of the middle schools in the area to bring 

their students onto the refuge for educational experiences. Waccamaw Middle School participated in 

an exploration of Sandy Island and red-cockaded woodpecker habitats for several years and Carvers 

Bay Middle School is participating in lessons at the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area. 

In addition to this work with school students, Waccamaw NWR and SEWEE personnel have presented 

environmental education programs at after-school programs and summer camps of Georgetown YMCA 

and several local churches. They are also working with the student enrichment program called Service 

Over Self to facilitate service-learning projects of middle and high school students. 

Waccamaw NWR does not have a visitor services’ plan. As a step-down plan to the CCP, the refuge 

will develop a visitor services’ plan. Descriptions of specific materials, signs, exhibits and displays, 

and themes to promote the six priority public uses adopted by the Service will be addressed in this 

step-down plan. It would address specific visitor service activities, including facility requirements, site 

design, conceptual themes, and handicapped accessibility. This step-down plan will also address the 

specific services (e.g., eco-tourism opportunities, such as guided tours) the refuge could provide local 

communities. It will identify cooperative partnerships to increase awareness of fish and wildlife 

resources, which will systematically improve visitor experiences in the area. 

Issues related to refuge management will be addressed in the step-down plan. Current and 

future staffing needs to implement the recommendations within the plan will also be addressed. 

The plan will include budgetary needs and current databases, as well as explore opportunities for 

funding and partnerships to help the refuge accomplish the recommendations within the plan. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

The plan will include a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the visitor 

services’ program annually. The plan will be comprehensive, covering all aspects of the visitor 

services’ program in detail, including fee programs, universal accessibility, use of dedicated areas 

such as wilderness, use of concessions, etc. 

The refuge office/visitor contact station is currently housed in a small office in Georgetown previously 

occupied by the SCDNR. The facilities, although small, have an impressive array of literature and 

brochures providing visitors with information on the refuge, other South Carolina refuges, and the 

Refuge System, as well as a number of other publications of local/area interest (i.e., shell fishing 

guidelines and coastal boating regulations). A large bulletin board provides visitors with other 

pertinent information and images of the refuge. The Service emblem is prominently displayed on the 

outside of the building and a "Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge" sign is visible in front of the 

building, facing the street. 

Refuge personnel assist visitors including many who are seeking information on SCDNR areas 

of expertise. Partly due to continuing acquisition of refuge tracts and mainly due to funding and 

staffing shortages, information/interpretive kiosks, entrance signs, and directional signs are 

currently not adequate. 

Refuge regulations are communicated primarily via refuge hunt brochures, the tear sheet, boundary/ 

closed area signs, and by personal contacts in the field, refuge office, and over the telephone. 

As time allows, SEWEE staff and the refuge manager provide various interpretation programs on an 

“as needed” basis. The refuge manager provides presentations for civic groups and organizations. 

There is a strong demand for staff participation at local events, such as Bass Pro Shop events. Two 

videos, “Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force” (20 minutes) and “Voices of Winyah Bay” (15 minutes) 

are distributed by the refuge manager to promote issues and land protection for the refuge and 

partners. The primary interpretive message of these videos is to protect lands and cultural values 

from future development. 

There are currently no interpretive facilities at the refuge; however, a new environmental education 

center has been designed and is currently under contract to build in 2008. Refuge and complex 

staffs have developed a list of preferred themes and messages that will be explored and developed in 

more detail as part of the exhibit design process for the new environmental education center. 

Messages will be developed about the rice culture, Native American peoples, waterfowl, fishing, the 

black bear, neotropical migratory birds, etc. Once a full-time refuge park ranger is hired at 

Waccamaw NWR, the refuge manager will pursue the development of interpretive kiosks, signs, 

brochures, and trails for the refuge. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Waccamaw NWR is relatively new and lacks the resources to support the full complement of services that 

could be potentially managed on the refuge. The refuge has two permanent full-time employees: a refuge 

manager (GS-12) and an assistant refuge manager (GS-11). The refuge shares one full-time law 

enforcement officer with the four refuges in the complex. The assistant refuge manager is also a dual 

function (collateral duty) officer. One day of each week, SEWEE staff provide assistance with 

environmental education and outreach within the local area. Waccamaw NWR’s annual budget in FY07 

was approximately $323,000. Waccamaw NWR is part of the South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge 

Complex and, consequently, this allows for sharing of personnel and equipment between refuges when 

necessary to meet many of the challenges associated with a new and expanding refuge. 
44 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge headquarters, contact station, and a maintenance yard are temporarily located in 

Georgetown in a rented office building. A new refuge office and visitor center is planned. The new 

facility will be located between the cities of Georgetown and Conway on Highway 701 at Yauhannah 

Bluff. The facility will offer opportunities for information, interpretation, and environmental education. 

Waccamaw NWR presently is accessible by boat and lacks facilities and signage except for boundary 

signs – the most visible indication of the national wildlife refuge. No refuge roads are open for the 

public’s use at this time. 

Partnerships and Volunteers 

Waccamaw NWR currently has an active volunteer program, but it is not formally managed. 

Volunteers are recruited informally by word of mouth and by walk-ins. Individuals assist the refuge 

staff in activities such as grass mowing, boundary posting, habitat management, and many other 

refuge management needs. No formal training is provided to the volunteers. 

Waccamaw NWR enjoys active, productive partnerships with a number of agencies, institutions, and 

individuals. Among these are the SCDNR, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), SEWEE Association, 

Historic Ricefield Association (HRA), and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force (of the NAWMP). 

The refuge is part of a dynamic and growing partnership with the SEWEE Association, which also 

supports programs at the Cape Romain and ACE Basin NWRs. According to a signed MOA, the 

SEWEE Association is the Friends Group for Waccamaw NWR. The Association is working to bring 

members and volunteers in Georgetown and Horry counties into this organization so that they can 

help Waccamaw NWR with its needs. The SEWEE Association also supports the environmental 

education at Waccamaw NWR and provides financial and technical support while serving as a liaison 

between the refuge and local communities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

In accordance with Service guidelines and National Environmental Policy Act recommendations, 

public involvement has been a crucial factor throughout the development of this CCP for Waccamaw 

NWR. It has been written with input and assistance from interested citizens, conservation 

organizations, and employees of local and state agencies. The participation of these stakeholders 

and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for the refuge. The 

Service, as a whole, and the refuge staff, in particular, are very grateful to each one who has 

contributed time, expertise, and ideas to the planning process. The staff remains impressed by the 

passion and commitment of so many individuals for the lands and waters administered by the refuge. 

The first step in developing the CCP was a biological review that took place in June 2003. The review 

team included eight Service biologists and managers and non-Service managers/biologists. The review 

involved on-site evaluations to help the refuge meet its purpose and determine the role(s) it could play 

regarding wildlife needs/objectives at various geographical scales (i.e., 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 of the refuge. The 

Biological Review report (USFWS 2003) includes background information on the refuge that was 

evaluated by reviewers, as well as the recommendations developed by the review team. In keeping 

with the terminology and expected outcomes of the CCP process, these recommendations took the 

form of goals, objectives, and strategies for the management of the refuge’s biological resources. 

These preliminary goals, objectives, and strategies were studied by the planning team and modified 

and adapted for this CCP. 

A visitor services’ review was conducted in 2005 in preparation for the upcoming CCP. The 3-member 

review team consisted of Service personnel from the Region – Visitor Services and Outreach, a 

representative of Cape Romain NWR, and a representative of Santee NWR. The review team met with 

refuge staff to discuss the visitor services’ program. The staff explained what the visitor services’ program 

is currently doing to provide recreational, educational, and interpretive opportunities on the refuge. The 

refuge manager and assistant refuge manager conducted a tour with the review team of all the different 

public use areas on the refuge. After the refuge tour and discussions with some of the staff and the 

SEWEE Director, the review team met to discuss the current status of the programs and to make 

recommendations. On the final day of the review, the team presented the recommendations to the staff 

and had an open discussion of the pros and cons of the various recommendations. Later the team 

prepared a Visitor Services’ report (USFWS 2005), with a number of recommendations for improving and 

expanding upon visitor services’ facilities and operations. 

The nucleus of the CCP planning team itself – composed of the refuge manager and a contractor with 

experience in preparing CCP’s – met for the first time on February 1-2, 2006, for a tour of the refuge 

and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and 

opportunities. At this time, the planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and 

prepared a preliminary schedule and plans for public involvement. 

Scoping continued with two open houses and public meetings on May 1-2, 2006. Since the refuge 

itself does not have meeting or conference facilities, the scoping meetings were held at the J.B. Beck 

Administrative and Education Center in Georgetown and at the Coastal Carolina University Center for 

Marine and Wetland Studies in Conway. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the open 
46 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

house and scoping meeting on each day. Attendees were able to mingle at leisure with refuge staff, 

ask questions, provide comments, and look at exhibits and maps on hand. Contractor Eveline Martin, 

a consultant with Mangi Environmental Group, tasked to assist the Service in its planning effort, gave 

a PowerPoint slide presentation and talk on the CCP process. The public was able to express its 

concerns about the refuge and ideas and suggestions for its future management in writing on a 

comment form that was distributed to attendees and other interested parties. Written comments 

could either be submitted right at the meeting, mailed subsequently, or sent via e:mail. A total of 82 

comment forms and letters was received during scoping for the Draft CCP/EA. 

Comments from 94 individuals were received during the public review of the Draft CCP/EA in 

February and March 2008. Some of these individuals commented as private citizens, others as 

members of non-governmental organizations, while still others as officials affiliated with given nongovernmental organizations. These comments are addressed in Appendix IV. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES 

The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and wildlife 

protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered species. 

Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as applicable local 

ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining public input 

through two public open house/scoping meetings, open planning team meetings, comment forms, 

e:mail communication, and personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were 

considered; however, some issues important to the public fall outside the scope of the decision to be 

made within this planning process. The team has considered all issues that were raised through this 

planning process, and has developed a CCP that attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding 

important issues. The team identified those issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are 

most significant to the refuge. A summary of the significant issues follows. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

y Provide a complex of intensively and passively managed wood duck habitat. 

y Maintain high-quality habitat for priority landbirds associated with mature forested wetlands. 

y Provide high-quality breeding marshbird habitat. 

y Provide secure nesting sites and ample foraging habitat for long-legged waders. 

y Provide both northbound and southbound shorebird foraging sites. 

y Provide secure nesting and roosting sites for bald eagles. 

y Reduce deer herd density to improve herd health and improve habitat quality for other 

species. 

y Encourage private landowners to provide additional moist-soil habitat and greentree reservoirs 

to complement the refuge habitat management programs. 

y Control invasive species and protect native communities by keeping canals and water delivery 

systems functional. 

y Develop a management plan for the control of feral hogs. 

y Perpetuate, restore, and research longleaf pine ecosystems. 

y Maintain a healthy fishery in the waters associated with the refuge. 

y Use prescribed fire as a land management tool. 

y Keep Waccamaw NWR a sanctuary for protecting and managing threatened and endangered 

species. 

y Make the recovery of the redbreast sunfish a high priority. 

y Protect resources 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

y Regulate jet skis and other significant recreational/social issues affecting wildlife. 

y Restrict the type of boat traffic allowed. Boat wakes and noise are disruptive and damaging; 

would like to see a ban on jet skis and perhaps a speed limit on boats over 20 feet. 

y Disallow activities in the refuge that are incompatible with its use, such as road building and 

residential and commercial development. 

y Continue to cooperate with the South Carolina Department of Transportation on the Highway 

701 connector (road for evacuation route) and other new road construction-related issues that 

may affect the refuge. 

y Keep the refuge as it was intended, not an easy target for road building because of its remote 

location. Concern was expressed about the possible road that may be planned that would cut 

through the refuge. 

y Keep the refuge clean and non-littered. 

y Safeguard drinking water quality. 

y Make encroaching development an important issue. 

y Determine the effects of sea level rise associated with global warming on refuge habitats and 

wildlife. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

y Establish an environmental education and interpretation center to provide ongoing programs 

for children and adults to learn about and appreciate the refuge's flora and fauna. 

y Develop a portable exhibit to be used in the current refuge entryway for visitors stopping at the 

office after hours. The exhibit can also be used as a loaner for special events. 

y Involve SEWEE in the development of interpretive media concepts. Conduct a design 

workshop to develop conceptual drawings and narratives. 

y Concentrate initial efforts to develop facilities and programs at the Yauhannah Bluff Visitor Center 

site. After annual funding is secured, expand programs to include the Causey Tract (with build up 

to include the International Paper lands as they are acquired) and the Haulover site. 

y Increase wildlife observation opportunities by enhancing the trail system, adding interpretive 

panels and brochures. 

y Collect recreation fees for quota hunts, and any additional activities that qualify to be in the 

recreation fee program. 

y Place kiosks at three boat launches and develop a “welcome/waiting” shelter at the Cox Ferry 

Lake Landing. 

y Expand youth hunts to possibly include deer, small game, and/or waterfowl. 

y Consider establishing a hunt for persons with disabilities as additional parcels of land (which are not 

island parcels) are acquired. The Yauhannah Tract may lend itself to this type of hunt program. 

y Work with SCDNR and establish zones for various boat types and motor horse powers to help 

achieve a balance of allowed uses, to reduce user conflicts, and to reduce and minimize 

conflicts and wildlife disturbance. 

y Host annual youth fishing day during National Fishing Week or National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

y Improve access for bank fishing on the refuge for anglers with disabilities. 

y Develop interpretive signs at Yauhannah Landing wildlife trail. 

y Construct an observation/photography blind at Causey Tract. 

y Establish and develop canoe trail route and post signs. 

y Establish an “Adopt a swallow-tailed kite” program. 

y Conduct environmental education programs for students visiting the refuge and visitor center. 

These are one-time field trips which are requested by teachers (not associated with Earth 

Stewards or the EIC programs). 

y Maintain the area's excellent hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. 
48 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

y Continue to foster partnerships. Develop marketing and communication strategies for 

fostering fund raising and potential partnerships. 

y Continue land acquisition. 

y Hire a park ranger/staff to manage tvisitor services, visitor center, outreach, and volunteer 

programs. 

y Hire a park ranger that would be dedicated to public use programs. 

y Develop a volunteer program to assist with: greeting and orienting the public; conducting 

routine office assignments and maintenance activities around the Yauhannah Bluff; 

conducting environmental education programs; and seeking grants. 

y Partner with Coastal Carolina University and/or Horry County Technical College to develop an 

on-going internship program for students in environmental studies program. 

WILDERNESS REVIEW 

All lands and waters of the Refuge System outside of Alaska and not currently designated as 

wilderness are subject to a wilderness review. Wilderness reviews are conducted concurrent with a 

CCP, and a summary of the review is incorporated in the CCP. The purpose of the wilderness review 

is to identify and recommend for congressional designation Refuge System lands and waters that 

merit inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The wilderness review process is conducted in three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. 

The inventory phase is a broad look at the planning area to identify lands and waters that meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness and warrant further study for wilderness designation. These criteria 

include every area of at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or roadless areas sufficient in size to 

make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; or be a roadless island of 

any size. Areas meeting these criteria are considered wilderness inventory areas. Wilderness 

inventory areas are then further evaluated for naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and special or supplemental values. Those areas that meet these criteria are 

identified as wilderness study areas. 

In the study phase, each wilderness study area is evaluated, through careful analysis of 

alternative management options, to determine its suitability for wilderness designation. The 

analysis considers all values (e.g., ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, symbolic), 

resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), refuge uses, and refuge management 

activities within the wilderness study areas, and includes an evaluation of whether they can be 

effectively managed to preserve their wilderness character. 

 

The findings of the study determine whether a wilderness study area, or portion thereof, will be 

recommended for designation as wilderness. Wilderness recommendations are forwarded or 

reported from the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service through the Secretary of the Interior and 

the President to Congress in a wilderness study report. 

The Service inventoried refuge lands within the planning area and found one area (Bull Island) that 

meets the eligibility criteria for a wilderness study area as defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, 

the CCP includes an objective and strategies related to wilderness stewardship. The results of the 

wilderness review are included in Appendix VIII. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats by considering the needs of all resources in decisionmaking. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge management. 

A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, 

and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife 

and habitat conservation. The above-mentioned Act identified hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation as priority wildlife-dependent 

public uses of the Refuge System. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation are therefore emphasized in this CCP. 

Described below is the CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This management 

direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to achieve the refuge vision. 

Four alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: A - Current Management Direction 

(No Action); B - Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1; C - Habitat Restoration/ 

Enhancements on All Units; and D - Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services. Each of 

these alternatives were described in the environmental assessment, which was Section B of the 

Draft CCP. The Service chose Alternative D (Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services) 

as the preferred management direction. 

Implementing the preferred alternative will result in important benefits to both wildlife and habitat, as 

well as to the visiting public, within the refuge proper, its acquisition boundary, and the wider Winyah 

Bay and Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers ecosystems. Additional lands will be acquired and 

managed, more intensive habitat management through such means as prescribed fire will be 

conducted, environmental education and interpretation will be expanded through a new visitor center 

and in the community at large, and natural resources will receive greater protection. 

VISION 

Waccamaw NWR was established in 1997 to protect and manage diverse habitat components within an 

important coastal river ecosystem for the benefit of threatened and endangered species, freshwater and 

anadromous fish, migratory birds, and forest wildlife, including a wide array of plants and animals 

associated with bottomland hardwood habitats. Its intent was also to provide compatible wildlifedependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, for present and future generations. 

Since its establishment, the refuge has focused on land acquisition within the authorized 

acquisition boundary, including purchase of Bull Island, the Causey Tract, Yauhannah Bluff, and 

five tracts from International Paper, for a total of 10,590 acres acquired within the 54,000-acre 

acquisition boundary. In addition to these fee simple purchases, the refuge has cooperated 

closely with partners in the conservation and management of other lands within the refuge’s 

acquisition boundary. For example, the 9,100-acre Sandy Island was acquired by the South 

Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) and is managed jointly by The Nature 

Conservancy, a non-profit, non-governmental group, and SCDNR. In addition, 8,000 acres were 

acquired by SCDOT from Georgia Pacific (a forest products company) and transferred to SCDNR 
50 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

for management. A signed lease agreement between the Service and SCDNR includes this tract 

in the refuge proper and has facilitated further cooperation. Overall, approximately 75 percent of 

the lands and habitat identified within the refuge’s acquisition boundary has now been protected 

by the Service, partnering agencies, and private landowners. 

The refuge will develop an administrative office and visitor center on Yauhannah Bluff and other public 

use facilities on the Causey Tract. These facilities will enable the refuge to expand its innovative 

environmental education and interpretive programs, which have been actively supported by the local 

community and the school district. The refuge has also honored its commitment to promote hunting and 

fishing opportunities on newly acquired properties and will make a concerted effort to maintain these 

traditional uses. Waccamaw NWR will continue to utilize creative partnerships to purchase valuable 

habitats from willing sellers within the authorized acquisition boundary. Each of these proposed 

endeavors will assist Waccamaw NWR in achieving the purposes for which it was established. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public and are 

presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of the 

Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Waccamaw NWR. 

The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within the next 15 years. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal: In support of national and regional plans, promote management actions that will support viable 

populations of native fish and wildlife species associated with blackwater and alluvial forested wetlands, 

with special emphasis on migratory birds, black bear, and threatened and endangered species. 

Discussion: The waters, marshes, and dense bottomland forests of Waccamaw NWR attract and 

sustain populations of freshwater and anadromous fish, migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory 

birds, and forest wildlife, including a wide variety of plants and animals associated with bottomland 

hardwood habitats. In addition, the refuge provides an actual or prospective home for certain plants 

and animals that are listed by the Service as threatened or endangered. Prominent birds and 

mammals, such as the bald eagle, wood stork, swallow-tailed kite, and black bear, are found on the 

refuge, as are many less conspicuous vertebrates and invertebrates. 

Objective: Migratory Waterfowl 

Within 5 years of CCP implementation, improve wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 600 

acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology through plugging drainage ditches and leveling pine plantation 

beds. Also conduct restoration and enhancement on historic rice fields on approximately 400 acres 

in Units 2 and 3 over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Discussion: Coastal South Carolina has long been noted for its abundance of diverse and quality 

over-wintering habitats and their significance to migratory waterfowl. The Winyah Bay drainage area, 

which includes the entire refuge acquisition boundary, stands out as one of the most extensive, intact 

wetland complexes in the southeastern United States. The wetland habitats in the refuge acquisition 

area range from forested, riverine floodplains to an extensive freshwater deltaic fan. The deltaic fan, 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

in turn, contains a diversity of habitats, such as managed wetlands, abandoned and unmanaged tidal 

ricefields, creeks, and flats. Acre-for-acre, the managed wetlands of the Winyah Bay Focus Area 

winter more ducks than any comparable habitat in South Carolina. In addition to over-wintering 

habitats, the Waccamaw River serves as a flight corridor for waterfowl migrating along the coastal 

wetland wintering grounds. The forested wetlands, where mature trees are present, also provide 

important nesting habitat for wood ducks and hooded mergansers. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct monthly aerial waterfowl surveys (Nov-Feb) for freshwater marsh and forested 

wetland habitats. 

y Conduct bi-monthly ground waterfowl surveys (Oct-Mar) for all managed wetland complexes 

on the refuge. 

y As appropriate, consult with other refuges with experience in modifying hydrology by plugging 

ditches or leveling pine plantation beds to expedite each action and improve prospects for 

success. 

Objective: Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Within 10 years of CCP implementation, increase scrub/shrub habitat by approximately 600 acres 

on Unit 1. Commence formal surveys of swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s warblers within 5 

years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: The refuge contains extensive, contiguous floodplain forested wetlands interspersed with 

a diversity of habitat components, such as isolated hummocks, remnant dikes, and a natural ridge 

and swale topography. This mosaic of habitats has a direct bearing on specific breeding nongame 

birds, particularly neotropical migratory birds, and their presence and use of existing habitats. Point 

count surveys have further demonstrated the importance of this wetland habitat diversity to several 

high-priority species, such as swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s warblers. Additionally, contiguous 

forested wetland ecosystems represented within the Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw watersheds 

undoubtedly serve as important habitat for transient neotropical migratory species, as well as feeding, 

foraging, and nesting habitat for other temperate migratory and resident species. 

The Southeast Partners in Flight (PIF) Working Group, a consortium of state and federal agencies, 

conservation organizations, and industrial and non-industrial landowners have worked over the last 

decade to establish priorities for the southeastern physiographic areas. These priorities are then 

stepped down to establish goals and objectives for each state. Within South Carolina, PIF 

cooperators have reviewed South Atlantic Coastal Plain priorities for each major drainage area. 

Within the Pee Dee-Waccamaw watershed, PIF has identified specific population and spatial goals 

for swallow-tailed kites; and black-throated green, Swainson’s, and prothonotary warblers. 

For swallow-tailed kites, PIF has targeted one population of between 80-100 pairs for the Pee DeeWaccamaw drainage. This is part of a regional target for at least 13 populations of swallow-tailed 

kites within the southeast’s forested floodplain systems outside of peninsular Florida. At least 

100,000 acres of mostly mature forested wetlands are known to support 80-100 pairs of swallowtailed kites within coastal plain systems. Swallow-tailed kites appear to do well where these largely 

forested areas are under active management, as they feed over open areas, including clearcuts, but 

are not found in healthy numbers in systems where much of the landscape has been converted to 

farmland or development. Kites also appear to require small patches of tall trees (90-100 feet in 

height) overlooking the forested floodplain for nesting. Protection and improved management 
52 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

targeting future nest site characteristics within the refuge would provide an important anchor for 

increasing the stability of a now small swallow-tailed kite population within the Winyah Bay area. 

Within the Pee Dee-Waccamaw drainage, spatial objectives for black-throated green, prothonotary, 

and Swainson’s warblers would be covered by spatial objectives of the swallow-tailed kite. However, 

the habitats required by these species do differ. PIF’s population goals for the entire Pee DeeWaccamaw watershed for these species are: 

y Black-throated green warbler: at least 1 healthy population 

y Swainson’s warbler: at least 5 healthy populations 

y Prothonotary warbler: at least 5 healthy populations 

Spatial requirements for supporting a healthy Swainson's warbler population appears to be somewhere 

between 6,000 and 10,000 acres and should be adequately covered within the spatial objectives for 

swallow-tailed kite as described above. Swainson's warblers occur most frequently at the drier end of the 

forested wetland continuum, where dense understories of switchcane and other understory plants are 

best supported. The zone most optimal for supporting Swainson's warblers coincides with forested 

wetlands that historically were most likely to be converted to other uses (e.g., farmland and industrial 

pine). Where timber production is not a priority, as on the refuge, small clearcuts (from 1⁄2 -acre to 5 

acres) within a mostly mature forested system can produce excellent Swainson’s warbler habitat as 

thickly vegetated regeneration advances between the sapling and the pole stage. The preferred habitat 

for Swainson’s warblers corresponds closely to Deciduous Forested Wetlands--Temporarily and 

Seasonally Flooded Tidal. Within the refuge acquisition boundary, 4,810 acres of this forested wetland 

type is found mostly around Bull Island (along elevated levees) and along the Great Pee Dee drainage. 

There does not appear to be a high-priority need for active forest management on most of Waccamaw 

NWR, at least for forested wetland-dependent migratory birds. Perhaps the most important 

management need is to ensure that substantial dense understory conditions are maintained on the 

temporarily seasonally flooded stands along the Great Pee Dee brownwater section of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Annually survey for nesting swallow-tailed kites. 

y Identify forest stands considered potentially suitable for supporting dense patches of 

understory vegetation and determine whether some active management may be needed to 

open canopies. 

y Work with adjacent landowners in both swallow-tailed kite surveys and managing stands for 

Swainson’s warbler, while also searching for habitats that may support black-throated green 

warblers. 

y Resist calls to impound forested wetlands for developing greentree reservoirs in areas that 

should support Swainson’s warblers and other forest understory associated species. 

y Develop and implement point count surveys in representative forest habitats in association 

with South Carolina/Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program in Charleston. 

Objective: Black Bear 

Target refuge acquisition and habitat restoration efforts within wetland corridors to improve 

connectivity between bear populations. Also conduct annual surveys of black bears within 5 years of 

CCP implementation, in addition to enlisting public participation in gathering sightings. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Discussion: Temporarily flooded bottomland forests provide ideal habitat for many species of 

mammals. Food and cover are abundant and diverse, and a variety of mammalian species are 

present. This includes South Carolina’s largest native omnivore, the black bear, which is primarily 

associated with upland forests joined by extensive forested wetland corridors. There are two 

populations of the American black bear in South Carolina, one located in the mountainous region and 

the other in the northern coastal plain. The coastal population, conservatively estimated at 200-300 

bears, occurs primarily in Georgetown and Horry counties. 

The best habitat for black bears is managed forest dominated by hardwoods and containing a variety 

of mast-producing tree and shrub species intermixed with early successional vegetation, such as 

blackberries and pokeberries. Bears typically require extensive, rugged country with limited road 

systems to reduce human/bear interaction and dense thickets, swamps, and bays. The bulk of their 

omnivorous diet consists of hard and soft mast, insects, animal matter, and succulent plants. 

Black bears need large expanses of forest interspersed with early successional areas which provide 

food and escape cover. Early successional areas also furnish a backup source of food during poor 

mast-producing years. A minimum of 5,000 acres of such habitat is required before bear 

management practices may be of any benefit. Waccamaw NWR and surrounding wildlands more 

than meet this minimum requirement, but protecting corridors between larger patches of habitat will 

be essential to conserving bear populations in fast-growing Georgetown and Horry counties. 

Strategies: 

y Consult authorities on black bear management, including the SCDNR Wildlife Management 

Section’s black bear management strategies at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/publications/pdf/bear.pdf . 

y In managing hardwood forests like those that predominate at Waccamaw NWR, 110-year-old 

rotations are adequate when den capability is retained. 

y Stands selected for harvest should be small (no more than 25 acres) and widely dispersed. 

y Retain at least 5 to 10 percent old growth in protective zones and use inclusions. 

y On wet sites where bedding and drainage are applied, retain large, dense titi bays, pocosins, 

bottomland hardwoods, and swamps (up to one-third of the unit area) for escape and foraging 

cover. 

y Retain gum-cypress swamps. 

y Retain trees with large cavities (openings 5 inches in diameter or more) whenever they occur, 

with some sheltering stems around. 

y Protect 300-foot-wide streamside zones. 

y Do not regenerate more than10 percent of a management unit in any 10-year period. 

y Manage timber for a combination of 65-70 percent oak-hardwood mast producing age and 20-

30 percent early successional growth. This provides abundant soft mast and herbaceous 

foods at early stages of stand development. 

y Conduct thinnings; thinnings encourage seed production by stimulating the development of 

full, vigorous crowns and by maintaining suitable understories. (Possible benefits must be 

weighed against the detrimental effects of disturbance and road construction.) 

y In areas of thin understory development, thin early and as frequently as silviculturally practical. 

y Avoid use of herbicides and retain important mast-producing understory species. 

y Do not develop pure stands through intermediate cuts. 

y Prescribed burning cycles of 3-5 years in appropriate habitats reduce large sprouts to new 

growth and remove much of the “rough” that suppresses desirable herbaceous growth. In 
54 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

general, burning improves palatability and nutrition of understory plants and stimulates some 

types of fruit production. 

y In stands selected for harvesting, retain and release some groups of large diameter trees with 

the potential to develop elevated cavities in remote areas. (One of the main aims of bear 

management is to maintain the availability of suitable winter dens.) 

y Limit access to areas managed for bear, as well as surrounding areas. There should be a 

maximum of one mile of road per five square miles of habitat. Close roads using gates. 

y Close and reseed logging roads following harvests. 

Objective: Threatened and Endangered Species 

Proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 will enhance existing wood stork rookery. Restore wood 

stork feeding areas on Unit 3 and red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. 

Discussion: Six (formerly eight including the peregrine falcon and bald eagle, since delisted) federally 

listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur or potentially occur within the 

proposed boundary of the refuge. These include three species of birds, one species of fish, and 

three species of plants. They are as follows:

 

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are 

known to nest in the refuge acquisition boundary, with the principal population residing in the mature 

pine forest of Sandy Island. Specific data on this population and its status are lacking because the 

area was privately owned until recently and access to conduct surveys was not provided. 

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) - Endangered. Wood stork nesting has been observed within 

the refuge acquisition boundary; however, there are no rookeries currently on refuge lands. The 

contiguous mature blocks of wetland ecosystems provide suitable habitat for wood storks to nest, 

forage, and roost. Wood storks have been observed foraging and loafing on refuge lands and 

throughout the refuge acquisition boundary. Nesting has not been documented immediately adjacent 

to one refuge tract. 

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - Endangered. The shortnose sturgeon is found in 

the rivers and creeks. 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia)- Endangered. Although not known to occur in the refuge 

acquisition boundary, potential habitat is present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi)- Endangered. Although not known to occur in the refuge 

acquisition boundary, potential habitat is present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) - Endangered. Although not known to occur in the 

refuge acquisition boundary, potential habitat is present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas. 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – (Recently De-listed as Threatened). The number of 

occupied breeding areas for bald eagles in South Carolina was at a low of 13 in 1977, when studies 

began, and has increased to 181 in 2003, fledging 224 young (Murphy, SCDNR personal 

correspondence 2003). The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually 

nesting near bodies of water where it feeds (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b). There is one 

documented nest within in the refuge acquisition boundary immediately adjacent to a refuge tract. 

Eagles have also been documented feeding and roosting in the area. In addition, a few migratory 

bald eagles have been noted moving through the area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Species of Concern: Ten species of plants and animals, considered by the Service to be Species of 

Concern, are known to occur or potentially occur within the refuge acquisition boundary. Species of 

concern are those species for which available data suggest that a proposal to list the species may be 

appropriate, but conclusive data on vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support 

listing action. These species include the Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis); Rafinesque’s bigeared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii); Southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius); Carolina pygmy 

sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei); eulophia (pteroglossapis ecristata); Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier); 

pondspice (Listea aestivalis); Carolina birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea caroliniana); Carolina grass-ofparnassus (Parnassia caroliniana); and Well’s pixie moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia). 

Strategies: 

y Conduct a thorough assessment of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) population size and 

condition of its habitat. 

y Use prescribed fire and thinning to establish and maintain RCW habitat on the refuge’s pinedominated areas with sandy soils. 

y Provide for secure nesting rookery and feeding sites for wood storks by implementing the 

Southeast Regional Wood Stork management Guidelines around known nesting sites. 

y Provide for secure nesting and roosting sites for bald eagles by implementing the Southeast 

Regional Bald Eagle Management Guidelines around known nest sites. 

Objective: Wood Duck 

Improve brood habitat on 10 acres in Unit 1 within 7 years of CCP implementation. Improve brood 

and wintering habitat on 300 acres in Units 2 and 3 within 10 years of CCP implementation. Increase 

number of maintained wood duck nest boxes up to a total of 50 within 5 years of CCP 

implementation. Establish a long-term banding site within 7 years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: The Southeast Region of the Service encourages and promotes management activities to 

increase wood duck productivity on Service lands. Additionally, the region places high priority on banding 

objectives for wood ducks. Wood duck nest boxes can make a positive contribution to the wellbeing of 

this species, if they are properly constructed, located and erected, predator proofed, and managed 

(maintained). Research studies have documented a lack of suitable natural cavities in the southeast. 

Waccamaw NWR provides year-round nesting and brood-rearing habitat for wood ducks. The 

complex of open water, tidal rice fields, forested wetlands, bottomland hardwoods, beaver ponds, and 

scrub/shrub and aquatic vegetation on Waccamaw NWR provides the necessary habitat for the life 

cycle requirements of wood ducks. There is an abundance of wood ducks on Waccamaw NWR 

according to Service personnel and SCDNR personnel. The Sandy Island Unit of Waccamaw NWR 

likely serves as an important wood duck roost and/or sanctuary. Waccamaw NWR does have a wood 

duck nest box program; however, a wood duck banding program has yet to be established. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct aerial surveys annually during fall/winter to determine numbers and specific locations 

of wood duck roost(s). 

y Erect and maintain “Area Closed to Hunting” signs in the general area of the roosts. 

y Become familiar with and follow the Service’s handbook entitled, “Increasing Wood Duck 

Productivity-Guidelines for Management and Banding for Refuge Lands (Southeast Region)” 

updated in 2003 by the Division of Migratory Birds. 
56 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y Erect nest boxes in refuge-owned tidal wetlands throughout Units 1, 2, and 3 in line with the 

budgetary and personnel capability to assure annual maintenance, repair, and 

checking/refurbishing of boxes. 

y Maintain dense scrub/shrub vegetation, retain beaver ponds and manage for stands of 

emergent or floating vegetation (50-70 percent vegetated: 30-50 percent open water) in 

managed wetland habitats. 

y Integrate waterbird objectives and strategies for king rail, least bittern, and purple gallinule 

habitat where feasible with habitat needs for wood duck broods. 

Objective: Colonial Nesting Water Birds 

Proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 within five years of CCP implementation will enhance 

opportunities for colonial nesting water bird rookeries. Restore colonial water bird feeding areas on 

Unit 3 within seven years of CCP implementation. Inventory, map, and monitor on an annual basis 

within five years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: Generally speaking, colonial nesting water birds have plenty of habitats available on the 

refuge, but the issue of how much disturbance these nesting birds can tolerate is a key to protecting 

the species. If the refuge staff find nesting areas at remote sites (from the standpoint of public use), 

it may be worthwhile to occasionally monitor the site(s) for potential disturbance problems and make 

entry adjustments accordingly. In other situations where colonies form and there is existing public 

use nearby, there is less reason for concern. The main issue is change in public use around 

established colony sites. 

Species of conservation interest in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain include little blue heron, 

tricolored heron, black-crowned night-heron, yellow-crowned night-heron, wood stork, and white ibis. 

Daily observations of these species, their numbers, and use of the refuge would provide valuable 

information for guiding future management decisions, again in line with what is needed for brooding 

wood duck and later use by migrating and wintering waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

y Provide for both secure nesting sites and ample foraging habitat. 

y Locate nesting sites for colonial waterbird species each year and determine if special 

measures are needed to reduce disturbance. 

y Determine use of managed wetlands and flooded agriculture during post-breeding periods, 

concurrently with southbound shorebird surveys. 

Objective: Marshbirds 

Continue to maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds. Acquire approximately 

300 acres of tidal or managed wetlands in Units 2 and 3 within seven years of CCP implementation. 

Conduct intensive marshbird surveys during nesting season. 

Discussion: All of the priority marshbirds that are found at Waccamaw NWR require tall emergent 

vegetation as part of their habitat. All are breeding species, except American bittern. Breeding 

populations of pied-billed grebe and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest, 

even though wintering populations are considered secure. Of the marshbirds of conservation 

interest, king rail is of highest concern, followed by least bittern and purple gallinule. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Most waterfowl-oriented management, especially for wintering populations, is geared away from 

promoting tall emergent vegetation. Tall emergent vegetation, including cattail, big bulrush, and other 

species can be aggressive and take over impoundments without careful control. However, the 

number of species that require tall emergent vegetation suggests that some degree of middle ground 

is required to cover both the needs of waterfowl and priority marshbirds. 

During the last several decades in the eastern United States, overall loss of freshwater emergent 

wetlands has been underway as development pressures increase, especially away from immediate 

coastlines. The king rail, in particular, is thought to have declined dramatically in inland areas and is 

now considered to be a species in potentially serious trouble away from coastal areas. The least 

bittern likely has never been common in the inner coastal plain, but is likely also suffering from 

freshwater wetland losses in recent decades. The purple gallinule is close to the northern edge of its 

distribution at Waccamaw NWR, but is also a species that may be in decline locally, if not regionally. 

All these factors considered together suggest that Waccamaw NWR is well-positioned to support 

healthy habitat for these and other marshbird species, when in the surrounding areas such habitat is 

now likely very scattered and in decline. 

Most of the available habitat at the refuge is supported in former rice fields, where dikes have 

deteriorated and water flow is completely influenced by river water levels. Nevertheless, there 

appears to be substantial tall emergent habitat available, which should support at least king rails and 

least bitterns in healthy numbers. 

The king rail, by being the highest priority marshbird, may serve as an umbrella species for the other 

priority marshbirds. It may be the most habitat-specialized of the species nesting in tall emergent 

vegetation. Its nests are constructed near the soil, usually where standing water depths are about 10 

inches. Higher water levels have the potential to flood out the species and little or no standing water 

potentially exposes nests to greater depredation pressure from raccoons, etc. These conditions 

should support nesting least bitterns as well, with nests usually placed higher in the vegetation, 

making this species more tolerant of deeper flooding. 

Density estimates for breeding pairs of king rails are extremely variable and more work is needed 

here to allow us to establish specific population and habitat objectives. However, from the data that 

do exist, it appears realistic that to support one pair at least five acres of tall emergent vegetation are 

required. Other estimates suggest 20 acres may be necessary to support a pair, but there is no 

information to determine the relative quality of habitat or the accuracy of these estimates. Assuming 

that a minimum of five acres and a maximum of 20 acres is necessary to support at least one pair 

and all the marshland acres are in suitable condition for king rails (see below), then somewhere 

between 31-126 pairs of king kails could be supported at Waccamaw NWR. At the low end of habitat 

area, close to 100 percent should be in tall emergent vegetation with water on the surface but no 

more than 10 inches in depth, preferably with some topographic variation within the patch. 

Small patches of tall emergent marshes may suffer from elevated depredation pressure, so more 

emphasis should be given to maintaining suitable marshland in larger patches wherever possible. In 

these larger patches, it is desirable to manage and maintain some proportion of open water and short 

emergent vegetation. Such conditions should also be favored by breeding pied-billed grebes, purple 

gallinules, and American coots. 
58 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Focus specific attention to promoting tall emergent vegetation in a way that would support a 

sizeable breeding king rail (between 40-180 pairs) and least bittern population spread across 

all four units. 

y Promote 50-70 percent in tall emergent vegetation, with remaining 30-50 percent in open 

water, floating vegetation, and submergent aquatic vegetation in support of breeding purple 

gallinules, pied-billed grebes, and American coots, as well as brooding wood duck and 

wintering waterfowl. 

y Reinitiate marshbird call-back survey points used by SCDNR in the early 1990s and contribute 

to ongoing secretive marshbird survey data presently coordinated by Courtney Conway, BRDUniversity of Arizona. 

Objective: White-tailed Deer 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, reduce deer herd density to improve herd health and improve 

habitat quality for other species. 

Discussion: Based on the first deer population health evaluation completed in July 2005, the herd 

was found to be in excess of nutritional carrying capacity based on the syndrome of 

parasitism/malnutrition, which tends to be largely dependent on deer density. In addition, when 

habitat carrying capacity is exceeded, competition for limited food resources results in over-browsing 

by deer. Severe over-browsing alters plant species composition, distribution, and abundance, and 

reduces understory structural diversity. Ultimately, these changes may negatively affect other 

mammal species and bird species that use the understory for nesting and/or foraging. 

Strategies: 

y Strive to maintain a well-balanced and healthy deer herd to prevent overpopulation and 

habitat destruction. 

y Maintain or increase current levels of deer hunts. 

y Enlist the services of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study Group to evaluate 

the overall deer herd health once every five years. 

y Collect age, sex, and general health data on samples of harvested deer to gauge overall herd 

condition. 

Objective: Reptiles and Amphibians 

Restore isolated wetlands within five years of CCP implementation to improve breeding areas of 

amphibians. Increase managed wetland habitats by approximately 300 acres on Unit 3 within seven 

years of CCP implementation that would benefit reptiles and amphibians. Within five years of CCP 

implementation, determine presence/absence of amphibian and reptile species on refuge. 

Discussion: About 100 species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur on the refuge or within 

the refuge acquisition boundary. Aquatic salamanders common to the area include the greater siren, 

eastern lesser siren, two-toed amphiuma, dwarf water dog, and broken-striped newt. The most 

common terrestrial salamanders are the marbled salamander and the slimy salamander. The most 

commonly encountered frogs are the bull frog, southern leopard frog, and green treefrog. The 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

American alligator is the largest reptile in the area. The brown water snake and eastern cottonmouth 

are probably the most widespread and abundant snakes. The Florida cooter and the yellowbelly 

slider are the most commonly encountered turtles. 

Strategy: 

y Conduct baseline amphibian/reptiles surveys using various methods (e.g., pitfall traps, cover 

boards, and vocalization surveys) for major refuge habitat types. 

Objective: Invasive Animal Species 

Increase control of feral hogs by hunting and trapping. 

Discussion: Feral hogs are currently limited to the lower portions of the refuge acquisition boundary 

and the most effective control has been through public hunting programs. The rooting and wallowing 

activities of feral hogs cause serious erosion to river banks and areas along streams. Wild hogs carry 

diseases such as swine brucellosis. They also compete for food with native wildlife, particularly mast 

such as acorns, which are an important food for both wild turkey and deer. Furthermore, feral hogs 

create wallows in wet sites, impinging on the integrity of the plant and soil community. 

Strategies: 

y Increase hunting pressure by the combination of deer and feral hog archery hunts and feral 

hog-only archery and muzzleloader hunts. 

y Continue as much as possible the practice of incidental take of feral hogs by Service 

personnel during performance of routine duties. 

y Explore the possibility of issuing special use permits for one or more local parties willing to 

trap feral hogs on the refuge. 

y Develop an outreach program that focuses on the impact and potential sources of invasive 

species like feral hogs and techniques for eradication. 

y Partner with other agencies and cooperate with neighbors to find and implement the most 

effective means of reducing and permanently controlling the feral hog population. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal: Conserve, manage, and enhance natural diversity, abundance, and ecological functions of 

refuge habitats in support of national and regional plans, with special emphasis on managing towards 

old growth bottomland forest habitats. 

Discussion: As shown in Table 1, Waccamaw NWR habitats are dominated by blackwater and 

alluvial forested wetlands, also described as semi-permanently flooded tidal deciduous forested 

wetlands and seasonally flooded tidal deciduous forested wetlands, respectively. These habitats 

form dense stands of vegetation throughout the floodplains of the Great Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and 

Waccamaw rivers and support diverse fauna, among them neotropical migratory birds, waterfowl, 

black bear, and threatened and endangered species. 

As a coastal refuge, Waccamaw NWR is potentially vulnerable to sea level rise (SLR) associated with 

global warming. Tidal marshes are among the most susceptible ecosystems to climate change, 

especially accelerated sea level rise. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 
60 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

predicts that average sea level will rise by 30 cm to 100 cm by 2100. Rising sea level may result in 

tidal marsh submergence and habitat migration as salt marshes transgress landward and replace 

tidal freshwater and brackish marsh (Ehman 2008). 

Waccamaw NWR and other national wildlife refuges in South Carolina and Georgia were recently the 

subject of a study that looked at how their habitats may change over the coming century (Ehman 

2008). Changes in tidal marsh area and habitat type in response to SLR were modeled using the 

Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) that simulates the dominant processes involved in 

wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term SLR. This study is included in the 

CCP as Appendix XII. 

Although likely SLR within the 15-year planning horizon of this CCP is relatively small, over time 

existing refuge vegetation communities are likely be subjected to greater salt stress and more tidal 

inundation as seawater moves up and inland. Marsh and swamp habitats, which are exquisitely 

sensitive to salinity and flooding patterns, will also shift upward and inland. The Service and 

Waccamaw NWR will employ adaptive management in responding to the challenges posed by 

climate change and SLR. 

Objective: Open Water 

Using adaptive management and partnerships, protect the refuge’s open water resources by 

monitoring water quality, contaminants, impacts of jet skis, and vegetation trends on open water 

throughout the refuge. 

Discussion: This category includes all non-vegetated freshwater bodies. Among these are bays, 

lakes, ponds, and rivers. Approximately 2,430 acres of open water occur in the refuge acquisition 

boundary. Most of the open water is regulated by the State of South Carolina. 

Water quality within the Great Pee Dee River Basin ranges from excellent to degraded, depending on 

local point source water discharges, non-point source runoff, and natural conditions. The refuge area 

itself is relatively undisturbed with no industrial activity. Thus, significant water quality issues and 

problems typical of industrialized areas are not expected to be present. However, some areas of 

localized water quality degradation may be present due to municipal wastewater discharges and the 

presence of environmental contaminants from upstream sources, such as leaking underground fuel 

storage tanks and old or illegal garbage dumps containing agricultural chemicals, discarded 

automotive batteries and oil products, and other contaminant-bearing substances. 

The rivers and tributaries within the study area are generally characterized by naturally occurring low 

levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) and low pH. While naturally occurring low DO and pH do not 

preclude a diverse and abundant endemic aquatic community, these characteristics do result in 

riverine systems that are much more sensitive to anthropogenic (human) inputs of pollutants and 

contaminants due to the systems' reduced assimilative capacity. Because of the Waccamaw River's 

naturally occurring low DO levels, the State of South Carolina has established a site-specific standard 

of 4 mg/l rather than 5 mg/l for the river. 

South Carolina's Water Classifications system establishes appropriate classified water uses to be 

achieved and protected. The Little Pee Dee River is classified as ORW (Outstanding Resource 

Waters), which are waters of exceptional recreational or ecological importance or of unusual value. The 

Great Pee Dee River is classified FW (freshwaters suitable for primary and secondary contact 

recreation, as a source for drinking water supply after conventional treatment, fishing, and industrial and 

agricultural uses) from the North Carolina State line to its confluence with Thoroughfare Creek. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Downstream of Thoroughfare Creek, the Great Pee Dee River is classified SB, tidal saltwaters suitable 

for primary and secondary contact recreation, crabbing, and fishing, except harvesting of clams, 

mussels, or oysters for market purposes or human consumption. Similarly, the Waccamaw River is 

classified FW upstream of U.S. Highway 17 Bridge and SHF (Shellfish Harvesting Waters) downstream. 

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control’s current water quality 

monitoring methodology has certain limitations, specifically no standards for such important water 

quality standards as nutrients, oil and grease, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), or dissolved solids in 

water or for mercury in sediments of coastal plain rivers like the Waccamaw. (These parameters are 

specifically listed in the strategies under this objective.) Furthermore, the current turbidity standard is 

much higher than recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to these 

parameters, measuring Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), alkalinity and chlorophyll is also 

recommended, but water quality standards are needed for these as well. 

In 1999, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL, or a calculation of maximum amount of a pollutant that 

a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards) for DO was approved by South 

Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control and the EPA for the lower reaches of the 

Waccamaw River. Since that time, there has been no publically available reassessment of whether 

implementation of this TMDL has improved water quality. 

The refuge is still relatively undisturbed due to its comparative isolation from the rapid growth and 

development of the Grand Strand. Nonetheless, non-point source urban runoff and coastal resort 

development pose recognizable threats to the area’s water quality and associated aquatic habitats. 

The extensive development of golf courses in the Grand Strand and Waccamaw Neck areas, 

particularly along the river systems that border the eastern side of the study area, has resulted in 

surface water contamination and runoff into adjacent aquatic habitats. 

Furthermore, the demand for clean water and wastewater treatment created by high-density resort 

development is placing additional burdens on the system. Three water intake facilities and two 

treated wastewater discharges are located within the refuge vicinity. The wastewater discharges, in 

particular, may potentially impact the water quality in the immediate vicinity of the discharges via the 

input of high levels of chlorine, fecal coliform, and nutrients, such as phosphorus and ammonia, as 

well as other pollutants and contaminants. 

Nationally, there is increasing consensus within the scientific and regulatory community that the 

purification processes of Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTPs) are not removing pharmaceuticals 

and personal care products adequately from effluent discharged into natural water bodies. As a 

result, aquatic life is now being subjected to chronic, albeit low, concentrations of chemicals that act 

as endocrine disruptors and mutagens. Feminization of male fish and amphibians leading to 

reproductive impairments have been observed in many cases around the country. 

Another potential impact associated with water service facilities is the fragmentation of forested 

wetlands from the clearing and ditching required for the installation and maintenance of water intake 

stations. As the coastal population grows, it is foreseeable that these demands have the potential to 

increase substantially, and may result in accumulative impacts on the associated aquatic habitats. 

One known contaminant in the area is mercury. In 1994, the South Carolina Department of Health 

and Environmental Control issued a fish consumption advisory for 13 rivers in South Carolina, 

including the Great and Little Pee Dee and Waccamaw rivers. This advisory was prompted by the 

detection of elevated levels of mercury in several species of fish throughout these river systems. 

Mercury concentrations in the fish from the Waccamaw and Pee Dee rivers are among the highest in 
62 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

the state and the country. Ironically, high levels of mercury have not been found in the river water or 

in riverbed sediment samples. No known identifiable source for this high level of mercury has been 

determined, and 29 other states are experiencing the same phenomenon. 

Strategies: 

y Consult and work with the Department of Health and Environmental Control to develop an 

appropriate water quality monitoring protocol for the refuge, which would include locations to 

be monitored, frequency, sampling methods, and parameters to be measured. 

y At a minimum, collect long-term data on the following water quality parameters: dissolved 

oxygen, suspended solids, dissolved solids, turbidity, pH, oil and grease, nutrients (nitrogen 

and phosphorus), alkalinity, chlorophyll, and mercury. Mercury concentrations should be 

monitored in water column, sediments, and fish tissues. 

y Work with the Deparatment of Health and Environmental Control to develop appropriate water 

quality standards for the Pee Dee, Little Pee Dee, and Waccamaw rivers. 

y Cooperate closely with agencies and non-governmental organizations to safeguard water 

quality in the refuge. 

y In monitoring and assessing jet skis impacts, select a minimum of two sites with similar 

physical attributes but varying by amount of jet skis use; the site with little or less jet skis use 

will serve as the experimental control. These sites should be observed over time and extent 

of jet skis use closely tracked. 

y Develop a protocol for conducting long-term monitoring of vegetation trends on open water at 

selected sites throughout the refuge. If invasive aquatic weeds infest an area beyond a 

chosen threshold, work with SCDNR to develop a control strategy. 

y Cooperate with partnering agencies in monitoring and mitigating the effects of SLR on open 

water habitats and biota. 

y Seek partnerships to allow for a permanent mercury deposition station to be located on the 

refuge to better track long-term changes in atmospheric mercury levels and trends in 

deposition rates. 

Objective: Freshwater Marshes 

Monitor water quality, jet skis impacts, and vegetation trends on freshwater marshes throughout the 

refuge using partnerships. 

Discussion: This category includes freshwater wetlands dominated by emergent vegetation. The 

majority of this habitat type is tidally influenced. Freshwater marshes remain flooded or saturated 

except during extremely dry weather cycles. Most of the freshwater marshes are crisscrossed with 

abandoned dikes and canals that were constructed for rice cultivation during the 18th and 19th

centuries. Plant diversity is greater here than within any other wetland habitat type in the refuge area. 

Among the most common species are giant cutgrass, pickerelweed, jewelweed, water parsnip, yellow 

pond-lily, water hemlock, arrowhead, rose mallow, soft-stem bulrush, cattail, white water lily, and 

alligator weed. Woody vegetation, such as tag alder, bald-cypress, buttonbush, tupelo, and black 

gum, may be interspersed on the old rice field levees. Approximately 2,923 acres of this habitat 

occur within the refuge acquisition area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

Strategies: 

y Consult and work with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control to 

develop an appropriate water quality monitoring protocol for the refuge, which would include 

locations to be monitored, frequency, sampling methods, and parameters to be measured. 

y At a minimum, collect long-term data on the following water quality parameters: dissolved 

oxygen, suspended solids, dissolved solids, turbidity, pH, oil and grease, nutrients (nitrogen 

and phosphorus) and mercury. Mercury concentrations should be monitored in water column, 

sediments, and fish tissues. 

y Cooperate with partnering agencies in monitoring and mitigating the effects of SLR on 

freshwater marsh flora and fauna. 

y In monitoring and assessing jet skis impacts, select a minimum of two sites with similar 

physical attributes but varying by amount of jet skis use; the site with little or less jet skis use 

will serve as the experimental control. These sites should be observed over time and extent 

of jet skis use closely tracked. 

Objective: Managed Wetlands 

Acquire, restore, develop, and improve moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) 

management, and infrastructure and monitoring on a total of 1,029 existing and newly acquired acres 

within 10 years of CCP implementation. 

Discussion: This category includes former rice field areas impounded by dikes or levees, where the 

hydrology is usually manipulated for the purpose of promoting plant species that are beneficial to 

waterfowl. The hydrological regimes are controlled by the impoundment managers. Most 

impoundments are managed for emergent vegetation, including waterfowl foods such as smartweed, 

fall panicum, wild millet(s), Asiatic and dayflower. Cultivated grains may be also planted during 

drawdown periods. Approximately 629 acres of managed wetlands occur within the southernmost 

portions of the refuge acquisition boundary. 

Strategies: 

y Acquire lands suitable for developing managed wetlands, to eventually provide 500 acres of 

well-managed moist-soil and/or permanent water impoundments to help meet migrating and 

wintering needs of dabbling and other wetland birds. 

y In the short term (1-5 years), provide at least one to three moist-soil impoundments (100-200 

acres) to help meet forage and special use requirements of dabbling ducks. “Prior converted” 

croplands that are adjacent to the boundary of the refuge, near refuge bottomland hardwoods 

and available from willing sellers, should be considered for meeting this objective. 

y In the long term (3-10 years), an additional 200-400 of managed wetlands should be 

developed. 

y Cooperate with partnering agencies in monitoring and mitigating the effects of SLR on 

managed wetlands. 

Objective: Upland Forests 

Within the 15-year life of this CCP, prescribe burn 6,362 acres of upland forest on a 3-year cycle 

while maintaining unique plant communities. 

Discussion: This category includes any area that does not meet the definition of wetland or 

deepwater habitat as classified by Cowardin et al. (1979). Approximately 6,362 acres of upland 
64 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

forest occur within the refuge acquisition boundary. The majority of these uplands occur on Sandy 

Island. The upland plant communities on Sandy Island are diverse and include a maritime sandhill 

community, longleaf pine savannahs, and flatwoods with intermittent inclusions of small evergreen 

and deciduous depressions, pocosins, freshwater depression meadows, broad-leafed deciduous 

swamps, and pond pine woodlands. The maritime sandhill community on Sandy Island appears to 

be the only known site of this type in the state. The predominant vegetative community on Sandy 

Island is the longleaf pine/turkey oak type typically found within the Lakeland Fine Sand Ridges and 

covers approximately 3,000 acres. This is a natural pine stand that is developing into a mature 

forest community. Many of the longleaf pines are well in excess of 100 years old. Longleaf pine 

forests and savannahs, such as those on Sandy Island, were recently identified as a nationally 

critically endangered ecosystem. Of the 74 million acres that once existed, less than four million 

acres exist now in scattered remnants, and not many of these contain the entire components of the 

ecosystem. Most of the other upland acreage within the refuge acquisition area is pine forest lands 

under silvicultural management within Unit 1. 

Strategies: 

y Work closely with the fire management staff from nearby refuges and South Carolina Division 

of Forestry to conduct prescribed burns on refuge lands. 

y Monitor the effects of fire on upland forest vegetation. 

y Avoid prescribed burns near known red-cockaded wookpecker cavities during nesting season. 

Objective: Bottomland Hardwoods 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, thin 461 acres of bottomland hardwoods where needed to develop 

understory vegetation and encourage oaks, mimicking tree fall gaps, and convert other forest types to 

bottomland hardwoods where soils are appropriate. 

Discussion: These areas normally remain flooded or saturated throughout the winter and for brief 

periods during the spring. Diurnal tides have little or no influence on the hydrology of this wetland 

type. This habitat usually occurs at the higher elevations within the floodplain. Typical plant species 

include swamp chestnut oak, water oak, cherrybark oak, loblolly pine, several species of hickories, 

white oak, tulip poplar, ironwood, sycamore, and sweetgum. 

Strategies: 

y Manage stands for old growth mast producing hardwoods to provide habitat for wintering and 

resident waterfowl and key neotropical migratory birds, including swallow-tailed kites. 

y Restore hydrology on newly acquired tracts to improve natural flooding and dewatering and 

other wetland functions. 

y Control beavers where necessary to alleviate hydrological manipulation during the growing 

season. 

y Replant trees targeting top mast producing hardwoods in areas altered by previous land uses. 

y Cooperate with partnering agencies in monitoring and mitigating the effects of SLR on 

bottomland hardwoods’ flora and fauna. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

Objective: Cypress-Gum Forest 

Where opportunities exist on the 25,077 acres of cypress-gum forest on the refuge, harvest 

overabundant red maple to ensure cypress and gum regenerate, manage for old growth cypress and 

tupelo, and ensure natural water regime. 

Discussion: These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout most years except during extreme 

drought periods. Water depth may periodically fluctuate as a result of tidal influences. Plant 

community composition is relatively homogeneous. Dominant species include swamp tupelo, baldcypress, green ash, water tupelo, and red maple. Approximately 25,077 acres of this habitat type 

occur in the refuge acquisition area. 

Strategies: 

y Manage stands for old growth cypress and tupelo to provide bird and bat roosting and nesting 

habitat on Waccamaw NWR. 

y Thin dense tupelo stands that are suppressing pockets of cypress regeneration as a method 

of restoring this species component. 

y Using commercial sales or herbicide or mechanical techniques, manage the structure of the 

stands to provide quality habitat for the management species. 

y Monitor the stand structure and composition and the response to management actions for 

refinement of goals, objectives, and practices in relation to wildlife population trends in these 

stands. 

y Cooperate with partnering agencies in monitoring and mitigating the effects of SLR on 

cypress-gum forest. 

Objective: Controlling Invasive Plant Species 

Within 5 years of CCP implementation, map areas of invasive plant species on the entire refuge and 

develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

Discussion: Invasive species control on Waccamaw NWR has primarily been limited to annual 

treatment of terrestrial plants on known sites of infestation throughout the refuge. The primary focus 

has been on kudzu and Chinese privet on upland sites where access and current funding have 

allowed effective control. Aquatic invasive plants are known to occur in isolated locations throughout 

the refuge; however, no herbicide application(s) have been performed to date. These plant species 

include water hyacinth and phragmites. 

The fast-growing kudzu vine persists along roadbanks and appears to be spreading into disturbed 

areas, fields, and the edges of forests; it is now widespread in the southeastern United States. It 

reproduces both by seeds and its tuberous roots and is difficult to eradicate. The aggressive Chinese 

privet shrub often forms dense thickets, particularly in bottomland forests and along fencerows. It 

colonizes by root sprouts and spreads widely by abundant bird- and other animal-dispersed seeds. 

Water hyacinth often forms monotypes across large areas. Water hyacinth invades lakes, ponds, 

rivers, marshes, and other wetland habitats. It reproduces mainly by vegetative means and can form 

dense floating mats of vegetation. These mats restrict light penetration, reducing the availability of 

light for submerged plants and aquatic invertebrates, and depleting oxygen levels. Phragmites is 

particularly widespread in brackish and freshwater marsh habitats along the Atlantic Coast. 

Vegetative spread by below-ground rhizomes can result in dense clones of phragmites with up to 200 
66 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

stems per square meter. Invasion by phragmites alters the structure and function of marsh 

ecosystems by changing species composition, nutrient cycles, and hydrological regimes. Dense 

stands decrease native biodiversity and quality of wetland habitat, particularly for migrating wading 

birds and waterfowl. 

Strategies: 

y Protect, enhance, and restore native communities by treating and managing plant pest 

species as funds and staff time allow. 

y Monitor, record, and map significant infestations by invasive plant species. 

y Develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

y Experiment with integrated approaches to invasive plant management, including the use of 

chemical, mechanical, and cultural methods. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal: Identify, acquire, conserve, and protect natural and cultural resources through partnerships, 

land protection programs, stewardship, and law enforcement. 

Discussion: Four objectives are presented under the Resource Protection goal at Waccamaw NWR: 

land acquisition, cultural resources, law enforcement, and private lands. The land acquisition program, 

which has understandably dominated management efforts at this new refuge since its establishment, 

involves acquiring and protecting resource-rich lands within the refuge acquisition boundary. The cultural 

resources program, while not especially active to date due to resource constraints, aims to protect the 

refuge’s ample cultural resources. Law enforcement helps prevent and solve infractions that can damage 

refuge resources. The private lands program works with private landowners within the refuge acquisition 

boundary to enhance wildlife habitat on their properties. 

Objective: Land Acquisition 

Continue to cooperate closely with partners to identify willing sellers within the acquisition boundary, 

while seeking funds outside of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to secure these 

properties. In addition, work with partners to identify and protect corridors intended to facilitate black 

bear movement. This may include refuge expansion and using available LWCF funding for acquisition. 

Discussion: Waccamaw NWR is currently just over 18,000 acres in size. In 2006, a lease agreement 

between the Service and SCDNR was approved by the South Carolina Budget and Control Board, 

adding the 7,661-acre Bucksport WMA to the refuge, bringing its total acreage to just over 18,000 

acres. By incorporating this additional land into the refuge, much of the core area along the Waccamaw 

River (Unit 1) will be protected. Lands along the Big and Little Pee Dee rivers need to be the next focus 

for refuge land acquisition. Connecting wetland corridors for black bear movement to and from the 

refuge is also a high priority for land acquisition. Special consideration should be given to adding key 

corridors that may not currently be within the refuge acquisition boundary. 

Strategies: 

y Acquire strategic bottomland hardwoods within the refuge acquisition boundary along the Big 

and Little Pee Dee rivers to connect river wildlife corridors. 

y Work with TNC and other partners to acquire a portion of the Haulover Tract and other 

strategic tracts along the Great Pee Dee River. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

y Add key wetland corridors to the refuge acquisition boundary through a minor expansion. 

y Identify areas where highest priority corridors for migratory birds and large mammals should 

be added to the current acquisition boundary. 

Objective: Cultural Resources 

Within 15 years of CCP implementation, develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

Discussion: The area in which the refuge is located has abundant cultural resources and a rich 

history. Waccamaw NWR follows standard National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

procedures to protect the public’s interest in preserving the cultural and historic legacy that may 

potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken that involves any 

excavation with heavy earthmoving equipment, such as tractors, graders and bulldozers, the refuge 

contracts with a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological 

survey of the subject property. The results of this survey are submitted to the Service’s Regional 

Historic Preservation Officer and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The SHPO 

reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is, whether 

any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be 

affected. If cultural resources are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is 

to notify the SHPO immediately. To date, only one tract on the refuge has been determined to be 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. This tract of land is the Yauhannah Bluff Tract, 

which is the future site for the new environmental education center. Both Phase 1 and 2 

archaeological surveys have been conducted on this site. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct a Phase I archaeological survey of the non-flooded areas of the refuge by qualified 

personnel, as a necessary first step in cultural resources management. 

y Conduct a Phase II investigation if archaeological resources are identified during the Phase I 

survey. In this second phase, the eligibility of identified resources for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places is evaluated prior to any disturbance. 

y Conduct a Phase III data recovery if the resources identified in Phases I and II are determined to 

be eligible. This will recover data and mitigate the adverse effects of any undertaking. 

y Prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan for the refuge. 

y Follow procedures outlined in the Cultural Resources Management Plan for consultation with 

the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Office, the State Historic Preservation Office, and 

potentially interested American Indian tribes. 

y Follow procedures detailed in the Cultural Resources Management Plan for inadvertent 

discoveries of human remains. 

y Ensure archaeological and cultural values are described, identified, and taken into 

consideration prior to implementing undertakings. 

y Develop a step-down plan for surveying lands to identify archaeological resources and for 

developing a preservation program. 
68 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective: Law Enforcement 

Provide 1.0 FTE position for the refuge in addition to one dual function or seasonal officer. 

Discussion: The Service currently has one full-time law enforcement (LE) officer who covers the four 

refuges (including Waccamaw) in the South Carolina Lowcountry Complex and one collateral duty LE 

specifically assigned to Waccamaw NWR. The typical areas of concern include trespass, trash/refuse 

dumping, compliance with hunting regulations, vandalism, arson wildfires, and wildlife disturbance. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in Georgetown, Horry, and Marion 

counties on preventing and solving crime within and adjacent to the refuge acquisition 

boundary. 

y Work closely with state conservation officers during hunting and fishing seasons. 

Objective: Private Lands 

Continue to work with 3-5 landowners at any one time within acquisition boundary to enhance and 

protect habitat and wildlife resources on their properties. 

Discussion: The importance of the Waccamaw NWR to waterfowl and other migratory birds is well 

known, and, the potential to provide additional habitat for the benefit of Federal Trust species (i.e., 

migratory birds) on nearby private lands has been very successful on lands adjoining the refuge. The 

Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is the Service’s primary mechanism for delivering voluntary 

on-the-ground habitat improvement projects on private lands for the benefit of Federal Trust species. 

Under this program, technical and financial assistance is provided to landowners to help meet the 

habitat needs of Federal Trust species on private lands. The objectives of the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife Program are to promote and implement habitat improvement projects that benefit Federal 

Trust species; provide conservation leadership; promote partnerships; encourage public 

understanding and participation; and work with USDA to implement its conservation programs. 

Habitat improvement practices include habitat restoration, enhancement, and establishment. The 

highest funding priority status is awarded to proposed projects on private lands that will complement 

activities on Refuge System lands or contribute to the resolution of problems on refuges that are 

caused by off-refuge land use practices. 

In 1997, the South Carolina Partners program was established to provide landowner incentives and 

technical assistance in an effort to improve wetland management practices on private lands near 

Waccamaw NWR. The Partners program is currently made up of state, federal, and private partners, 

including Duck Unlimited, NRCS, SCDNR, Historic Ricefields Association, and the Service. One of 

the primary targets of these funds has been to replace old inferior water control structures with the 

rice trunk style water control structures. 

In addition to collaborating with South Carolina Partners, the refuge staff has been very involved in 

landowner technical assistance on private lands throughout the acquisition boundary and beyond. In 

1999, the refuge played a significant role in assisting a group of landowners with a water 

management problem on a major wood stork rookery located along the Waccamaw River. Through 

funding from the Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, a new water control structure was 

installed, which improved the hydrology of the rookery and ultimately has protected the fourth largest 

rookery in South Carolina. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

Strategies: 

y Encourage private landowners to provide additional moist-soil habitat and greentree reservoirs 

to complement the refuge habitat management programs. 

y Continue to work closely with the South Carolina Partners for Fish and Wildlife office to identify 

and prioritize areas eligible for enrollment in the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. 

y Educate neighboring landowners on the problems and issues facing the refuge. 

Objective: Bull Island Wilderness Study Area 

Include Bull Island as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA), maintain its wilderness character, and within ten 

years of CCP implementation, prepare a wilderness study report on whether Bull Island should be 

recommended for formal designation as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). 

Discussion: All lands and waters of the Refuge System outside of Alaska and not currently 

designated wilderness are subject to a wilderness review, the results of which are summarized in 

Appendix VIII. The purpose of the wilderness review is to identify and recommend for congressional 

designation Refuge System lands and waters that merit inclusion in the NWPS.

The wilderness review process is conducted in three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. 

The inventory phase is a broad look at the planning area to identify lands and waters that meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness and warrant further study for wilderness designation. These criteria 

include every area of at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or roadless areas sufficient in size to 

make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; or be a roadless island of 

any size. Areas meeting these criteria are considered wilderness inventory areas. Wilderness 

inventory areas are then further evaluated for naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and special or supplemental values. Those areas that meet these criteria are 

identified as WSAs. 

The findings of the study determine whether a WSA, or portion of a WSA, will be recommended for 

designation as wilderness. Wilderness recommendations are forwarded or reported from the Director 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service through the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and the 

President to Congress in a wilderness study report. The Service inventoried refuge lands within the 

planning area and found one area (4,600-acre Bull Island) that meets the eligibility criteria for a WSA 

as defined by the Wilderness Act. 

Bull Island was intensively logged but the last intensive logging operations took place close to 100 

years ago. The island has recovered from past logging activity and now exhibits century-old 

bottomland hardwood forests and forested wetlands. The island is one of the most remote areas on 

the refuge and provides excellent opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of 

wildlife-dependent recreation. Continuing to manage Bull Island as wilderness is in keeping with the 

establishing purposes of Waccamaw NWR, and management will be able to effectively maintain the 

island’s wilderness character. 
70 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Continue to maintain the wilderness character of Bull Island while it is a WSA by generally 

prohibiting motorized access and motorized equipment (by the Service, as well as the public). 

y Motorized access and use of motorized equipment within the WSA may be authorized by the 

refuge manager only if such access and use constitute the minimum tool necessary to 

accomplish wilderness objectives. 

y Attempt to use primitive tools for work within the WSA where possible. 

y Notify the public that Bull Island is now a WSA and that only access by foot will be permitted 

pending a final decision on wilderness designation. 

y Consult expertise within the Service’s Regional Office in the preparation of a wilderness study 

report for submittal to the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service and subsequently to the 

President and Congress. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Goal: Provide opportunities for quality, wildlife-dependent public uses, leading to greater 

understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and habitats contained within the Winyah Bay 

Focus Area. 

Discussion: Popular recreation uses on the refuge include hunting, and recreational fishing. Hunting 

for white-tailed deer, waterfowl, and small game is very popular. Recreational fishing is primarily 

limited to the main river systems and smaller tributaries that are not blocked and not considered 

private property. Recreational boating, waterskiing, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, bird watching 

and wildlife observation are also very popular activities conducted in this area. Boat access within 

and adjacent to the refuge is provided by eight state- or county-maintained public boat launching 

ramps and four privately owned commercial marinas, making these activities more feasible. 

The refuge headquarters, contact station, and a maintenance yard are temporarily located in 

Georgetown in a rented office building. A new refuge office and visitor center is planned for 2008, to 

be located between Georgetown and Conway on Highway 701 at Yauhannah Bluff. The facility will 

offer opportunities for information, interpretation, and environmental education, as well as 

participation with local communities. 

Objective: Visitor Services’ Plan 

Within three years of CCP implementation, develop specific guidance in a Visitor Services’ Plan that 

will describe planning and management of visitor services’ programs and facilities, including funding 

and budgets, staffing and volunteers, specific themes and messages, etc. 

Discussion: The refuge lacks dedicated resources to develop specific guidance reflected in a stepdown plan and to implement a comprehensive visitor services’ program. The refuge will develop a 

step-down Visitor Services’ Plan. Descriptions of specific materials, signs, exhibits and displays, and 

themes to promote the six priority public uses adopted by the Service will be addressed in this stepdown management plan. It will address specific visitor service activities, including facility 

requirements, site design, conceptual themes, and handicapped accessibility. This plan will also 

address the specific services, such as eco-tourism opportunities, the refuge could provide local 

communities, as well as cooperative partnerships to increase awareness of fish and wildlife resources 

and systematically improve visitor experiences within the area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Issues related to refuge management will be addressed in the step-down plan. Current and future staffing 

needs to implement the recommendations within the plan will also be addressed. The plan will include 

budgetary needs and current databases, such as RONS and SAMMS, and will explore opportunities for 

funding and partnerships to assist the refuge in accomplishing the recommendations within the plan. The 

plan will include a system for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the visitor services’ program 

annually. The plan should be comprehensive, covering all aspects of the program in detail, including fee 

programs, universal accessibility, use of dedicated areas such as wilderness, and use of concessions.

Strategies: 

y Once there is dedicated visitor services’ staff stationed at Waccamaw NWR, collect recreation 

fees for quota hunts and any additional activities that qualify to be in the recreation fee 

program. 

y Work with local communities, visiting public, and other special use groups to educate them on 

refuge management and regulations. 

y Develop operations and maintenance projects to support plans. 

y As visitor use sites are developed, attempt to concentrate appropriate visitor use activities on 

a few sites that can be more easily managed and maintained by the limited resources of the 

refuge. 

y Evaluate visitor service activities and services for inclusion into the recreation fee program. 

y Expand visitor services’ management capability by assigning staff to manage volunteers to 

assist with visitor service programs and to maintain recreation facilities on the refuge. 

y Develop a general brochure for the refuge. 

Objective: Visitor Center 

Build and staff new visitor center at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. Develop up to four 

nature trails associated with the visitor center at Yauhannah Bluff within 3 years of opening of the 

visitor center. Also develop a riverfront boardwalk and canoe/kayak access to Big Pee Dee River. 

Discussion: The refuge office/visitor contact station is currently housed in a small office previously 

occupied by the SCDNR. A new visitor center and associated trails are planned for Yauhannah Bluff. 

Strategies: 

y By 2015, incorporate a trail system and riverfront recreation facilities at Yauhannah Bluff 

adjacent to the visitor center. 

y Develop an information kiosk for after-hour use at the Yauhannah Bluff refuge entrance (site 

of new office/visitor center). 

y Fund audio/visual program and design in conjunction with interior exhibit planning for the 

proposed visitor center. 

y Work closely with Regional Office recreation staff and one or more specialized exhibit 

contractors in planning, designing, and installing of exhibits in the new visitor center. Take 

advantage of latest technologies to develop hands-on, interactive exhibits. 

y Outfit a wet lab with state-of-the-art equipment accompanied by the latest technologies for 

audio/visual enhancements. The wet lab will provide a setting for a working classroom in 

which students can bring in field samples for processing and value-added learning 

experiences. 
72 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective: Hunting 

Continue to provide seasonal hunting for deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, 

waterfowl, and snipe consistent with refuge and state regulations. Potentially open waterfowl hunting 

on the Jackson Bluff Tract; potentially open a youth waterfowl hunt on managed wetlands; potentially 

open a mobility-impaired hunt for deer and hog. 

Discussion: Hunting is a primary use of the refuge. Hunting activities range from waterfowl to both 

small and big game hunting, with waterfowl and big game hunting being the most popular. 

Waccamaw NWR has one of the more liberal hunt programs of all the refuges in South Carolina (due 

in part to the traditional hunt uses of the refuge river systems dating back several hundred years). 

The refuge has an approved hunting plan dated November 21, 2003. A hunting brochure describing 

all the hunt species and regulations is available. The brochure serves as a permit and is required of 

all hunters. Waccamaw NWR offers a variety of hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer, turkey, 

feral hog, squirrel, and waterfowl in accordance with state regulations and seasons. Hunting is 

allowed on Bull Island and Big Swamp units. A refuge self-issuing permit and hunter safety training 

are required. The refuge also has a youth turkey hunt. 

The refuge allows hunting of white-tailed deer with archery, muzzle loader, and modern weapons. 

Hunting of hogs and turkey is also permitted on designated hunting areas and small game may be 

harvested; snipe, waterfowl, rabbit, gray squirrel, raccoon, and opossum are permitted on designated 

hunting areas. Dogs may be used only for duck, snipe, raccoon, squirrel, and hog hunts. 

Strategies: 

y Update Hunt Plan annually. 

y Maintain a quality public hunting program. 

y Monitor all the hunts and make adjustments as needed. 

y Youth Waterfowl Hunt Program would be a series of programs/classes to train young people 

in the proper ethics and safety factors of hunting, culminating with a day set aside for youth 

only. 

y Prepare news releases for hunts as appropriate and send to major newspapers throughout 

South Carolina. 

y Continue to emphasize safety and conservation messages in refuge hunting program. 

y Evaluate expanding quota hunting program for inclusion in the recreation fee program. 

Objective: Fishing 

Coordinate with the state to continue providing quality fishing opportunities, to reduce user conflicts 

and wildlife disturbance, to expand fishing opportunities to youth for bank fishing, and to provide 

access for disabled anglers. 

Discussion: About 70 species of fish are found within the refuge acquisition boundary. The area waters 

provide excellent year-round recreational fishing for freshwater fish, such as largemouth bass, redbreast 

sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, pumpkinseed, black crappie, chain pickerel, redfin pickerel, 

bowfin, and numerous native species of catfish, as well as one introduced species, the flathead catfish. 

Not surprisingly, fishing is very popular in the area. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

The Waccamaw and the Great Pee Dee rivers provide unimpeded upstream and downstream 

movement for all associated fish species. The rivers provide areas where visitors with boats can fish. 

These waters furnish nursery areas for freshwater fish species, as well as estuarine species, such as 

red drum, tarpon, striped mullet, and flounder. The rivers are connected to a myriad of oxbows, 

creeks, and small feeder streams interspersed throughout the floodplains and forested wetlands, 

forming a dynamic aquatic system that supports populations of sport and commercial fish. The state 

has jurisdiction over all the creeks and rivers bisecting the refuge; therefore the refuge has little 

control over this major public use program. 

There are several popular county and private boat launches along the Great Pee Dee and 

Waccamaw rivers. The refuge itself does not have or manage any boat launching facilities. Access 

to most of the refuge is controlled by state and private boat ramps along the Great Pee Dee and 

Waccamaw rivers. Currently, the two rivers within the acquisition boundary provide the only areas 

where visitors with boats can fish. Bank fishing on refuge-owned parcels is allowed; however, these 

opportunities are limited because there is no road access for anglers. A boat is needed to access 

most bank locations, and most anglers with boats simply prefer to remain in their boats. 

Recreational fishing success is dependent on river elevations, turbidity, and daily tidal influences. 

Recreational fishing is primarily limited to the main river systems and smaller tributaries that are not 

blocked and not considered private property. Freshwater commercial fishing within the refuge 

acquisition boundary has also been a traditional livelihood for many native South Carolinians. 

Seasonal shad fishing and year-round cat fishing contribute substantially to the incomes of many 

families, including the families that reside on Sandy Island. As stated previously, the State of South 

Carolina has jurisdiction over all the creeks and rivers bisecting the refuge; therefore, the refuge has 

little control over this traditional use. 

Strategies: 

y Develop an updated Fishing Plan as appropriate.

y Address fishing access/opportunities in the general refuge brochure and on the website. 

y Work with SCDNR and establish zones for various boat types and motor horsepower to help 

achieve a balance of allowed uses, to reduce user conflicts, and to reduce and minimize 

conflicts and wildlife disturbance. 

y Create a lake system if opportunities allow with future land acquisition, to provide better 

fishing opportunities for the non-boating public. 

y Host annual youth fishing day during National Fishing Week or National Wildlife Refuge 

System Week. 

y Keep basic fishing information records, such as the number of local versus out-of-state 

anglers. 

y Continue to work with other law enforcement entities during fishing seasons to evaluate game 

fish populations and violations. 

y Improve access for bank fishing on the refuge for anglers with disabilities, including 

information and interpretive signs. 

y Maintain entire refuge open to fishing consistent with state regulations, except for Causey and 

Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

y Potentially allow mobility-impaired fishing access on Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

y Develop an outreach plan and implement outreach strategies to focus on refuge-related 

issues, such as lack of staff, gray water discharge, jet skis and wildlife disturbance, and 

littering. 
74 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective: Environmental Education 

Within three years of CCP implementation, develop a comprehensive visitor services and environmental 

education program by hiring full-time visitor services’ manager(s) to manage the visitor center, 

environmental education, interpretation, volunteers, interns, and coordinate with friends and partners. 

Discussion: Currently Waccamaw NWR participates in Earth Stewards, a multi-week program for 

students with classes both in their classroom and on the refuge lands. The initial program is an eightweek program for the fifth grade, with a focus on freshwater wetlands which is correlated to the South 

Carolina educational standards. The program at Waccamaw NWR began with Brown’s Ferry and 

Plantersville Elementary schools in 2003. These students learn about the flora and fauna of the refuge 

through hands-on, experiential lessons taught by their teachers, refuge, and SEWEE association staff and 

volunteers. They have at least three visits to the refuge or the SEWEE Center in Awendaw during their 

studies. In 2006, this program was reviewed and a shortened version was created to allow more students 

to participate. This new version (called SES Brevis) includes several lessons with students in their 

classrooms followed by one full day of lessons on the refuge. SES Brevis is now being conducted with all 

fifth graders at McDonald and Pleasant Hill elementary schools. 

Refuge and SEWEE Association staffs have also worked with some of the middle schools in the area 

to bring their students onto the refuge for educational experiences. Waccamaw Middle School 

participated in an exploration of Sandy Island and red-cockaded woodpecker habitats for several 

years and Carvers Bay Middle is participating in lessons at the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area. 

In addition to this work with school students, Waccamaw NWR and SEWEE Association personnel have 

presented environmental education programs at after-school programs and summer camps of 

Georgetown YMCA and several local churches. They are also working with the student enrichment 

program called Service Over Self to facilitate service-learning projects of middle and high school students. 

Waccamaw NWR is new (just a decade old) and is currently conducting more environmental 

education programs for area youth than many well-established refuges. This highlights the emphasis 

the refuge staff has placed on working with and educating the local community about the importance 

of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to work with SEWEE Association on the Earth Stewards Program. 

y Continue to provide environmental education programs to Family YMCA and local churches 

as grant monies are available through the SEWEE Association and other partners. 

y Develop basic lesson plans for off-site programs. 

y South Carolina Coastal Refuge Complex’s supervisory park ranger should work with refuge 

and SEWEE Association staff and volunteers to develop key messages to be included in all 

refuge education and outreach programs. 

y Once a public use position has been dedicated to the refuge and the visitor center is 

operational, staff should expand the Earth Stewards program to key elementary schools in 

Georgetown and Conway. The Cox Ferry Recreation Area would be an ideal field trip onto 

the refuge for students of the Conway schools. 

y Refuge and SEWEE Association staff should contact area school principals and arrange to 

meet at teacher staff meetings to discuss the new visitor center and what it will have to offer 

their students. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

y After the visitor center is fully operational, invite principals, teachers, and other personnel 

(e.g., bus drivers, cooks, and janitors) to a weekend open house at the new visitor center. 

This could be coordinated with the SEWEE Association. 

y Conduct environmental education programs for students visiting the refuge and visitor center. 

These are one-time field trips which are requested by teachers (not associated with Earth 

Stewards). 

y Work with SEWEE Association to apply for grants to fund and hire an educator dedicated 

solely to Waccamaw NWR. 

y Develop and conduct teacher workshops. 

y Partner with Coastal Carolina University and/or Horry County Technical College to develop an 

on-going internship program for students in the environmental studies program. 

y Develop outdoor labs at strategic sites on refuge (e.g., Yauhannah Bluff, Cox Ferry 

Recreation Area, and Sandy Island). 

y Conduct workshops specific to science educators. 

y Partner with the other South Carolina coastal refuges to develop an environmental education 

program that would allow students from the same school/class to conduct activities on each 

refuge throughout the school year. Students could be provided with key topics about each 

refuge, thus strengthening their understanding of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

y Conduct environmental education training for Service employees (perhaps in partnership with 

SEWEE Center). 

y In partnership with SEWEE Association, continue on- and off-site environmental education 

programs in Georgetown County Public Schools. 

y Utilize new visitor center and Causey Tract public use area for expanded environmental 

education. Also, potentially partner with Coastal Carolina on Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area, 

and utilize up to four nature trails near new visitor center for environmental education. 

y Potentially use Sandy Island trails for environmental education. 

y Expand environmental education into other schools in Georgetown County and into public 

schools in Horry and Marion counties. 

y Continue to see assistance from the SEWEE Association to assist with on- and off-site 

environmental education programs and preparing and administering grants. 

y If the Haulover Tract is acquired, consider its potential for environmental education. 

Objective: Interpretation 

Within five years after hiring a visitor services’ manager, expand interpretive facilities or tours at the 

visitor center, Jackson Bluff, Sandy Island, and Cox Ferry Recreation areas. 

Discussion: There are currently no interpretive facilities at the refuge. The refuge and complex staff 

have developed a list of preferred themes and messages to be explored and developed in more detail 

as part of the exhibit design process for the proposed visitor center. Messages will be developed 

about the rice culture, Native American people, migratory birds, bottomland forests, etc. Once a fulltime person is hired at Waccamaw NWR, the refuge manager will pursue the development of 

interpretive kiosks, signs, brochures, and trails for the refuge. Interpretive messages will be about 

key resource issues, such as the uniqueness of black water. Two documentary videos, “Winyah Bay 

Focus Area Task Force” (20 minutes) and “Voices of Winyah Bay” (15 minutes) are distributed by the 

refuge manager to promote issues and land protection for the refuge and partners. The primary 

interpretive message of these videos is to protect lands and cultural values from future development. 

A trail sytem and canoe launch site could be developed on the Haulover Tract if it is acquired. 
76 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Erect exhibit panel kiosks at the one or two boat landings that visitors would likely use to 

access various tracts within the refuge. The exhibit panels should include a revised version of 

the tear sheet map with pertinent information about hours of use, access points (including 

listing and location of public landing sites), closed areas, and other regulatory or restrictive 

information. It should also include basic descriptive information about the refuge, its habitats, 

and important species. 

y Develop interpretive signs at Yauhannah Landing wildlife trail. 

y Enlist the expertise of Waccamaw Indian people, Gullah residents, TNC, plantation managers, 

and Native Plant Society to develop exhibits and interpretive materials. 

y Make sure all proposed indoor and outdoor exhibits are consistent (design, messages, 

themes, graphic standards, etc.). 

y Enlist the support of an interpretive specialist to set goals and objectives, design messages, 

themes, and displays, and gather cost estimates for indoor and outdoor exhibits at Yauhannah 

Bluff. Use messages and site rendering as a marketing tool. 

y Possible themes include: 

o Swallow-tailed kites 

o Black water forested wetlands, tidal forested, and emergent wetlands 

o Yauhannah – The Great Bluff 

o Rice farming 

o Longleaf pine-woodpecker-fire managements 

o Atlantic white cedar 

o Wood stork rookery 

y Develop a brochure(s) interpreting routes and trails for all the refuge. 

y Install a brochure rack at the visitor center complex gate for after-hours. 

y Continue to provide interpretive programs to groups upon request and provide information to 

the public at the refuge office and on the website. There is potential for interpretive 

opportunities related to the wetland restoration site on Jackson Bluff and interpretive activities 

on Sandy Island. 

y Provide more interpretive opportunities in and around the new visitor center and the Cox Ferry 

Recreation Area. 

y Locate interpretive materials on existing trails at Yauhannah Tract and strategic boat landings 

within the acquisition boundary. 

y If the Haulover Tract is acquired, consider its interpretive potential. 

Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within 15 years of CCP implementation, evaluate partnership opportunities to develop hiking and 

canoe trail system and viewing areas at Causey Tract, Sandy Island, Haulover Tract, and the 

Waccamaw and Big Pee Dee rivers. 

Discussion: Several areas of the refuge provide potential visitors with abundant opportunities for 

wildlife observation, photography, and hiking experiences. These areas (with the exception of one 

hiking trail near the proposed visitor center site) have not been designated or identified on any refuge 

literature or signage. Some of these are in sensitive areas (for either wildlife disturbance or conflicts 

with human interaction). There is a potential for partnerships, lease agreements, or other 

arrangements that would allow visitors to observe and/or photograph red-cockaded woodpeckers on 

the Sandy Island properties. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

When appropriate, wildlife observation areas will be developed to provide opportunities to view salient 

species, such as bald eagles, swallow-tailed kites, wading birds, and waterfowl. At this time, tools, 

such as spotting scopes, binoculars, remote cameras trained on wildlife, videos that show wildlife that 

visit during other times of the year, and web sites, are not available. 

Potential conflicts between wildlife observation/photography and hunting activities have been 

eliminated by closure of one area to hiking during designated refuge hunts. During hunting periods, 

hiking/wildlife observation is permitted on at least one day per week. Conversely, two areas have 

been set aside for year-round public access; however, they are closed to all hunting activities. 

Hiking is permitted along the Great Pee Dee River and Bull Creek at the Highway 701 Bridge, just 

north of Yauhannah Lake. Excellent opportunities for wildlife observation and photography can be 

found by boating through Big and Little Bull creeks. 

Strategies: 

y Evaluate establishing swallow-tailed kite tours. If appropriate, add wildlife observation areas 

to provide visitors with opportunities to see swallow-tailed kites, bald eagles, wading birds, 

waterfowl, etc. 

y Develop a bird check list. 

y Continue to develop the Causey Tract public use area. 

y Construct an observation/photography blind at Causey Tract. 

y Establish and develop canoe trail route and post signs. 

y Provide and manage volunteer-led special birding tours. 

y Explore ecotourism opportunities that would enlist volunteers leading visitors on canoe or 

kayak tours with watercraft supplied by a commercial outfitter under special use permit. 

y Maintain Yauhannah Tract trails open to the public for observation and photography outside of 

hunting season. 

y When new visitor center is opened, additional opportunities will be developed along with new 

trails. 

y Trails on Sandy Island will also provide opportunities. 

y Provide canoe trails on the Waccamaw and Big Pee Dee rivers and trails on the Haulover 

Tract within 15 years of CCP implementation. 

y Develop wildlife observation and photography facilities and opportunities at the Cox Lake 

Recreation Area. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Goal: Provide for sufficient staffing, facilities, and infrastructure to implement a comprehensive refuge 

management program to protect and manage the natural and cultural values of the refuge’s habitats 

and fulfill the refuge’s purposes, goals, and objectives. 

Discussion: This goal refers to the refuge having the ways and means to implement proposed 

programs on behalf of habitat, wildlife, and visitor use. To date, the refuge’s small staff has 

necessarily focused its efforts on basic and essential tasks, such as trying to augment protected 

lands within the acquisition boundary, both by purchase and through cooperative agreements and 

active collaboration with other government and non-governmental conservation agencies and 

institutions. Adequately administering the expansive vision in this CCP for Waccamaw NWR will 
78 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

require adequate resources. Waccamaw NWR’s small staff has relied heavily upon the refuge’s 

Friends Group – the SEWEE Association – and other partners and volunteers, and will continue to do 

so over the life of this CCP. 

Objective: Staffing 

In addition to current staff of three (refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and one law 

enforcement officer shared with complex), add one park ranger upon opening of the visitor center, 

one biotech and/or Student Career Employment Program (SCEP) within 5 years of CCP 

implementation, 1 full-time law enforcement officer, 1 administrative assistant, and 1 maintenance 

worker within 7-10 years of CCP implementation. Convert assistant manager to biologist. 

Discussion: At present, Waccamaw NWR’s wildlife and visitor management efforts are severely 

hampered by persistent staffing shortages. The positions listed in the objective above will allow for 

realization of the objectives and strategies identified in this CCP. The refuge does not have a single 

maintenance person for repair and maintenance of equipment and facilities or habitat management. 

Strategies:

y Secure funding to hire all necessary positions. 

y Hire a park ranger/staff to manage the visitor services, visitor center, outreach, and volunteer 

program. 

y Hire an environmental education SCEP student or biotech when the visitor center opens to 

assist with the operation of this facility. 

y Administrative assistant will be based at the refuge office/visitor center and serve as the 

primary office manager, with potential collateral duties related to visitor services. 

y Maintenance person will have a range of responsibilities, including interior and exterior 

maintenance of new office and visitor center, as well as maintenance facilities themselves; 

equipment maintenance; road maintenance; grass mowing (if necessary) and maintenance of 

landscaping; installation and maintenance of proposed docks; and various habitat 

enhancement and restoration projects. 

y Hire a full-time law enforcement officer to support on-going public use programs and promote 

visitor safety. 

y Hire a biologist and or biotech to continue and expand research and monitoring needs 

throughout the refuge. 

Objective: Facilities 

Construct new administrative office at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff. Maintain existing and 

create new Causey Tract facilities. Add one dock each at Yauhannah Bluff and Cox Ferry Recreation 

Area and weather shelter at the latter. Add boardwalks at Cox Ferry Recreation Area and potential 

dock at Sandy Island, in addition to kiosks at Causey Tract and at other strategic locations. Add new 

maintenance facilities at Yauhannah Bluff. 

Discussion: At present, the refuge has very limited facilities – rented office space, which doubles as a 

visitor contact station, and a small maintenance yard – all concentrated at one off-refuge site in 

Georgetown. The proposals in this CCP will substantially expand, diversify, and disperse Waccamaw 

NWR’s facilities. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Strategies: 

y Construct new Yauhannah Bluff facilities, including administrative offices, visitor center, 

maitenance and equipment storage area and interpretive trail from the main parking area to the 

visitor center, trail from visitor center to the outdoor classroom and canoe launch, and the River 

Bluff boardwalk, with interpretive signs. 

y Construct new Cox Ferry Recreation Area facilities, including demolition of old buildings and 

pier, pole shed conversion to outdoor classroom; and construct a new pole shed and equipment 

storage area, trailhead (parking, restrooms, leaflet dispenser, brochures, and canoe launch), 

and wayside exhibit and directional signs on Highway 544. 

y Work closely with architects, landscape architects, engineers, recreation, and interpretive 

specialists in planning, designing, and developing these facilities. 

y Hire new maintenance person with responsibility for primary maintenance of these facilities. 

Objective: Partnerships 

Continue to cooperate with partners such as the SEWEE Association, SCDNR, TNC, Historic 

Ricefield Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force. Seek additional partnerships and/or 

volunteers/interns for increased visitor services and habitat enhancement on all units. Add a 

partnership funded environmental education coordinator. 

Discussion: The refuge is part of a dynamic and growing partnership with the SEWEE Association, 

which also supports programs at the Cape Romain and ACE Basin NWRs. The SEWEE Association 

supports the environmental education program at Waccamaw NWR; it also provides financial and 

technical support and serves as liaison between the refuge and local communities. 

For the calendar year 2004, the SEWEE Association had gross profits of $93,123, which included 

memberships, donations, and sales. Most of the profits came from grants managed by the SEWEE 

Association director. Waccamaw NWR received the largest disbursements for calendar year 2007. 

There will be significantly larger disbursements to Waccamaw NWR once the visitor center is open 

and the book store is operational. 

The SEWEE Association was the instrumental partner in planning, scheduling, and implementing the 

Earth Stewards Program at Plantersville and Brown’s Ferry elementary schools. The SEWEE 

Association also provided guidance and support for the Environment in Context of Learning (EIC) 

Program with Waccamaw Middle School. Additional off-site programs in Georgetown County were 

provided by SEWEE Association employees. 

Partnership projects include those accomplished through Cooperating Conservation Initiatives, Challenge 

Cost-Share, and other partnerships, such as those with nonprofits, state agencies, local schools, etc. 

Monetary contributions are funds that have been transferred directly to the refuge or some type of account 

jointly managed by the refuge and partners. Cash value of in-kind contributions includes the value of 

things such as materials and labor from the refuge or partners that is applied to a project. 
80 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Continue participation with a coalition of partners including: landscape/ecosystem approach 

(Winyah Bay Focus Area/SSPD Ecosystem); MOUs, easements/ agreements/ technical 

assistance (Clemson, SCDNR, TNC).

y Develop marketing and communication strategies for fostering fund raising and potential 

partnerships. Involve the SEWEE Association in the development of interpretive media 

concepts. Conduct a design workshop to develop conceptual drawings and narratives. 

y Develop long-term internship programs with Coastal Carolina University and Horry County 

Technical School. 

y Continue partnership with SEWEE Association to assist with environmental education 

programs. 

y Ensure that SEWEE Association will have necessary space in new visitor center for book 

store and storage. 

y Ensure the conservation partnership projects are nominated for recognition (e.g., Annual 

Regional Director, NWRS awards, and Take Pride in America). 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the Improvement Act. Congress has distinguished a 

clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for all national wildlife refuges. National wildlife 

refuges, unlike other public lands, are dedicated to the conservation of the Nation’s fish and 

wildlife resources and wildlife-dependent recreational uses. Priority projects emphasize the 

protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife species first and foremost, but considerable 

emphasis is placed on balancing the needs and demands for wildlife-dependent recreation and 

environmental education and interpretation. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this CCP for Waccamaw NWR, this 

section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnership opportunities, step-down 

management plans, a monitoring and adaptive management plan, and plan review and revision. 

PROPOSED PROJECTS 

Listed below are the proposed project summaries and their associated costs for fish and wildlife 

population management, habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge 

administration over the next 15 years. This proposed project list reflects the priority needs identified 

by the public, planning team, and refuge staff based upon available information. These projects were 

generated for the purpose of achieving the refuge’s objectives and strategies. The primary linkages 

of these projects to those planning elements are identified in each summary. 

The projects described below are the top ten priorities, grouped according to the goals for the refuge. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

Priority #11 – Black Bear Migration Corridors 

Convert an existing static refuge acquisition boundary expansion to a "floating expansion 

acquisition boundary" or consider a major boundary expansion to allow for future acquisition 

needs as they relate to black bear migration corridors and wetland protection. This priority is 

addressed in the Black Bear Objective. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Priority #8 – Hire Full-time Biologist 

Secure funding and hire a full-time GS-11 biologist. This biologist would develop wetland and wildlife 

research opportunities on the refuge, as well as assist with land acquisition and enhancement 

opportunities within the acquisition boundary. This person would also coordinate with SCDNR’s 

efforts to develop large-scale habitat protection initiatives connecting state and federal lands. 

Priority #10 – Acquire or Lease Managed Wetland Habitats 

Acquire or lease available managed wetland habitats within the refuge acquisition boundary to 

improve waterfowl and marshbird habitats. This priority is addressed in the Migratory Waterfowl 

and Marshbird Objectives. 
82 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Priority #6 – Lease/Acquire Portions of Sandy Island 

Develop management agreement(s) with Brookgreen Gardens and/or The Nature Conservancy to 

add portions of Sandy Island to the refuge. Through MOUs or lease agreements, these portions of 

Sandy Island would be administered as part of the Waccamaw NWR. In conjunction with the 

addition of these lands, a concessionaire agreement would be developed to provide public access 

to the island. The refuge would also develop nature trails, as well as expand the fire program to 

improve and maintain the longleaf pine habitats that exist on Sandy Island. This priority is 

addressed in the Land Acquisition Objective. 

Priority #7 – Acquire Haulover Tract 

Acquire the Haulover Tract through the help of The Nature Conservancy and other partners. The 

Haulover Tract will provide opportunities for a new trail system adjacent to the new environmental 

education center, as well as protect land holdings adjacent to the new center. The potential for a 

canoe/kayak launch site could be incorporated adjacent to the existing or future bridge system. This 

priority is addressed by the Land Acquisition Objective. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority #3 – Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area 

Construct the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area. This facility will include a system of nature trails, 

boardwalks, weather shelters, information kiosks, canoe/kayak launch facility, rest rooms, and public 

dock system. This facility will complement the environmental education center at Yauhannah Bluff 

and will serve as an educational "outpost" for Horry County Schools. This priority is addressed in the 

Interpretation Objective as well as strategies under the Environmental Education, Wildlife Observation 

and Photography, and Facilities objectives. 

Priority #9 – Expand Public Access, Recreation Opportunities, and Environmental Education 

Programs for Horry County 

Acquire additional lands around the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area in order to expand public 

access, recreation opportunities, and environmental education programs for Horry County. By adding 

more land around existing refuge facilities, the refuge could protect valuable habitats from 

encroaching urban sprawl, diversify facilities including canoe trails, and provide fishing opportunities 

which would greatly enhance the visitor experience that is currently provided on refuge-owned tracts. 

This priority is addressed in the Interpretation Objective as well as strategies under the Environmental 

Education, Wildlife Observation and Photography, and Facilities objectives. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

Priority #1 – New Environmental Education Center and Office Complex 

Build new state-of-the-art environmental education (visitor) center and office complex at Yauhannah 

Bluff. The new center will include a wet lab, multi-use room, interpretive exhibits, nature trails, 

boardwalks, and a public dock access facility. This priority is addressed in the Facilities Objective of 

the Refuge Administration Goal, as well as the Visitor Center Objective of the Visitor Services’ Goal. 

Priority #2 – Hire Full-time Park Ranger

Secure funding for and hire a GS-7/9/11 full-time park ranger to assist with public use programs on 

Yauhannah Bluff and the Cox Ferry Recreation Area. This person will also assist with writing grants, 

with environmental education programs, and with helping to develop additional trail opportunities. 

This priority is addressed in the Staffing Objective. 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Priority #4 – Hire Full-time Law Enforcement Officer 

Secure funding for and hire a GS-7/9 full-time law enforcement officer to promote visitor safety and 

other law enforcement duties related to public use programs throughout the refuge. This position will 

also assist with boundary posting, routine patrols especially on high public use areas, and all other 

law enforcement needs. This priority is addressed in the Staffing Objective. 

 

Priority #5 – Hire Administrative Officer

Secure funding for and hire a full-time GS-7 administrative officer to assist with refuge budgets, 

administrative needs, and refuge operations. This priority is addressed in the Staffing Objective. 

FUNDING AND PERSONNEL 

Table 4 below summarizes the projects described above, estimates first-year and recurring annual 

costs, and lists new staff positions. 

Table 4. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

Priority #1 New Environmental Education 

Center and Office Complex $2,225,181 

Priority #2 Hire Full-time Park Ranger $35,752 -67,878 $35,752 -67,878 1 

Priority #3 Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area $350,000 1 

Priority #4 Hire Full-Time Law Enforcement 

Officer $35,752-67878 $35,752-67878 1 

Priority #5 Hire Administrative Officer $35,752 - 46,478 $35,752 - 46,478 1 

Priority #6 Lease portions of Sandy Island $150,000 

Priority #7 Acquire Haulover Tract $1,400,000 

Priority #8 Hire Full-time Biologist $52,912 - 68,787 $52,912 - 68,787 1 

Priority #9 

Expand Public Access, 

Recreation Opportunities, and 

EE Programs for Horry County

$2,000,000 

Priority #10 Acquire or Lease Managed 

Wetland Habitats $1,000,000 

Priority #11 Black Bear Migration Corridors $7,500,000 
84 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Waccamaw NWR currently has a staff of three, as depicted in Figure 6 – the refuge manager, 

assistant refuge manager, and law enforcement officer (who is shared with the three other refuges in 

the South Carolina Lowcountry Complex – Ace Basin, Cape Romain, and Santee). 

Figure 6. Current organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR 

In Figure 7, the refuge recommends adding one park ranger upon opening of the visitor center, 

one biologist, one biotech and/or student through the Student Career Employment Program 

(SCEP) within 5 years of CCP implementation; and one full-time law enforcement officer, one 

administrative assistant, and one maintenance person within 7-10 years of CCP implementation. 

PARTNERSHIP/VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this CCP is to establish partnerships with local volunteers, landowners, private 

organizations, and state and federal natural resource agencies. In the immediate vicinity of the 

refuge, opportunities exist to establish new and strengthen existing partnerships with TNC, the 

Historic Ricefield Association, SEWEE Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force, in 

additional to local schools and school districts. At the regional and state level, partnerships may be 

established or enhanced with organizations such as SCDNR and other state and federal agencies. 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-12)

Assistant 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-11) 

Part-time Law 

Enforcement 

Officer 

(GS-7/9) 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Figure 7. Proposed future organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR 

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A CCP is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge. A step-down management 

plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor services’ management. 

These plans (Table 5) are also developed in accordance with NEPA, which requires the identification 

and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to their implementation. 

Table 5. Waccamaw NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of 

the CCP 

Step-down Management Plan Completion (or revision) Date

Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) 2023 

Visitor Services’ Plan 2011 

Hunting Plan 2007 (revise and update annually) 

Fishing Plan 2013 

Law Enforcement Plan 2012 

Facilities Management Plan 2010 

Integrated Pest Management Plan 2004 (revise and update annually) 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-12)

Wildlife 

Biologist 

(GS-10/11) 

Biological 

Technician 

(GS-06) 

Maintenance 

Worker 

(WG-08) 

Assistant 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-11) 

Administrative 

Assistant 

(GS-06/07) 

Park 

Ranger 

(GS-05/07) 

Full-time Law 

Enforcement 

Officer 

(GS-07/09) 
86 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

MONITORING AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term management of biotic resources that is directed 

over time by the results of ongoing monitoring activities and other information. More specifically, adaptive 

management is a process by which projects are implemented within a framework of scientifically driven 

experiments to test the predictions and assumptions outlined within a plan. 

To apply adaptive management, specific survey, inventory, and monitoring protocols will be adopted 

for the refuge. The habitat management strategies will be systematically evaluated to determine 

management effects on wildlife populations. This information will be used to refine approaches and 

determine how effectively the objectives are being accomplished. Evaluations will include ecosystem 

team and other appropriate partner participation. If monitoring and evaluating indicate undesirable 

effects for target and non-target species and/or communities, then alterations to the management 

projects will be made. Subsequently, the refuge’s CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and 

evaluating activities will be described in the step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. 

It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when 

conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological 

conditions or a major refuge expansion. The CCP will be augmented by detailed step-down 

management plans to address the completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s 

goals and objectives. Revisions to the CCP and the step-down management plans will be subject 

to public review and NEPA compliance. 
Appendices 87

APPENDICES 

I. Glossary 

Adaptive Management: Refers to a process in which policy decisions are implemented within a 

framework of scientifically driven experiments to test predictions and 

assumptions inherent in management plan. Analysis of results helps 

managers determine whether current management should continue as 

is or whether it should be modified to achieve desired conditions. 

Alluvial: Sediment transported and deposited in a delta or riverbed by flowing 

water. 

Alternative: 1. A reasonable way to fix the identified problem or satisfy the stated 

need (40 CFR 1500.2). 2. Alternatives are different sets of objectives 

and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and goals, 

helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues (Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.6B). 

Anadromous: Migratory fishes that spend most of their lives in the sea and migrate to 

fresh water to breed. 

Biological Diversity: The variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 

organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities 

and ecosystems in which they occur (USFWS Manual 052 FW 1. 12B). 

The system’s focus is on indigenous species, biotic communities, and 

ecological processes. Also referred to as Biodiversity. 

Carrying Capacity: The maximum population of a species able to be supported by a habitat 

or area. 

Categorical Exclusion 

(CE,CX, CATEX, 

CATX): 

A category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment and have been found to 

have no such effect in procedures adopted by a federal agency 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. 

Compatible Use: A proposed or existing wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other 

use of a national wildlife refuge that, based on sound professional 

judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System mission or the purpose(s) of the 

national wildlife refuge (50 CFR 25.12 (a)). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to ensure compatibility. 
88 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan 

(CCP):

A document that describes the desired future conditions of a refuge or 

planning unit and provides long-range guidance and management 

direction to achieve the purposes of the refuge; helps fulfill the mission 

of the Refuge System; maintains and, where appropriate, restores the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and 

meets other mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 E). 

Concern: See Issue. 

Cover Type: The present vegetation of an area. 

Cultural Resource 

Inventory: 

A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic 

area. Inventories may involve various levels, including background 

literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample 

inventory to project site distribution and density over a larger area. 

Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for the 

National Register of Historic Places follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 

60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource 

Overview: 

A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and 

extent of known cultural resources, previous research, management 

objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a general 

statement on how program objectives should be met and conflicts 

resolved. An overview should reference or incorporate information from 

a field office background or literature search described in Section VIII of 

the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 

614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by people in the past. 

Designated Wilderness 

Area:

An area designated by Congress to be managed as part of the National 

Wilderness Preservation System (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Disturbance: Significant alteration of habitat structure or composition; may be natural 

(e.g., fire) or human-caused events (e.g., aircraft overflight). 

Ecosystem: A dynamic and interrelating complex of plant and animal communities 

and their associated non-living environment. 

Ecosystem 

Management: 

Management of natural resources using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in ecosystems are maintained at 

viable levels in native habitats and basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely. 
Appendices 89

Endangered Species 

(Federal): 

A plant or animal species listed under the Endangered Species Act that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 

range. 

Endangered Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated in 

the state within the near future if factors contributing to its decline 

continue. Populations of these species are at critically low levels or 

their habitats have been degraded or depleted to a significant degree. 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA): 

A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need 

for an action, alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient 

evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an 

environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact 

(40 CFR 1508.9). 

Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS): 

A detailed written statement required by section 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, analyzing the environmental impacts 

of a proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot be 

avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses of the 

environment versus the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources (40 CFR 1508.11). 

Estuary: The wide lower course of a river into which the tides flow. The area 

where the tide meets a river current. 

Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI): 

A document prepared in compliance with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly 

presents why a federal action will have no significant effect on the 

human environment and for which an environmental impact statement, 

therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Goal: Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future 

conditions that conveys a purpose but does not define measurable units 

(Service Manual 620 FW 1.6J). 

Habitat: Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for 

survival and reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives.

Habitat Restoration: Management emphasis designed to move ecosystems to desired 

conditions and processes, and/or to healthy ecosystems. 

Habitat Type: See Vegetation Type. 

Improvement Act: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Informed Consent: The grudging willingness of opponents to “go along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 
90 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Issue: Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an 

initiative, opportunity, resource management problem, threat to the 

resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or other presence 

of an undesirable resource condition (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6K). 

Management 

Alternative: 

See Alternative. 

Management Concern: See Issue. 

Management 

Opportunity: 

See Issue. 

Migration: The seasonal movement from one area to another and back. 

Mission Statement: Succinct statement of the unit’s purpose and reason for being. 

Monitoring: The process of collecting information to track changes of selected 

parameters over time. 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA):

Requires all agencies, including the Service, to examine the 

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental 

information, and use public participation in the planning and 

implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must integrate NEPA 

with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA 

documents to facilitate better environmental decision-making 

(40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105-

57): 

Under the Refuge Improvement Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service is 

required to develop 15-year comprehensive conservation plans for all 

national wildlife refuges. The Act also describes the six public uses 

given priority status within the Refuge System (i.e., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 

and interpretation). 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System 

Mission:

The mission 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. 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: 

Various categories of areas administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interests therein 

administered by the Secretary as wildlife refuges; areas for the 

protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; games ranges; wildlife management areas; 

or waterfowl production areas. 
Appendices 91

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the Refuge System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Noxious Weed: A plant species designated by federal or state law as generally 

possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or 

difficult to manage; parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insect or 

disease; or non-native, new, or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease or had adverse effects on man or his 

environment and therefore is detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the Untied States and to the public health. 

Objective: A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to 

achieve, when and where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible 

for the work. Objectives derive from goals and provide the basis for 

determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and 

evaluating the success of strategies. Making objectives attainable, 

time-specific, and measurable (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6N). 

Plant Association: A classification of plant communities based on the similarity in 

dominants of all layers of vascular species in a climax community. 

Plant Community: An assemblage of plant species unique in its composition; occurs in 

particular locations under particular influences; a reflection or 

integration of the environmental influences on the site such as soils, 

temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope, aspect, and rainfall; 

denotes a general kind of climax plant community. 

Preferred Alternative: This is the alternative determined [by the decision-maker] to best 

achieve the refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contribute to the Refuge 

System mission; address the significant issues; and is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management. 

Prescribed Fire: The application of fire to wildland fuels to achieve identified land use 

objectives (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). May be from natural ignition 

or intentional ignition. 

Priority Species: Fish and wildlife species that the Service believes require protective 

measures and/or management guidelines to ensure their perpetuation. 

Priority species include the following: (1) state-listed and candidate 

species; (2) species or groups of animals susceptible to significant 

population declines within a specific area or statewide by virtue of their 

inclination to aggregate (e.g., seabird colonies); and (3) species of 

recreation, commercial, and/or tribal importance. 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 
92 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Involvement: A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and 

organizations an opportunity to become informed about, and to express 

their opinions on Service actions and policies. In the process, these 

views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public 

views is given in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public: Individuals, organizations, and groups; officials of federal, state, and 

local government agencies; Indian tribes; and foreign nations. It may 

include anyone outside the core planning team. It includes those who 

may or may not have indicated an interest in service issues and those 

who do or do not realize that Service decisions may affect them. 

Purposes of the 

Refuge: 

“The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, 

executive order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a 

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge sub-unit.” For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness 

Act are additional purposes of the refuge (Service Manual 

602 FW 106 S). 

Recommended 

Wilderness: 

Areas studied and found suitable for wilderness designation by both the 

Director of the Service and Secretary of Interior, and recommended for 

designation by the President to Congress. These areas await only 

legislative action by congress in order to become part of the Wilderness 

System. Such areas are also referred to as “pending in Congress” 

(Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5). 

Record of Decision 

(ROD): 

A concise public record of decision prepared by the federal agency, 

pursuant to NEPA, that contains a statement of the decision, 

identification of all alternatives considered, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, a statement as to whether all 

practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

alternative selected have been adopted (and if not, why they were not), 

and a summary of monitoring and enforcement where applicable for any 

mitigation (40 CFR 1505.2). 

Refuge Goal: See Goal. 

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge. 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that is medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 
Appendices 93

Strategy: A specific action, tool, technique, or combination of actions, tools, and 

techniques used to meet unit objectives (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.6 U). 

Study Area: The area reviewed in detail for wildlife, habitat, and public use potential. 

For purposes of this CCP/EA, the study area includes the lands within 

the currently approved refuge boundary and potential refuge 

expansion areas. 

Threatened Species 

(Federal): 

Species listed under the Endangered Species Act that are likely to 

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of their range. 

Threatened Species 

(State): 

A plant or animal species likely to become endangered in the state 

within the near future if factors contributing to population decline or 

habitat degradation or loss continue. 

Tiering: The coverage of general matters in broader environmental impact 

statements with subsequent narrower statements of environmental 

analysis, incorporating by reference, the general discussions and 

concentrating on specific issues (40 CFR 1508.28). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Mission: 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to 

conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for 

the continuing benefit of the American people. 

Unit Objective: See Objective. 

Vegetation Type, 

Habitat Type, Forest 

Cover Type: 

A land classification system based upon the concept of distinct plant 

associations. 

Vision Statement: A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we 

hope to do, based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and 

specific refuge purposes and other mandates. We will tie the vision 

statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the 

purpose(s) of the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the 

ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; and other 

mandates (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 Z). 
94 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness. A study area must meet the following criteria: 

 Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of 

nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable 

 Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and 

unconfined type of recreation 

 Has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is sufficient in size 

as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired 

condition (Draft Service Manual 610 FW 1.5) 

Wilderness: See Designated Wilderness. 

Wildfire: A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than 

prescribed fire that occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildland Fire: Every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a prescribed fire (Service 

Manual 621 FW 1.3 
Appendices 95

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CWCS Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-time equivalent 

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S.) 

FY Fiscal Year 

GIS Global Information System 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System 

PFT Permanent Full Time 

PUNA Public Use Natural Area 

RM Refuge Manual 

RNA Research Natural Area 

ROD Record of Decision 

RONS Refuge Operating Needs System 

RRP Refuge Roads Program 

SCDNR South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS and USFWS) 

SLAMM Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model 

SLR sea level rise 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USC United States Code 

 
96 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 97

II. References and Literature Citations 

APHIS. 2005. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Feral/Wild Pigs: Potential Problems for Farmers and Hunters. Agriculture Information Bulletin 

No. 799. October 2005. Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable

version/feral%20pigs.pdf . 

Bridges, R.J. 1968. Individual white-tailed deer movement and related behavior during the winter and 

spring in northwestern Florida. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Georgia, Athens.86pp. 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002: The economic benefits to local 

communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 119 pp. Accessed online at: 

http://caddodefense.org/download/BankingOnNature2002.pdf 

Caudill, J. and E. Henderson. 2005. Banking on Nature 2004: The economic benefits to local 

communities of National Wildlife Refuge visitation. Division of Economics, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 119 pp. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/Refuges/policyMakers/pdfs/BankingOnNature_2004_finalt.pdf 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and 

deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. 131 pp. 

Cronan, J.M., Jr. 1957. Food and feeding habitats of the scaups in Connecticut waters. 

Auk 74:459-468. 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and Activities 

to 1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Ehman, J. 2008. Data Report on SLAMM Model Results for Ten National Wildlife Refuges in South 

Carolina and Georgia: Waccamaw NWR, South Carolina. Prepared by Dr. Jeff Ehman, 

Image Matters LLC for Dr. Brian Czech. March 20. 

Environment Canada. 2006. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 

Accessed online at: http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/sauvagine/html/nawmp.html . 

Georgia Wildlife Web. 2000. Georgia Museum of Natural History and Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources. Wild Pig, Sus scrofa. Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://museum.nhm.uga.edu/gawildlife/mammals/artiodactyla/suidae/sscrofa.html . 

Gordon, D.H., B.T. Gray, R.D. Perry, M.B. Prevost, T.H. Strange and R.K. Williams. 1989. South 

Atlantic Coastal Wetlands. 57-92pp in L.M. Smith, Ed. Habitat 1990 Management for Migrating 

and Wintering Waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech. University Press, Lubbock, TX. 

Invasive and Exotic Species. 2006. Common water hyacinth. Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide 

Web at: http://www.invasive.org/browse/subject.cfm?sub=3020 . 
98 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Invasive Species. 2003. Phragmites: Common Reed – Problem and Control Methods. Accessed 

8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: http://www.invasiveplants.net/phragmites/problem.htm . 

Kirby, R.E., J.E. Hines and J.D. Nichols. 1983. Afternoon closure of hunting and Recovery rates 

of mallards banded in Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:209-211. 

Laycock, George. 1965. The Sign of the Flying Goose: A Guide to the National Wildlife Refuges. 

The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. 299 pp. 

McAuley, Daniel and David A. Clugston. No date. American Woodcock. Web page. Accessed on: 

10 May, 2006. Accessed at: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/ne122.htm . 

McNeil, R., P. Drapeau and J. D. Goss-Custard. 1992. The occurrence and adaptive significance 

of nocturnal habits in waterfowl. Biol. Rev. 67:381- 419. 

Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative invasive plants of southern forests: a field guide for identification 

and control. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–62. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 

NABCI. 2005. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. May 2005. Bird Conservation Regions. 

Accessed online at: http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.html 

NOAA. No date. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Satellite and Information 

Service. No date. Climatography of the United States No. 20 1971-2000: Georgetown, SC. 

Web page. Accessed on: 15 May, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim20/sc/383468.pdf

NRCS. No date. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

Official Soil Series Descriptions. Web page. Accessed on: 15 May, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html 

PARC. 2004. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation. 2004. About PARC. Accessed online 

at: http://www.parcplace.org/about.html 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity budgets of nonbreeding gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 48:371-380. 

PIF-US. 2006. Partners in Flight-U.S. 21 February, 2006. What is Partners in Flight (PIF)? Accessed 

online at: http://www.partnersinflight.org/description.cfm 

Sanderson, G.C. 1966. The study of mammal movement – a review. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

30(1):215-235. 

SCDNR. 2006. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/. 

SCDNR. No date. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. No date. South Carolina 

Wildlife Initiative Plan. Web page. Accessed on: 10 May, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wcp/tablecontents.htm. 
Appendices 99

Scorecard, 2005. Criteria Air Pollutant Report: Georgetown County, SC. Accessed 8-20-06 on the 

World Wide Web at: http://www.scorecard.org/envreleases/cap/county.tcl?fips_county_code=45043#exposures_pollutants . 

SHPO. No date. South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office. Welcome to the South Carolina 

State Historic Preservation Office. Accessed 8-21-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.state.sc.us/scdah/histrcpl.htm . 

Smith, F.H., Jr. 1970. Daily and seasonal variation in movements of white-tailed deer on 

Elgin Air Force Base, Florida. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Georgia, Athens. 58pp. 

STATS Indiana. 2006. Indiana Department of Commerce. 2006. USA Counties In Profile. 

Accessed at: http://www.stats.indiana.edu/uspr/a/us_profile_frame.html. 

USACE, 2002. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr. var lobata 

(Willd.) Maesen & S. Almeida (Kudzu) Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/pmis/plants/html/pueraria.html. 

USCB. 2006. U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. State and County Quick Facts. Accessed at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/. 

USDA, 1997. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

National Resources Inventory. 

USFWS. 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. April 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Proposed Establishment of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge – Georgetown, Horry, and 

Marion Counties South Carolina. Southeast Region. Atlanta, Georgia. 

USFWS. 2003. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 2003. Biological Review of Waccamaw 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

USFWS. 2005. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2005. Visitor Services’ Review Report. 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. Region 4 (Southeast Region). 

USFWS. 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Assessment – 2007 Recreational Hunt 

Plan on Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, Horry and Georgetown Counties, 

South Carolina. February. 

USFWS. No date-a. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overview of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation 

Plan and Council. Web page. Accessed on: 10 May, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/overview.htm 

USFWS. No date-b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ecosystem Units. Web page. Accessed 

on: 11 May, 2006. Accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/offices/ecounits.html 

USFWS. No date-c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee (SSPD) Ecosystem 

Team. Web page. Accessed on 30 May, 2006. Accessed at: 

http://www.fws.gov/athens/ecoteams/peedee.html . 
100 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 101

III. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive 

Orders 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Administrative Procedures 

Act (1946) 

Outlines administrative procedures to be followed by federal agencies 

with respect to identification of information to be made public; 

publication of material in the Federal Register; maintenance of records; 

attendance and notification requirements for specific meetings and 

hearings; issuance of licenses; and review of agency actions. 

American Antiquities Act of 

1906 

Provides penalties for unauthorized collection, excavation, or 

destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of 

antiquity on lands owned or controlled by the United States. The 

Act authorizes the President to designate as national monuments 

objects or areas of historic or scientific interest on lands owned or 

controlled by the Unites States. 

American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978 

Protects the inherent right of Native Americans to believe, express, 

and exercise their traditional religions, including access to important 

sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonial and traditional rites. 

Americans With Disabilities 

Act of 1990 

Prevents discrimination of and makes American society more 

accessible to people with disabilities. The Act requires reasonable 

accommodations to be made in employment, public services, public 

accommodations, and telecommunications for persons with 

disabilities. 

Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act of 1965, 

as amended 

Authorizes the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-federal interests 

for conservation, development, and enhancement of anadromous 

fish and contributes up to 50 percent as the federal share of the 

cost of carrying out such agreements. Reclamation construction 

programs for water resource projects needed solely for such fish 

are also authorized. 

Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, as 

amended. 

Strengthens and expands the protective provisions of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906 regarding archaeological resources. It also 

revised the permitting process for archaeological research. 

Architectural Barriers Act of 

1968 

Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, or 

altered with federal funds, or leased by a federal agency, must 

comply with standards for physical accessibility. 
102 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act of 1940, as 

amended 

Prohibits the possession, sale, or transport of any bald or golden 

eagle, alive or dead, or part, nest, or egg except as permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior for scientific or exhibition purposes, or 

for the religious purposes of Indians. 

Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act of 1937 

Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land 

conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in 

land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, 

reforestation, conservation of natural resources, and protection of 

fish and wildlife. Some early refuges and hatcheries were 

established under authority of this Act. 

Cave Resources Protection 

Act of 1988 

Established requirements for the management and protection of 

caves and their resources on federal lands, including allowing the 

land managing agencies to withhold the location of caves from the 

public, and requiring permits for any removal or collecting activities 

in caves on federal lands. 

Clean Air Act of 1970 Regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. 

This Act and its amendments charge federal land managers with 

direct responsibility to protect the “air quality and related values” of 

land under their control. These values include fish, wildlife, and 

their habitats. 

Clean Water Act of 1974, 

as amended 

Restores and maintains the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 of the Act requires that 

federally permitted activities comply with the Clean Water Act 

standards, state water quality laws, and any other appropriate state 

laws. Section 404 charges the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with 

regulating discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act of 1982 (CBRA) 

Identifies undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts and included them in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS). The objectives of the Act are to 

minimize loss of human life, reduce wasteful federal spending, and 

minimize the damage to natural resources by restricting most 

federal expenditures that encourage development within the CBRS. 

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 

Reauthorized the CBRA, expanded the CBRS to include 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Great Lakes and in the 

Caribbean, and established “Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs).” 

The Service is responsible for maintaining official maps, consulting 

with federal agencies that propose spending federal funds within 

the CBRS and OPAs, and making recommendations to Congress 

about proposed boundary revisions. 
Appendices 103

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Coastal Wetlands Planning, 

Protection, and Restoration 

(1990) 

Authorizes the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 

participate in the development of a Louisiana coastal wetlands 

restoration program, participate in the development and oversight 

of a coastal wetlands conservation program, and lead in the 

implementation and administration of a national coastal wetlands 

grant program. 

Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a voluntary national program within the Department of 

Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement 

coastal zone management plans and requires that “any Federal 

activity within or outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or 

water use or natural resource of the coastal zone” shall be 

“consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable 

policies” of a state’s coastal zone management plan. The law 

includes an Enhancement Grants Program for protecting, restoring, 

or enhancing existing coastal wetlands or creating new coastal 

wetlands. It also established the National Estuarine Reserve 

Research System, guidelines for estuarine research, and financial 

assistance for land acquisition. 

Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act of 1986 

Authorized the purchase of wetlands from Land and Water 

Conservation Fund moneys, removing a prior prohibition on such 

acquisitions. The Act requires the Secretary to establish a National 

Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan, required the states to include 

wetlands in their Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation plans, and 

transfers to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund amounts equal to 

import duties on arms and ammunition. It also established 

entrance fees at national wildlife refuges. 

Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended 

Provides for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species of fish, wildlife, and plants by federal action and by 

encouraging the establishment of State programs. It provides for 

the determination and listing of threatened and endangered species 

and the designation of critical habitats. Section 7 requires refuge 

managers to perform internal consultation before initiating projects 

that affect or may affect endangered species. 

Environmental Education 

Act of 1990 

Established the Office of Environmental Education within the 

Environmental Protection Agency to develop and administer a 

federal environmental education program in consultation with other 

federal natural resource management agencies, including the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 
104 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuary Protection Act of 

1968 

Authorized the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other 

federal agencies and the states, to study and inventory estuaries of 

the United States, including land and water of the Great Lakes, and 

to determine whether such areas should be acquired for protection. 

The Secretary is also required to encourage state and local 

governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their 

planning activities relates to federal natural resource grants. In 

approving any state grants for acquisition of estuaries, the 

Secretary was required to establish conditions to ensure the 

permanent protection of estuaries. 

Estuaries and Clean 

Waters Act of 2000 

Created a federal interagency council that includes the Director of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and the Administrator for the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Council is 

charged with developing a national estuary habitat restoration 

strategy and providing grants to entities to restore and protect 

estuary habitat to promote the strategy. 

Food Security Act of 1985, 

as amended (Farm Bill) 

Contains several provisions that contribute to wetland conservation. 

The Swampbuster provisions state that farmers who convert 

wetlands for the purpose of planting after enactment of the law are 

ineligible for most farmer program subsidies. It also established the 

Wetland Reserve Program to restore and protect wetlands through 

easements and restoration of the functions and values of wetlands 

on such easement areas. 

Farmland Protection Policy 

Act of 1981, as amended 

Minimizes the extent to which federal programs contribute to the 

unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

Federal programs include construction projects and the 

management of federal lands. 

Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), as 

amended 

Governs the establishment of and procedures for committees that 

provide advice to the Federal Government. Advisory committees 

may be established only if they will serve a necessary, nonduplicative function. Committees must be strictly advisory unless 

otherwise specified and meetings must be open to the public. 

Federal Coal Leasing 

Amendment Act of 1976 

Provides that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorizes mining coal 

on refuges. 
Appendices 105

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Federal-Aid Highways Act 

of 1968 

Established requirements for approval of federal highways through 

wildlife refuges and other designated areas to preserve the natural 

beauty of such areas. The Secretary of Transportation is directed 

to consult with the Secretary of the Interior and other federal 

agencies before approving any program or project requiring the use 

of land under their jurisdiction. 

Federal Noxious Weed Act 

of 1990, as amended 

Authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to designate plants as 

noxious weeds and to cooperate with other federal, state, and local 

agencies; farmers associations; and private individuals in measures 

to control, eradicate, prevent, or retard the spread of such weeds. 

The Act requires each federal land-managing agency including the 

Fish and Wildlife Service to designate an office or person to 

coordinate a program to control such plants on the agency’s land 

and implement cooperative agreements with the states, including 

integrated management systems to control undesirable plants. 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Established a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife 

resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry 

but also includes the inherent right of every citizen and resident to 

fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and 

increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife 

resources. Among other things, it authorizes the Secretary of the 

Interior to take such steps as may be required for the development, 

advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish 

and wildlife resources including, but not limited to, research, 

development of existing facilities, and acquisition by purchase or 

exchange of land and water or interests therein. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act of 1980, 

as amended 

Requires the Service to monitor non-gamebird species, identify 

species of management concern, and implement conservation 

measures to preclude the need for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act of 1958 

Promotes equal consideration and coordination of wildlife 

conservation with other water resource development programs by 

requiring consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

state fish and wildlife agencies where the “waters of a stream or 

other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or 

licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or 

modified” by any agency under federal permit or license. 
106 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Improvement Act of 1978 Improves the administration of fish and wildlife programs and 

amends several earlier laws, including the Refuge Recreation Act, 

the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956. It authorizes the Secretary to accept gifts and 

bequests of real and personal property on behalf of the United 

States. It also authorizes the use of volunteers on Service projects 

and appropriations to carry out volunteer programs. 

Fishery (Magnuson) 

Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 

Established Regional Fishery Management Councils comprised of 

federal and state officials, including the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

provides for regulation of foreign fishing and vessel fishing permits. 

Freedom of Information Act, 

1966 

Requires all federal agencies to make available to the public for 

inspection and copying administrative staff manuals and staff 

instructions, official, published and unpublished policy statements, 

final orders deciding case adjudication, and other documents. 

Special exemptions have been reserved for nine categories of 

privileged material. The Act requires the party seeking the 

information to pay reasonable search and duplication costs. 

Geothermal Steam Act of 

1970, as amended 

Authorizes and governs the lease of geothermal steam and related 

resources on public lands. Section 15c of the Act prohibits issuing 

geothermal leases on virtually all Service-administrative lands. 

Lacey Act of 1900, as 

amended 

Originally designed to help states protect their native game animals 

and to safeguard United States’ crop production from harmful 

foreign species. This Act prohibits interstate and international 

transport and commerce of fish, wildlife, or plants taken in violation 

of domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America 

of foreign species into new locations. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

Provides funding through receipts from the sale of surplus federal 

land, appropriations from oil and gas receipts from the outer 

continental shelf, and other sources for land acquisition under 

several authorities. Appropriations from the fund may be used for 

matching grants to States for outdoor recreation projects and for 

land acquisition by various federal agencies including the Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

Marine Mammal Protection 

Act of 1972, as amended 

Established a federal responsibility to conserve marine mammals 

with management vested in the Department of the Interior for sea 

otter, walrus, polar bear, dugong, and manatee. The Department of 

Commerce is responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, other than 

the walrus. With certain specified exceptions, the Act establishes a 

moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals, as 

well as products taken from them. 
Appendices 107

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act of 1929 

Established a Migratory Bird Conservation Commission to approve 

areas recommended by the Secretary of the Interior for acquisition 

with Migratory Bird Conservation Funds. The role of the 

Commission was expanded by the North American Wetland 

Conservation Act to include approving wetlands acquisition, 

restoration, and enhancement proposals recommended by the 

North American Wetlands Conservation Council. 

Migratory Bird Hunting and 

Conservation Stamp Act of 

1934 

Also commonly referred to as the “Duck Stamp Act,” requires 

waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to possess a valid 

federal hunting stamp. Receipts from the sale of the stamp are 

deposited into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund for the 

acquisition of migratory bird refuges. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

Implements various treaties and conventions between the United 

States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union 

for the protection of migratory birds. Except as allowed by special 

regulations, this Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, kill, capture, 

possess, buy, sell, purchase, barter, export or import any migratory 

bird, part, nest, egg or product. 

Mineral Leasing Act for 

Acquired Lands (1947), as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs mineral leasing on acquired public lands. 

Minerals Leasing Act of 

1920, as amended 

Authorizes and governs leasing of public lands for development of 

deposits of coal, oil, gas and other hydrocarbons, sulphur, 

phosphate, potassium, and sodium. Section 185 of this title 

contains provisions relating to granting rights-of-way over federal 

lands for pipelines. 

Mining Act of 1872, as 

amended 

Authorizes and governs prospecting and mining for the so-called 

“hardrock” minerals (such as gold and silver) on public lands. 

National and Community 

Service Act of 1990 

Authorized several programs to engage citizens of the United 

States in full-and/or part-time projects designed to combat illiteracy 

and poverty, provide job skills, enhance educational skills, and fulfill 

environmental needs. Among other things, this law established the 

American Conservation and Youth Service Corps to engage young 

adults in approved human and natural resource projects, which will 

benefit the public or are carried out on federal or tribal lands. 
108 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

Requires analysis, public comment, and reporting for environmental 

impacts of federal actions. It stipulates the factors to be considered 

in environmental impact statements, and requires that federal 

agencies employ an interdisciplinary approach in related decisionmaking and develop means to ensure that unqualified 

environmental values are given appropriate consideration, along 

with economic and technical considerations. 

National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended 

Established a National Register of Historic Places and a program of 

matching grants for preservation of significant historical features. 

Federal agencies are directed to take into account the effects of 

their actions on items or sites listed or eligible for listing in the 

National Register. 

National Trails System Act 

(1968), as amended 

Established the National Trails System to protect the recreational, 

scenic and historic values of some important trails. National 

Recreation Trails may be established by the Secretaries of Interior 

or Agriculture on land wholly or partly within their jurisdiction, with 

the consent of the involved state(s), and other land managing 

agencies, if any. National Scenic and National Historic Trails may 

only be designated by an Act of Congress. Several National Trails 

cross units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single federal law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

Amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966. This Act defines the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, establishes the legitimacy and appropriateness of six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses, establishes a formal process 

for determining compatible uses of Refuge System lands, identifies 

the Secretary of the Interior as responsible for managing and 

protecting the Refuge System, and requires the development of a 

comprehensive conservation plan for all refuges outside of Alaska. 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990 

Requires federal agencies and museums to inventory, determine 

ownership of, and repatriate certain cultural items and human 

remains under their control or possession. The Act also addresses 

the repatriation of cultural items inadvertently discovered by 

construction activities on lands managed by the agency. 
Appendices 109

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Established a matching grants program to fund projects that 

promote the conservation of neotropical migratory birds in the 

United States, Latin America, and the Caribbean. 

North American Wetlands 

Conservation Act of 1989 

Provides funding and administrative direction for implementation of 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Tripartite 

Agreement on wetlands between Canada, United States, and 

Mexico. North American Wetlands Conservation Council is created 

to recommend projects to be funded under the Act to the Migratory 

Bird Conservation Commission. Available funds may be expended 

for up to 50 percent of the United States share cost of wetlands 

conservation projects in Canada, Mexico, or the United States (or 

100 percent of the cost of projects on federal lands). 

Refuge Recreation Act of 

1962, as amended 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to administer refuges, 

hatcheries, and other conservation areas for recreational use, when 

such uses do not interfere with the area’s primary purposes. It 

authorizes construction and maintenance of recreational facilities 

and the acquisition of land for incidental fish and wildlife-dependent 

recreational development or protection of natural resources. It also 

authorizes the charging of fees for public uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Established a Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund to 

receive appropriated funds and donations from the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation and other private sources to assist state 

fish and game agencies in carrying out their responsibilities for 

conservation of non-game species. The funding formula is no more 

that 1/3 federal funds, at least 1/3 foundation funds, and at least 1/3 

state funds. 

Refuge Revenue Sharing 

Act of 1935, as amended 

Provided for payments to counties in lieu of taxes from areas 

administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Counties are 

required to pass payments along to other units of local government 

within the county, which suffer losses in tax revenues due to the 

establishment of Service areas. 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requires nondiscrimination in the employment practices of federal 

agencies of the executive branch and contractors. It also requires 

all federally assisted programs, services, and activities to be 

available to people with disabilities. 
110 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Rivers and Harbors 

Appropriations Act of 1899, 

as amended 

Requires the authorization by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

prior to any work in, on, over, or under a navigable water of the 

United States. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act provides 

authority for the Service to review and comment on the effects on 

fish and wildlife activities proposed to be undertaken or permitted by 

the Corps of Engineers. Service concerns include contaminated 

sediments associated with dredge or fill projects in navigable waters. 

Sikes Act (1960), as 

amended 

Provides for the cooperation by the Departments of Interior and 

Defense with state agencies in planning, development, and 

maintenance of fish and wildlife resources and outdoor recreation 

facilities on military reservations throughout the United States. It 

requires the Secretary of each military department to use trained 

professionals to manage the wildlife and fishery resources under 

his jurisdiction, and requires federal and state fish and wildlife 

agencies be given priority in management of fish and wildlife 

activities on military reservations. 

Transfer of Certain Real 

Property for Wildlife 

Conservation Purposes Act 

of 1948 

This Act provides that upon determination by the Administrator of 

the General Services Administration, real property no longer 

needed by a federal agency can be transferred, without 

reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Interior if the land has 

particular value for migratory birds, or to a state agency for other 

wildlife conservation purposes. 

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21

st 

Century (1998) 

Established the Refuge Roads Program, requires transportation 

planning that includes public involvement, and provides funding for 

approved public use roads and trails and associated parking lots, 

comfort stations, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities. 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell their 

homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires that any 

purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives, including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, energy, 

industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife needs. The Act also 

established a grant program to assist states in participating in the 

development of related comprehensive water and land use plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

Selects certain rivers of the nation possessing remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other 

similar values; preserves them in a free-flowing condition; and 

protects their local environments. 
Appendices 111

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended 

Directs the Secretary of the Interior to review every area of at least 

5,000 contiguous roadless acres in size or roadless areas sufficient 

in size to make practicable their preservation and use in an 

unimpaired condition, or be a roadless island of any size, within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, and to recommend suitability of 

each such area. 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. 

Youth Conservation Corps 

Act of 1970 

Established a permanent Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program within the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement 

of the Cultural Environment (1971) 

States that if the Service proposes any development 

activities that may affect archaeological or historical 

sites, the Service will consult with federal and state 

historic preservation officers to comply with Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

as amended. 

EO 11644, Use of Off-road Vehicles on 

Public Land (1972) 

Established policies and procedures to ensure that the 

use of off-road vehicles on public lands will be 

controlled and directed so as to protect the resources 

of those lands, to promote the safety of all users of 

those lands, and to minimize conflicts among the 

various uses of those lands. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management 

(1977) 

Prevents federal agencies from contributing to the 

“adverse impacts associated with occupancy and 

modification of floodplains” and the “direct or indirect 

support of floodplain development.” In the course of 

fulfilling their respective authorities, federal agencies 

“shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to 

minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health 

and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural 

and beneficial values served by floodplains.” 
112 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 11989 (1977), Amends Section 2 of 

EO 11644 

Directs agencies to close areas negatively impacted 

by off-road vehicles. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands 

(1977) 

Directs federal agencies to provide leadership and to 

take action to minimize the destruction, loss or 

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance 

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. 

EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of 

Federal Programs (1982) 

Seeks to foster intergovernmental partnerships by 

requiring federal agencies to use the state process to 

determine and address concerns of state and local 

elected officials with proposed federal assistance and 

development programs. 

EO 12898, Environmental Justice (1994) Requires federal agencies to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and lowincome populations. 

EO 12906, Coordinating Geographical 

Data Acquisition and Access (1994), 

Amended by EO 13286 (2003). 

Amendment of EO’s & other actions in 

connection w/ transfer of certain 

functions to Secretary of DHS. 

Recommended that the executive branch develop, in 

cooperation with state, local, and tribal governments, 

and the private sector, a coordinated National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure to support public and private sector 

applications of geospatial data. Of particular 

importance to comprehensive conservation planning is 

the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS), 

which is adopted, standard for vegetation mapping. 

Using NVCS facilitates the compilation of regional and 

national summaries, which, in turn, can provide an 

ecosystem context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Directs federal agencies to improve the quantity, 

function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of 

United States’ aquatic resources for increased 

recreational fishing opportunities in cooperation with 

states and tribes. 

EO 13007, Native American Religious 

Practices (1996) 

Provides for access to, and ceremonial use of, Indian 

sacred sites on federal lands used by Indian religious 

practitioners and direction to avoid adversely affecting 

the physical integrity of such sites. 
Appendices 113

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

EO 13061, Federal Support of 

Community Efforts Along American 

Heritage Rivers (1997) 

Established the American Heritage Rivers initiative for 

the purpose of natural resource and environmental 

protection, economic revitalization, and historic and 

cultural preservation. The Act directs federal agencies 

to preserve, protect, and restore rivers and their 

associated resources important to our history, culture, 

and natural heritage. 

EO 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments (2000) 

Provides a mechanism for establishing regular and 

meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal 

officials in the development of federal policies that 

have tribal implications. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species (1999) Directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of 

invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to and 

control populations of such species in a cost effective 

and environmentally sound manner, accurately 

monitor invasive species, provide for restoration of 

native species and habitat conditions, conduct 

research to prevent introductions and to control 

invasive species, and promote public education on 

invasive species and the means to address them. 

This EO replaces and rescinds EO 11987, Exotic 

Organisms (1977). 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. 

(2001) 

Instructs federal agencies to conserve migratory birds 

by several means, including the incorporation of 

strategies and recommendations found in Partners in 

Flight Bird Conservation plans, the North American 

Waterfowl Plan, the North American Waterbird 

Conservation Plan, and the United States Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, into agency management plans 

and guidance documents. 
114 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 115

IV. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

y Provide a complex of intensively and passively managed wood duck habitat. 

y Maintain high-quality habitat for priority landbirds associated with mature forested wetlands. 

y Provide high-quality breeding marshbird habitat. 

y Provide secure nesting sites and ample foraging habitat for long-legged waders. 

y Provide both northbound and southbound shorebird foraging sites. 

y Provide secure nesting and roosting sites for bald eagles. 

y Reduce deer herd density to improve herd health and improve habitat quality for other species. 

y Encourage private landowners to provide additional moist-soil habitat and greentree reservoirs to 

complement the refuge habitat management programs. 

y Invasive species control: keep canals and water delivery systems functional and protect native 

communities. 

y A management plan is needed for the control of feral hogs. 

y Perpetuate, restore, and research longleaf pine ecosystems. 

y Maintain a healthy fishery in the waters associated with the refuge. 

y Use prescribed fire as a land management tool. 

y Keep the Waccamaw NWR as a sanctuary for protecting and managing threatened and 

endangered species. 

y Make the recovery of the redbreast sunfish a high priority. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

y Regulate jet skis and other significant recreational/social issues affecting wildlife. 

y Restrictions are needed on the type of boat traffic allowed. Boat wakes and noise are disruptive and 

damaging. I would like to see a ban on jet skis and perhaps a speed limit on boats over 20 feet. 
116 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y Do not allow activities in the refuge that are incompatible with its use, such as road building and 

residential and commercial development. 

y Continue to cooperate with the South Carolina Department of Transportation on the Highway 701 

connector (road for evacuation route) and other new road construction-related issues that may 

affect the refuge. 

y We are concerned about the possible road that may be planned that would cut through the 

refuge. Please help us keep the refuge as it was intended, not an easy target for road building 

because of its remote location. 

y Keep the refuge clean and non-littered. 

y Drinking water quality safeguarded by the refuge. 

y Encroaching development is an important issue. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

y Establish an environmental education and interpretation center to provide ongoing programs for 

children and adults to learn about and appreciate the refuge's flora and fauna. 

y Develop a portable exhibit to be used in the current refuge entryway for visitors stopping at the 

office after hours. The exhibit can also be used as a loaner for special events. 

y Involve the SEWEE Association in the development of interpretive media concepts. Conduct a 

design workshop to develop conceptual drawings and narratives. 

y Concentrate initial efforts to develop facilities and programs at the Yauhannah Bluff Visitor Center 

site. After annual funding is secured, expand programs to include the Causey Tract (with build up 

to include the International Paper lands as they are acquired) and the Haulover site. 

y Increase wildlife observation opportunities by enhancing the trail system, adding interpretive 

panels and brochures. 

y Collect recreation fees for quota hunts, and any additional activities that qualify to be in the 

recreation fee program. 

y Place kiosks at 3 boat launches and develop a “welcome/waiting” shelter at the Yauhannah 

Lake landing. 

y Expand youth hunts to possibly include deer, small game, and/or waterfowl. 

y As additional parcels of land (which are not island parcels) are acquired, consider establishing a 

hunt for persons with disabilities. The Yauhannah Tract may lend itself to this type of hunt 

program. 

y Work with SCDNR and establish zones for various boat types and motor horse powers to help 

achieve a balance of allowed uses, to reduce user conflicts, and to reduce and minimize 

conflicts and wildlife disturbance. 
Appendices 117

y Host annual youth fishing day during National Fishing Week or National Wildlife Refuge Week. 

y Improve access for bank fishing on the refuge for anglers with disabilities. 

y Develop interpretive signs at Yauhannah Landing wildlife trail. 

y Construct an observation/photography blind at Causey Tract. 

y Establish and develop canoe trail route and post signs. 

y Establish an “Adopt a swallow-tailed kite” program. 

y Conduct environmental education programs for students visiting the refuge and visitor center. 

These are one-time field trips which are requested by teachers (not associated with Earth 

Stewards or the EIC programs). 

y Maintain the area's excellent hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation. 

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

y Continue to foster partnerships. Develop marketing and communication strategies for fostering 

fund raising and potential partnerships. 

y Continue land acquisition. 

y Hire a park ranger/staff to manage the visitor services, visitor center, outreach, and volunteer 

programs. 

y Hire a park ranger who would be dedicated to public use programs. 

y Develop a volunteer program to help with greeting and orienting the public and other routine office 

assignments, maintenance around the Yauhannah Bluff, conducting environmental education, 

and seeking grants. 

y Partner with Coastal Carolina University and/or Horry County Technical College and develop an 

on-going internship program for students in environmental studies program. 

SUMMARY OF DRAFT PLAN COMMENTS AND SERVICE RESPONSES 

This section summarizes all comments that were received on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. Public 

comments on this Draft CCP/EA were accepted from February 13 to March 14, 2008. A total of 94 

individuals submitted written comments on the Draft CCP/EA. More than one individual represented 

some agencies or organizations and certain inviduals represented more than one organization. 

AFFILIATIONS OF COMMENTERS 

 

The table below identifies the names and affiliations of commenters who submitted comments in 

writing on the Draft CCP/EA. 
118 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Name of Commenter Affiliation 

Meghan Alexander NA 

Bob Arnoff NA 

Ro Arnoff NA 

Gregory Baccari NA 

Robert Beattie NA 

Stephanie Beard NA 

Karen Beshears Executive Director, SEWEE Association 

Margaret P. Blackmer NA 

Larissa Bortz NA 

Alton Brown, III NA 

Jenny Brown NA 

Garrett Budds NA 

Julia Cahill NA 

Cornelia Carrier Board Member, Charleston Audubon 

Nancy Cave North Coast Office Director, Coastal Conservation League 

Karen Clarke NA 

Margaret Claypool NA 

Ron Claypool NA 

Paul Cooper NA 

Frances Cone NA 

Kim Counts NA 

Nancy Cregg NA 

Marianne Currie NA 

Kerry Donati NA 

David Dunkleberger NA 

steven dunkleberger NA 

Allen Edgerton NA 

Christine Ellis Waccamaw Riverkeeper, Winyah Rivers Foundation 

Jerry L. Fore, Jr. President, Five Rivers Coalition 

Ellen Forwalk NA 
Appendices 119

Name of Commenter Affiliation 

David Foster NA 

George Geer NA 

R Gillies NA 

Annette goings NA 

Robert Greaves NA 

Ronda Greaves NA 

Kay Grinnell NA 

Todd Hancock NA 

Julian R. Harrison NA 

Winslow Hastie NA 

Elizabeth G. Hatcher Member, Waccamaw Nation 

Gerald Hazen Member, Coastal Conservation League 

Bruxanne Hein Board Member and Volunteer, Grand Strand Surfrider Foundation 

Susie Heyward NA 

Carla Higgins NA 

Charlie Hill NA 

Brad Huber NA 

Beth Huntley NA 

Larry Isaacs NA 

Sarah Jones NA 

Cindy Kearney NA 

Nancy Kreml NA 

Angela Lee NA 

Dr. Susan Libes Director, Waccamaw Watershed Academy, Professor of Marine 

Science and Chemistry, Coastal Carolina University 

Catherine Locatis NA 

James Majors Upstate Trails Coordinator, Palmetto Conservation Foundation 

Andrea Malloy NA 

ted mccormack Member, Coastal Conservation League 

Dianne McKenzie NA 

R. Preston Maultsby NA 
120 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Name of Commenter Affiliation 

Ann Maxwell NA 

Jamie McCulloch NA 

Patricia Milley Chairman of the Education Committee, Republican Women of Myrtle 

Beach 

Angela Muehlenkamp NA 

Ernie Nance Chairman, Morgan Park Committee 

Jeffrey NeSmith NA 

Ginger Ogburn-Matthews Research Data Manager and Analyst, Baruch Marine Field 

Laboratory, University of South Carolina 

Bud Owens NA 

Phail Owens NA 

John L. (Jack) Peachey Conservation Chairman, Waccamaw Audubon Society 

Virginia Prevost NA 

Steven Profit NA 

Frederick Quinn IV NA 

Rick Ranalli NA 

Susan Recce Director, Conservation, Wildlife and Natural Resources, National Rifle 

Association of America 

Rogers Reeves Dentist, Simpsonville Dental Associates 

Matt Rice Associate Director, American Rivers, Southeast Region 

Rick Rickenbaker NA 

Frederich Roitzsch NA 

Cathy Rosario NA 

Gillian Roy President, Georgetown County League of Women Voters 

Paula Rivers NA 

b. sachau NA 

Benjamin Schlau Member, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League 

Ann Shahid NA 

Bill Shelley NA 

Pete Silveston NA 

David Singleton Public Programs Assistant, Historic Charleston Foundation 
Appendices 121

Name of Commenter Affiliation 

Will Smith Coastal Expeditions 

J. David Utterback NA 

Greg A. VanDerwerker NA 

Susan Wallace NA 

Virginia White NA 

Maria Whitehead, Ph.D. Project Director, Winyah and Pee Dee River Basin, The Nature 

Conservancy; Co-Chair, Swallow-tailed Kite Conservation Alliance 

The number of affiliations represented in the above table can be summarized as follows: federal 

agencies, 0; Indian Tribes, 1; state agencies, 0; local (city and county) agencies, 0; nongovernmental organizations, 16; private citizens (members of the general public, listed as ‘NA’ or no 

affiliation), 71; universities, 2; and businesses, 2. 

COMMENT MEDIA 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: e-mail, 90 (sometimes letter included in email, sometimes as an attached file); 

and written (hard copy) letter, 4. 

GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF COMMENTERS 

The geographic origins of the individual commenters who submitted written comments are South 

Carolina, 86; Pennsylvania, 3; Georgia, 2; Tennessee, 1; Virginia, 1; and New Jersey, 1. 

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS/CONCERNS AND SERVICE’S RESPONSES 

The public comments received address the following concerns. Comments below are sometimes 

paraphrased or combined (when more than one commenter made a similar point) and sometimes 

repeated verbatim. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s responses to each concern are also summarized. 

Management Alternatives in Environmental Assessment – Preferred Alternative 

Comment: I support the preferred alternative: optimization of habitat management and visitor 

services, including stepping up the study of black bears, restoring hydrology for wood stork habitat 

and rookery, enhanced red cockaded nesting and foraging habitat. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment and support of the Service’s preferred alternative. 

Fish and Wildlife Population Management – Endangered Species and Sensitive Ecosystems 

Comment: I support more protections and management of threatened and endangered species and 

sensitive ecosystems, particularly wetlands, within the refuge. Therefore I support more aggressive 

strategies for these protections and management for these species and habitats. 
122 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: Chapter IV of the CCP contains several objectives under the Fish and 

Wildlife Population Management and Habitat Management goals related to protecting rare 

species and ecosystems. One objective focuses on black bears and another on threatened and 

endangered species such as the red-cockaded woodpecker, recently delisted bald eagle, wood 

stork, shortnose sturgeon, pondberry, Canby’s dropwort, and American chaffseed. Freshwater 

marshes, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-gum forests are each covered by an objective 

under the Habitat Management goal. 

Comment: Nowhere in the Draft Plan Alternative D did I see a specific strategy to include a thorough

field investigation to inventory all the refuge for all of the cited Endangered Species. It only lists wood 

stork and RCW habitat restoration in the different units (Alternatives B-D). Alternative A states “Listed 

species continue to be protected on appropriate refuge habitats; document all sightings and presence of 

listed species on the refuge.” Specifically, the CCP/EA states that the endangered Pondberry, Canby’s 

dropwort, and American chaffseed may potentially occur in the refuge’s pineland areas and on Sandy 

Island, but Alternative D does not mention a plan to verify these occurrences. The other threatened and 

endangered species have been sited and verified to occur in the refuge acquisition area. 

 

Likewise, Alternative D also does not address the potential occurrence of several of the listed species 

of concern. It is critical to do thorough habitat and species inventory, especially since Alternative D 

includes opening up nature trails, interpretation activities, and wildlife and observation activities in the 

refuge to include Sandy Island where a good number of these endangered and species of concern 

may potentially occur. 

Sandy Island, in particular, as well as the rest of the refuge needs to have an exhaustively complete 

species investigation before creating public activities and access. Some of this can be accomplished 

by being more proactive in inviting and encouraging researchers and academic experts to come do 

inventories for species occurrences and habitat needs assessment. This partnership would help freeup the refuge staff to do other refuge-related activities. Clemson University, University of South 

Carolina, and Coastal Carolina University have expertise and graduate students who are currently 

working in the refuge area. There are other universities, given the opportunity, who may also be 

interested in working in the refuge. 

Service Response: Thank you for your interest and comments. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

currently manages the majority of Sandy Island. TNC has conducted extensive inventories on lands that 

it owns and manages. In addition, the Service has worked closely with SCDNR on threatened and 

endangered surveys throughout the refuge acquisition boundary. The refuge is actively involved in the 

swallow-tailed kite survey efforts conducted by SCDNR, the Audubon Society, TNC, and the International 

Center for Birds of Prey. We have to work on a case-by-case fashion due to resource limitations. 

By way of example, we are partnering with Bat Conservation International to build a bat roost on the 

refuge for Rafinesque Big-eared bats, which will help offset potential impacts that will occur when the 

South Carolina Department of Transportation demolishes an old bridge that crosses the refuge. This 

conservation initiative was developed by refuge staff and it may have never happened if the refuge 

had not been in place and engaged in the protection of species in decline. 

Another example is the two separate wood stork rookeries that refuge staff have helped to protect 

and enhance. As it pertains to public use areas impacting wildlife, less than 10 percent of the refuge 

is accessible by land, which greatly restricts impacts. These areas have been surveyed for 

threatened and endangered species with Section 7 consultations. In addition, potential 

archaeological resource impacts from public use must be avoided. 
Appendices 123

Habitat Management – Prescribed Fire 

Comment: No prescribed burning should be done. It causes heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, 

pneumonia, allergies, and asthma because fine particulate matter spreads across earth. 

Service Response: Prescribed fire, while not practiced extensively on the refuge, is a crucial tool in 

wildland management, both to avoid “fuel accumulation” that can lead to devastating (and even morehealth-threatening) fires and for habitat management to benefit native plants and animals, which are 

adapted to, or even dependent on, periodic fires. An up-to-date fire management plan must be in place 

and include specific prescriptions for any refuge property that has been targeted for prescribed fire before 

any burning can take place on the refuge. Once this has been completed, prescribed fires are ignited 

only when weather conditions will maximize smoke dispersal, and thus minimize potential health risks. 

Habitat Management – Protecting Unique Flora and Fauna 

Comment: It is absolutely necessary for the Waccamaw NWR to be protected and buffered for its unique 

flora and fauna. These irreplaceable South Carolina features along with Carolina Bays are sensitive and 

delicate. My concern stems from watching unbridled, insensitive, and unethical clearing of land and 

habitat in Horry County. If you could include other habitats related and adjacent to the Waccamaw NWR, 

it will not only benefit us for the short run but our families and children for the future. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and comments. The CCP will strengthen the 

Service’s ability to conserve flora and fauna in the area. The Service will continue to cooperate with 

partners – citizens, landowners, other government agencies and NGOs – to conserve lands, and 

wildlife in the vicinity of Waccamaw NWR. 

Habitat Management – Water Pollution 

Comment: I would like to see the plan do more to limit boat and jet skis traffic and water pollution in 

the area in order to protect and promote waterfowl and sturgeon. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and comments. Waters that traverse Waccamaw 

NWR are not owned by the refuge and the Service has no legal ability to limit access by boats and jet 

skis. However, refuge management intends to work with other governments and stakeholders to 

minimize adverse effects from these uses. Two objectives under the Habitat Management goal in 

Chapter IV of the CCP address water quality in open water and marsh areas of the refuge. 

Habitat Management – Impact of Roads 

Comment: The refuge is currently threatened by a major road project. Growth in the area suggests that 

the pressure for roads through the refuge is likely to increase in the future. It is essential to the integrity of 

the protected area that road projects NOT be allowed to bisect lands already within the refuge or within 

the acquition boundary. Future roads pose an additional threat to the coastal black bear populations (a 

recent study showed that car collisions are responsible for a large percentage of deaths) and to migratory 

birds. Roads are responsible for not only an increased incidence of collisions but also fragmentation of 

habitats, a decrease in habitat integrity and quality, an increase in invasive species, and a decrease in 

water quality. The CCP should be amended to include adequate safeguards to protect the Waccamaw 

NWR from new roads bisecting the refuge. Also, amend the CCP to protect the refuge from impacts from 

existing roads being unnecessarily widened or improved. 
124 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and comments. The only existing primary highway 

that crosses the refuge is U.S. Highway 701, which crosses three refuge parcels within Unit 1. The 

Service and the South Carolina Department of Transportation have a standing agreement which was 

developed prior to the establishment of Waccamaw NWR and provides guidelines for improving 

existing roads such as U.S. Hwy 701 within the existing right-of-way. 

If new road construction is considered in the future on lands actually purchased for the refuge, those 

lands would be considered Section 4(f) statute lands and would have to be evaluated under Section 

4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The intent of this statute and the policy of the 

Department of Transportation are not to prohibit road construction, but to avoid unnecessary impacts 

on public parks, recreation areas, refuges, and historic sites. The provisions of Section 4(f) require 

the Secretary of Transportation to determine: (1) that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to 

the use of the Section 4(f) land, and (2) that such project includes all possible planning to minimize 

harm to such park, recreation area, wildlife, and waterfowl refuge or historic site. The evaluation must 

address location alternatives and design shifts that avoid the Section 4(f) land while still addressing 

the purpose and need of the project. 

In addition to statutes mandated by the Transportation Act of 1966, a compatibility determination 

prepared by the Service is required for improvements to existing roads or any future road project. 

Resource Protection – Waccamaw River 

Comment: Please protect our Waccamaw River and the swamps surrounding it so that the habitat, 

plants, and fish will be protected. Help to keep it eco-sound and healthy. The habitat is fragile and 

needs protection from development and roads. Please protect the river from silt moving into it. 

Our Waccamaw River needs your protection so that it will remain a living river. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and your comment. Many of the goals and 

objectives of the CCP are oriented toward protecting the Waccamaw River and adjacent habitats. 

Resource Protection – Water Quality 

Comment: Regarding water quality and collection of long-term data on water quality parameters, 

please be aware of the Waccamaw River Volunteer Monitoring Project and the potential opportunities 

for cooperation in identifying baseline water quality criteria within the boundaries of the refuge using 

an EPA approved lab, housed at Coastal Carolina University’s Waccamaw Watershed Academy, and 

volunteers of the Waccamaw Riverkeeper® Program. Other partnership/volunteer opportunities 

could be pursued with these groups. 

Service Response: The Service thanks you for this information and looks forward to cooperating 

with partnering agencies and volunteeres in monitoring Waccamaw River water quality as an 

essential component of maintaining that water quality. 

Comment: Recognition is made at several points in the CCP about the need to consider water 

quality in protecting habitat value and function. Because Waccamaw NWR is on the banks of a 

river, water quality concerns are best tackled through a watershed approach that encompasses: 

(1) transport of pollutants from upstream sources, through groundwater, and from land-based 

sources on adjacent uplands, and (2) activities that alter water flow. 
Appendices 125

Current regulatory systems do not adequately consider the cumulative impacts of these quantity and 

quality issues so it is imperative for Waccamaw NWR to engage in its own ongoing assessment. 

Service Response: The Service appreciates and concurs with the observation of the importance of 

water quality to habitat integrity and health of wildlife populations. We also acknowledge the 

shortcomings of the current regulatory system. These considerations will be taken into account in 

implementation of water quality objectives over the life of the CCP, as well as in allocating the 

refuge’s limited resources. 

Comment: Limitations in SCDHEC’s monitoring methodology need to be addressed, namely no 

water quality standards exist for nutrients, oil and grease, TSS, or dissolved solids in water or for 

mercury in the sediments of coastal plain rivers like the Waccamaw. (These parameters are 

specifically mentioned in the CCP.) The current turbidity standard is much higher than recommended 

by the EPA. In addition to these parameters, I would also recommend measuring BOD, alkalinity and 

chlorophyll, but water quality standards are needed for these as well. 

In 1999, a TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load, or a calculation of maximum amount of a pollutant that 

a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards] for DO was approved by SCDHEC 

and the EPA for the lower reaches of the Waccamaw River. Since that time, there has been no 

publicly available reassessment of whether implementation of this TMDL has improved water quality. 

If monitoring data are not explicitly coupled to an adaptive management strategy, they are not likely to 

be used. Therefore the CCP needs to be strengthened to identify how monitoring data will be used. 

Increasing consensus is arising amongst the scientific and regulatory community that Waste Water 

Treatment Plants’ purification processes are not removing pharmaceuticals and personal care products 

adequately from the treated waste stream. As a result, aquatic life is now being subjected to chronic, 

albeit low, concentrations of chemicals that act as endocrine disruptors and mutagens. A common 

observation has been feminization of male fish and amphibians leading to reproductive impairments. 

Mercury concentrations in the fish from the Waccamaw and Pee Dee rivers are amongst the highest, 

if not the highest in the state and the country. No one knows why this is the case and no one 

appears to be assessing whether the concentrations are increasing over time or whether any spatial 

trends exist within the Pee Dee Basin. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern, your comments, and the valuable information you 

provide. The Open Water objective, discussion, and strategies in Chapter IV have been expanded to 

reflect the concerns you raise and the information you furnish. The main impediment to implementing 

many of the worthy efforts you mention is budgetary and staffing limitations. Within its capacity, 

refuge management intends to work with other governmental agencies and research institutions to 

improve our knowledge of the impacts of water pollution and strengthen institutional arrangements for 

protecting water quality. 

Resource Protection – Acquisition and Boundary Expansion 

Comment: Amend the CCP to allow for the expansion of the Waccamaw NWR boundaries to 

include areas like Cowford Swamp, Carvers Bay, and Van Dross Bay to maintain wetland diversity. 

Service Response: Service policy is that a refuge’s boundary can be expanded to include an area up 

to 10 percent of existing refuge acreage without having to be approved by the Service’s Washington, 

D.C., office. The three areas suggested by the letter – Cowford Swamp, Carvers Bay and Van Dross 

Bay – would all be contiguous to the acquisition boundary but adding them would exceed the 10 
126 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

percent rule. The boundary of Waccamaw NWR has already been expanded once, which has used up 

most of the 10 percent allowed for a minor expansion. Land(s) targeted in this minor expansion were 

mostly targeted towards upland access and wetland buffers, and were intended for bear corridors. If 

any future expansion is to occur on Waccamaw NWR, it will require that a refuge expansion proposal 

be developed and approved at the Service’s Washington, D.C., level. 

Comment: The acquisition boundary of the Waccamaw NWR and The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) 

Winyah Bay and Pee Dee River Basin Project Area overlap to a large extent. Since the refuge was 

established, TNC and the Service have enjoyed a productive partnership to accomplish land 

protection in the area. 

The original acquisition boundary was developed based on spatial habitat models for the swallow-tailed 

kite, a migratory species of highest conservation concern. After reviewing and interpreting the most 

recent monitoring data, the Swallow-tailed Kite Conservation Alliance recognizes that kites require a 

matrix of habitats to meet daily energy requirements. Therefore, conservation of upland foraging habitat 

and habitat corridors are essential for long-term conservation of the species. The current refuge 

boundary captures valuable bottomland hardwood forests (nesting habitat for kites) but does [not] include 

all of the habitats required to meet the daily or seasonal needs of the bird. The refuge should capture 

habitats that will ensure the long-term conservation of this threatened population. 

TNC assisted the state in acquiring the 25,000-acre Woodbury Tract as a Wildlife Management Area 

in 2007. This acquisition has significant conservation value and helped to extend protection 

northward from the refuge. However, the refuge acquisition boundary still includes a portion of the 

Woodbury Tract. The overlap is a waste of valuable acreage in an area threatened by land 

conversion and development. An ecologically sensitive and biologically important area, such as 

Cowford Swamp and Carvers Bay, could easily be included in the refuge acquisition boundary by 

exchanging the acreage that overlaps with Woodbury WMA. Such an expansion could capture 

upland habitat for kite foraging and secure habitat for the threatened coastal Black Bear population. 

The refuge is the heart of protection in the Winyah and Pee Dee River Basin and is of utmost 

importance to the northern swallow-tailed kite and many other rare and threatened plant and animal 

populations. The success of the refuge in acquiring lands for protection justifies prompt attention to 

the need to expand/alter boundary lines to capture additional acreage. The conservation community 

appreciates the hard work of the refuge and its contribution to protecting species diversity, water 

quality, and quality of life in the region. 

Service Response: The Service appreciates TNC’s comments and cooperative partnership with the 

refuge since its establishment. Concerning refuge expansion, as noted in the previous response, 

Service policy is that a refuge’s boundary can be expanded to include an area up to 10 percent of 

existing refuge acreage without having to be approved by the Washington, D.C. office. The boundary 

of Waccamaw NWR has already been expanded once, which has used up most of the 10 percent 

allowed for a minor expansion. Land(s) targeted in this minor expansion were mostly targeted 

towards upland access and wetland buffers, and were intended for bear corridors. If any future 

expansion is to occur on Waccamaw NWR, it will require that a refuge expansion proposal be 

developed and submitted for approved at the Service’s Wahington Office level. 

Upon completion of an on-going bear population desity and genetic flow study which includes migration 

corridors within the Waccamaw NWR , the Service will closely consider the possibility of a refuge 

expansion or an alternative such as TNC’s useful suggestion to arrange a land exchange that would 

remove the relevant portion of the Woodbury Tract WMA from the acquisition boundary in exchange for 

other ecologically sensitive and biologically important areas like Cowford Swamp and Carvers Bay. 
Appendices 127

Resource Protection – Bull Island Wilderness Study Area 

Comment: I support Bull Island as a proposed Wilderness Study Area. 

Service Response: Thank you for your support. One of the objectives in Chapter IV of the CCP is 

to include Bull Island as a Wilderness Study Area, maintain its wilderness character, and within ten years 

of CCP implementation, prepare a wilderness study report on whether Bull Island should be 

recommended for formal designation as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Canoeing and Kayaking 

Comment: American Rivers is working with a broad and diverse group of stakeholders to create a 

nationally recognized Blue Trail on the Great Pee Dee River that will eventually extend from its 

headwaters in North Carolina to Winyah Bay. A highlight of the trail in the lower section will be the 

Waccamaw NWR. The Pee Dee Blue Trail will allow paddlers to connect to shorter paddle trails 

within the refuge. 

Service Response: The Service looks forward to working with American Rivers to develop 

canoe/kayak routes and access points on refuge property and within the refuge acquisition boundary. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Camping 

Comment: Opportunities to camp on a paddle trail encourage paddlers from outside the region to 

visit, which generates more income for the local economy. Providing camping opportunities in the 

Waccamaw NWR will significantly enhance planned paddling trails within the refuge as well as the 

Pee Dee River Blue Trail. 

Service Response: The appendices of the CCP contain Appropriate Use and Compatibility 

Determinations regarding camping on the refuge. Although deemed an appropriate use, camping is not 

compatibile due to the necessary resources to provide the use. In general, Service policy states that 

camping will be considered only if it is a requirement to carry out a particular compatible public use. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Hunting 

Comment: Hunting is murder and is not compatible with the purposes of national wildlife refuges. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and your comments. Hunting is a legitimate wildlife 

management tool on wildlands in general and national wildlife refuges in particular. Its dual benefits 

are as a form of outdoor recreation and as a means of controlling populations of target species. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 explicitly identifies hunting as one of the 

public uses generally compatible with the purposes of national wildlife refuges, and Waccamaw NWR 

is no exception. A compatibility determination for hunting has been prepared and is included in 

Appendix VI of this CCP. 

Comment: One of the NRA’s bylaws is to promote and defend hunting as a viable and necessary 

method of fostering the propagation, growth, conservation, and wise use of our renewable wildlife 

resources. The NRA strongly supports programs that enhance and expand hunting opportunities 

such as the proposed youth waterfowl hunt and hunts that are tailored to special needs such as for 

the mobility impaired. We applaud you and your staff for not ony continuing existing programs, but 

proposing two new ones. 
128 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Service Response: Thank you for your interest, your comments, and your support of Waccamaw 

NWR’s hunting program. 

Comment: The CCP states that a refuge self-issued hunting permit and a hunter safety training 

course is required before hunting is allowed, but nowhere does it mention how that is or will be 

regulated by the refuge. 

Service Response: Appendix VI of this CCP contains compatibility determinatons, including one on 

hunting. One of the “Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility” is that: “Law enforcement 

patrols will be conducted to ensure compliance with hunt regulations.” 

Comment: The use of dog drives for traditional hunting should only be used when the dogs can be 

controlled and contained to particular areas of the refuge, so as not to impair or conflict with wildlife 

management in other refuge holdings. Several landowners in the Georgetown, Williamsburg, and 

Horry counties have now forbidden the use of dog drives. 

Service Response: The CCP does not allow the use of dogs for hunting deer on the refuge nor has 

this hunting practice ever been permitted during previous refuge hunts. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Commercial Services 

Comment: I support the strategies to increase visitor experiences within the refuge; however, I didn’t 

see any specific strategies with respect to commercial services. On page 170 of the [Draft CCP/EA], 

commercial services were identified as appropriate for refuge use; however, I did not see specific 

strategies. In my opinion, opportunities for ecotourism within the refuge exist and should be explored. 

For example, low impact canoe/kayak guided field trips through the refuge could be provided by 

existing commercial outfitters. 

Service Response: On page 170 of the Draft CCP/EA, in the appendices (Section C), was an 

“Appropriate Use Determination” for commercial services, including ecotourism, rather than an 

objective concerning ecotourism. Objectives, which include strategies to implement them, are 

presented in Chapter IV of the CCP. 

Commercial services were also addressed in Appendix VI under Compatibility Determinations, 

beginning on page 195. On page 196, a number of stipulations and special conditions covering 

commercial uses at Waccamaw NWR were listed. Commercial uses would be managed by means of 

a special use permit. This CCP still supports appropriate and compatible commercial services, which 

are covered under the Appropraite Use Determinations and Compatibility Determinations of 

Appendices V and VI. 

Visitor Services (Public Use) – Environmental Education 

Comment: Environmental education is rightly recognized as an important activity in the CCP. 

Coastal Carolina University’s Waccamaw Watershed Activity pledges to partner with the refuge 

to achieve this goal.

Service Response: Thank you for your comment and support. 

Comment: Page 38/39 – Environmental Education and Interpretation section: Please change all 

references to ‘SEWEE Cooperating Association’ to just ‘SEWEE Association,’ which is our official name. 
Appendices 129

If you don’t mind, here is a re-write of that section reflecting where we are currently. 

“Earth Stewards is a multi-week program for students with classes both in their classroom and on 

the refuge lands. The initial program is an eight-week program for the fifth grade with a focus on 

freshwater wetlands which is correlated to the SC Educational Standards. The program at 

Waccamaw began with Brown’s Ferry and Plantersville Elementary schools in 2003. These 

students learn about the flora and fauna of the refuge through hands-on, experiential lessons 

taught by their teachers, refuge and Association staff and volunteers. They have at least 3 visits to 

the refuge or the SEWEE Center in Awendaw during their studies. In 2006 this program was 

reviewed and a shortened version was created to allow more students to participate. This new 

version (called SES Brevis) includes several lessons with students in their classrooms followed by 

one full day of lessons on the refuge. SES Brevis is now being conducted with all fifth graders at 

McDonald and Pleasant Hill Elementary schools. 

“Refuge and SEWEE Association staffs have also worked with some of the middle schools in the area 

to bring their students onto the refuge for educational experiences. Waccamaw Middle participated in 

an exploration of Sandy Island and red-cockaded woodpecker habitats for several years and Carvers 

Bay Middle is participating in lessons at the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area.” 

“In addition to this work with school students, Waccamaw and SEWEE personnel have presented EE 

programs at after-school programs and summer camps of Georgetown YMCA and several local 

churches. They are also working with the student enrichment program called Service Over Self to 

facilitate service-learning projects of middle and high school students.” 

(This ends at the paragraph “Waccamaw NWR does not have a Visitor Services Plan”.) 

Service Response: The requested changes have been made in the CCP text.

Comment: Page 68 – Objective: Environmental Education. Change 1st sentence to eliminate 

number of schools as this has changed. “In partnership with SEWEE Association, continue on- and 

off-site environmental education programs in Georgetown County Public Schools.”

Under Discussion – change write-up [to following]: 

“Currently Waccamaw NWR participates in Earth Stewards, a multi-week program for students with 

classes both in their classroom and on the refuge lands. The initial program is an eight-week 

program for the fifth grade with a focus on freshwater wetlands which is correlated to the SC 

Educational Standards. The program at Waccamaw began with Brown’s Ferry and Plantersville 

Elementary schools in 2003. These students learn about the flora and fauna of the refuge through 

hands-on, experiential lessons taught by their teachers, refuge and Association staff and volunteers. 

They have at least 3 visits to the refuge or the SEWEE Center in Awendaw during their studies. In 

2006 this program was reviewed and a shortened version was created to allow more students to 

participate. This new version (called SES Brevis) includes several lessons with students in their 

classrooms followed by one full day of lessons on the refuge. SES Brevis is now being conducted 

with all fifth graders at McDonald and Pleasant Hill Elementary schools.” 

“Refuge and SEWEE Association staffs have also worked with some of the middle schools in the area 

to bring their students onto the refuge for educational experiences. Waccamaw Middle participated in 

an exploration of Sandy Island and red-cockaded woodpecker habitats for several years and Carvers 

Bay Middle is participating in lessons at the Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area.” 
130 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

“In addition to this work with school students, Waccamaw and SEWEE personnel have presented EE 

programs at after-school programs and summer camps of Georgetown YMCA and several local 

churches. They are also working with the student enrichment program called Service Over Self to 

facilitate service-learning projects of middle and high school students.” 

Under Strategies – Eliminate reference to ‘EIC program’. 

Service Response: The requested changes have been made in the CCP text.

Comment: Page 96 – Paragraph on alternatives for environmental education. Eliminate all 

references in alternatives to 5 elementary schools and 1 high school. This is already outdated and 

changes annually. 

Service Response: The subject references were in the EA, which is included only in the Draft CCP. 

Comment: Page 98/106 – Features Common for Alternatives for environmental education. 

Eliminate all references in alternatives to 5 elementary schools and 1 high school. This is already 

outdated and changes annually. 

Service Response: The subject references were in the EA, which is included only in the Draft CCP. 

Refuge Administration – Volunteers and Partnerships 

Comment: Population growth figures indicate that there will be a great increase in people retiring to 

this area. Not only will this population wish to visit this special area, they would make a great 

resource for volunteer service. It might be prudent for the plan to include use of volunteers and the 

provision for training of volunteers that can help with the protection and interpretation of programs of 

the refuge. These retirees bring a wealth of knowledge and the refuge could provide opportunities 

and meet their goals utilizing such talent. I think the plan needs to be stronger in support of 

volunteers. 

Service Response: Thank you for your concern and suggestion. In Chapter IV of the CCP, several 

objectives and strategies emphasize the importance of partnerships and volunteers. In particular, 

one objective under the Refuge Administration goal states: “Continue to cooperate with partners such 

as the SEWEE, SCDNR, TNC, Historic Ricefield Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task 

Force. Seek additional partnerships and/or volunteers/interns for increased visitor services and 

habitat enhancement on all units....” 

Comment: Page 40 – end of page. The statement “Currently, the refuge does not have an official Friends 

Group, named as such, but the SEWEE Association fulfills many of the functions of a Friends Group.” 

According to the MOA signed, SEWEE Association is the Friends Group for Waccamaw NWR. The 

Association is working to bring members and volunteers in Georgetown and Horry counties into this 

organization so that they can help Waccamaw NWR with its needs. We would appreciation a re-write 

of this statement to reflect this. 
Appendices 131

Service Response: The requested change has been made in the CCP text.

Comment: Page 73 – Partnerships – Discussion: Eliminate the statement “Currently, the largest 

portion of disbursements from the SEWEE Association goes to the Sewee Visitor Center, which 

supports Cape Romain Refuge and Francis Marion Forest.” This is no longer true as Waccamaw 

NWR received the largest disbursements for calendar year 2007. 

Service Response: The requested change has been made in the CCP text.

Comment: If the Five Rivers Coalition can be of some service to the refuge in the future, please do 

not hesitate to ask for our assistance. Five Rivers looks forward to a continued good working 

relationship with the Service and our refuge on the Waccamaw. 

Service Response: Thank you for your interest, your comments, and your continued support. 

Refuge Administration – Funding 

Comment: Clearly more funding is going to be required to achieve the CCP’s priority goals of: 

(1) land acquisition and restoration, (2) environmental education/outreach, and (3) monitoring to 

prevent unacceptable activities, such as poaching of turtles, littering, pollution, and wetland 

alteration. I hope that such funding can be found to support and expand the Waccamaw NWR, a 

priceless asset for our state, our nation, and the planet. 

Service Response: Thank you for your comment and support. 

Appendices – List of Preparers 

Comment: Page 233 – List of Preparers. Either take my name out (should I really have been 

there?) or correct the spelling. 

Service Response: All participants in the goals-objectives-alternatives workshop helped craft the 

visions, goals, and objectives in Chapter IV, which are the essence of management direction over the 

life of the CCP. Therefore, these individuals helped the Service prepare the CCP and belong in the 

List of Preparers. The incorrect spelling has been corrected. 
132 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 133

V. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process, by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find a proposed use is not appropriate, 

we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, 

including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize 

any particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible and “under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain 

public uses that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. 

The law states “. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines 

that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity 

should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the System 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within 

the System . . . .” The law also states “in administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . issue regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the 
134 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority general public 

uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public recreation 

when in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use. ” While the 

Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge System when the use is an 

“appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act provides the Refuge System mission and 

includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off-highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use: A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four 

conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American: American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use: A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation. 

Quality: The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 
Appendices 135

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use: As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
136 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 137
138 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 139
140 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 141

VI. Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) process for Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (Waccamaw NWR). 

Descriptions and anticipated impacts of each of these uses are addressed separately. However, 

the Uses through the Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies sections, the Literature 

Cited section, the Public Review and Comment section, and the Approval of Compatibility 

Determinations section apply to each use. If one of these uses is considered outside of the CCP for 

Waccamaw NWR, then those sections become part of that compatibility determination. 

Uses: 

The following uses were reviewed for compatibility in conjunction with the public review of the Draft 

CCP/EA for Waccamaw NWR: (1) hunting; (2) fishing; (3) wildlife observation and photography; (4) 

environmental education and interpretation; (5) bicycling; (6) commercial services; (7) commercial 

fishing; (8) research; (9) camping; (10) rights-of-way; (11) and forest management – commercial 

timber harvest. Compatibility determinations are based on whether each use is compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. 

The compatibility determinations for commercial fishing and rights-of-way were initially developed 

and printed in the Draft CCP/EA for Waccamaw NWR. Because Waccamaw NWR does not have 

jurisdiction over the navigable waters throughout the refuge, commercial fishing in waters of the 

State is not a refuge use and therefore will not be considered for compatibility at this time. Rightsof-way are not covered under the Appropriate Use and Compatibility Determination policies as they 

are not considered public uses of the refuge. Rights-of-ways will be handled separately from the 

CCP process on a case by case basis through the mandated environmental review process(es) 

including a project specific compatibility determination. 

Refuge Name: 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities: 

Waccamaw NWR’s approved acquisition boundary encompasses 54,572 acres and is located in 

portions of Marion, Horry and Georgetown counties of South Carolina. Refuge land acquisition is 

under authority of the Migratory Bird Act of 1929 and the Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 1986 

(100 Stat.3582-91). Funding for the refuge’s land acquisition program comes from two primary 

sources: The Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. 

Refuge Purposes: 

The primary purposes for Waccamaw NWR are: (1) protect and manage diverse habitat 

components within an important coastal ecosystem for the benefit of threatened and endangered 

species, freshwater and anadramous fish, migratory birds, and forest wildlife, including a wide array 

of plants and animals associated with bottomland hardwood habitats; and (2) provide compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 
142 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation for the enjoyment of present and 

future generations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Waccamaw NWR FEIS April 1997). 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

As outlined in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the 

conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future 

generations of Americans. 

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 as amended (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 

Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 

Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

Recreational Use of Conservation Areas Act of 1962, as amended. 

Executive Order 12996, March 26, 1996 (Management and General Public Use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System) 

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice Policy 1994) 

Land and Water Conservation Act as amended in 1976 (16 U.S.C. 

4601-4-4601-11; 90 Stat. 1313) 

Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of March 16, 1934, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 718-718h) 

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 83 Stat 852) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; 87 Stat 884) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1989 

Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 26-31 

The Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge Manual 

Description of Use: Hunting 

Under the approved Recreational Hunting Plan, hunting for white-tailed deer, feral hogs, wild turkey, 

gray squirrel, raccoon, waterfowl, and snipe will be allowed on Waccamaw NWR. Hunting for these 

species will occur in designated areas of the refuge and during specially designated times. 

Big Game 

White-tailed deer hunting will be allowed over the majority of the refuge lands in Units 1 and 3 with 

only the administrative areas with facilities dedicated exclusively to other public uses being closed 

to hunting. Deer hunts will be scheduled during the months of September through December and 

dates will vary between units. All deer hunts will be non-quota hunts. Archery, black powder rifles, 
Appendices 143

and modern weapons will be permitted for use during deer hunts and designated seasons will be 

offered for each method of hunting. 

Feral hog hunting will be allowed on any refuge tract where hogs are present. Feral hogs are a 

pest species on the refuge. The primary objective of hunting hogs is biological in nature, and will be 

to eliminate hogs, or at least maintain the population at numbers below destructive levels. Public 

recreation will be a secondary objective. Hog hunting will be in accordance with state regulations. 

Taking of feral hogs will be allowed incidentally during refuge deer hunts and during special hunts 

as designated and permitted by the refuge. There will be no size or bag limit on hogs and they will 

not be permitted to be taken from the refuge alive. Black powder weapons, bow and arrow, and 

modern weapons shot guns will be allowed during special hog hunts on the refuge. 

Limited wild turkey hunting for public recreational purposes will be allowed on designated areas of 

the refuge. Turkey hunting will be restricted to adult/youth hunts only and all hunts will be in 

accordance with state regulations. More restrictive refuge-specific conditions may apply, such as 

season length, bag limit, and quota on number of permitted hunters. This is due to limited acreage 

of huntable upland and forested wetlands. Turkey hunting involves covering large areas of land. 

This combined with the high public demand for the sport will severely limit numbers of hunters 

allowed in order to maintain a quality hunt. 

Upland Game 

Recreational gray squirrel hunting will be allowed on designated areas of the refuge. Squirrel 

hunting will be in accordance with state regulations except that more restrictive hunting methods 

and season lengths may apply to protect other resources. 

Only gray squirrels will be permitted to be taken. No fox squirrel or flying squirrel shall be taken. 

Squirrel hunts will be closed during scheduled refuge deer hunts when the two seasons overlap. 

Raccoon hunting will be allowed on designated areas of the refuge and seasons will vary 

depending on refuge units. Raccoons have an abundance of habitats and few natural predators on 

the refuge. In areas where raccoon populations become high, there is a greater potential incidence 

of disease (distemper and rabies) outbreaks, and the risk for spread of these diseases is increased. 

As a biological measure, hunting can maintain raccoon population numbers at healthier levels, 

while at the same time providing a valuable form of public recreation. 

Waterfowl 

Waterfowl hunting will be allowed only on designated areas of the refuge in Unit 1. The framework for 

all migratory bird hunting is set forth by the Atlantic Flyway Council. Each individual state sets its own 

seasons, lengths, bag limits, and special regulations within that framework. Waterfowl hunting on the 

refuge will be in accordance with state regulations and further restricted by refuge regulations. 

Waterfowl hunting will be allowed on Saturdays only on designated areas within the refuge 

throughout the state season framework. Waterfowl hunting will be limited to morning hours, which 

concludes at 12 noon on the designated day open to waterfowl hunting. Currently, the refuge has 

29 percent of the refuge open to waterfowl hunting and will open no more than 40 percent of the 

refuge to waterfowl hunting. These hunting restrictions will reduce disturbance to other wildlife and 

allow for waterfowl feeding and resting use of the areas. The hunting areas will be restricted to 

natural, unimpounded forested wetlands which are subject to seasonal flooding. All managed 

impoundments will remain as inviolate sanctuaries. 
144 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Navigable waters that bisect refuge lands are not regulated as part of the refuge; however, these 

waters do fall under state and federal waterfowl hunting regulations, which will be actively enforced 

by refuge law enforcement. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support hunting are taken from 

the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current level. Costs to 

administer the hunt program will be primarily staff salaries. It is estimated that the following annual 

level of involvement by refuge staff will be required to adequately manage and monitor the additions 

to the hunt program over the long term: 

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Use on Wildlife Species: Anticipated impacts 

were identified and evaluated based on best professional judgment and published scientific papers. 

Many of the impacts associated with hunting are similar to those considered for other public use 

activities, such as wildlife viewing and photography, with the exception of direct mortality to game 

species, short-term changes in the distribution and abundance of game species, and unrestricted 

travel through the hunt area. Refuge hunting is a well-monitored and regulated public use and this 

activity should not have a negative impact on overall refuge populations of the game species 

approved for hunting. 

Migratory Birds 

The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with partners, annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for 

dates and times when hunting may occur and the number of birds that may be taken and possessed. 

These frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of season and limits for recreation and 

sustenance; aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and 

permit harvests at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions. Because the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act stipulates that all hunting seasons for migratory game birds are closed unless 

specifically opened by the Secretary of the Interior, the Service annually promulgates regulations (50 

CFR Part 20) establishing the frameworks from which states may select season dates, bag limits, 

shooting hours, and other options for each migratory bird hunting season. The frameworks are 

essentially permissive in that hunting of migratory birds would not be permitted without them. Thus, in 

effect, federal annual regulations both allow and limit the hunting of migratory birds. 

Position and 

GS/WG Level 

Involvement FTE Cost 

Refuge Manager 

GS-12 

Oversight, hunt plan 

developments/updates, 

coordination with the SCDNR 

.10 9,260 

Assistant 

Manager 

GS-11 

Monitor, report, hunt brochure 

mailings, data collection, dual 

function law enforcement 

.15 12,000 

Law 

Enforcement 

Officer GS-9 

Conduct law enforcement and 

compliance checks 

.25 12,500 

Total Annual FTEs and Costs .50 $33,760 
Appendices 145

Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in conventions between the United States 

and several foreign nations for the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to determine when 

"hunting, taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 

export of any ... bird, or any part, nest, or egg" of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt 

regulations for this purpose. 

These regulations are written after giving due regard to "the zones of temperature and to the 

distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of 

such birds, and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility has been delegated to 

the Fish and Wildlife Service as the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds 

in the United States. Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has 

administratively divided the nation into four flyways for the primary purpose of managing migratory 

game birds. Each flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a flyway council, a formal 

organization generally composed of one member from each state and province in that flyway. 

Waccamaw NWR is within the Atlantic Flyway. 

After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the states may select season 

dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more 

conservative in their selections than the federal frameworks but never more liberal. Season dates 

and bag limits for national wildlife refuges open to hunting are never longer or larger than the state 

regulations. In fact, based upon the findings of an environmental assessment developed when a 

national wildlife refuge opens a new hunting activity, season dates and bag limits may be more 

restrictive than the state allows. 

In 2006, Waccamaw NWR entered into a long-term lease agreement with SCDNR, which allowed the 

7,661-acre Bucksport WMA to be combined with other fee title refuge lands. One primary condition of 

the lease agreement is that there is no net loss of hunting opportunities now that these lands are 

administered under the National Wildlife Refuge System. By adding this significant block of land, the 

refuge in now able to better manage important riverine habitats, as well as provide a more consistent 

set of regulations for the visiting public. 

Equally as important as uniform management throughout the refuge acquisition boundary, by adding 

the Bucksport WMA to the refuge it was able to create a contiguous 12,323-acre waterfowl sanctuary 

along the Waccamaw River. This area has now become an important resource for protecting wood 

duck populations in an area of the refuge where state or private sanctuaries do not exist. 

Under the current refuge waterfowl hunting regulations, it is estimated that a maximum additional 100 

wood ducks would be harvested each year on the refuge. This harvest impact represents a mere 

0.001 percent of South Carolina’s 4-year average harvest of 80,440 wood ducks (USFWS Waterfowl 

Harvest and Population Data July 2005). Waterfowl hunting will only be allowed until noon one day 

per week throughout the season. 

Based on the Fish and Wildlife Service Harvest Report, snipe harvest estimates for South Carolina for 

2004 and 2005 were 9,800 and 23,600, respectively. Hunter’s total season harvest average for both 

seasons was 3.2/hunter in 2004 and 13.5/hunter in 2005. Total harvest of snipe for the Atlantic 

Flyway was 45,700 in 2004 and 50,200 in 2005. Although flyway harvests did not vary significantly 

between 2004 and 2005, seasonal harvest variations for South Carolina demonstrate how weather 

may be a significant factor in hunter success throughout the state. Snipe hunting will be restricted to 

tidal freshwater marsh habitats in Unit 3 that are owned by the refuge. Hunting will be further 
146 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

restricted to Wednesday and Saturdays only during the month of February and non-toxic shot is 

required when hunting snipe. 

Resident Big Game 

Deer 

Home range size in mammals often decreases as population density increases (Sanderson 1966). 

Bridges (1968) and Smith (1970) both observed a threefold increase in home-range size following a 

die-off in a Florida deer population. Adult bucks generally have larger home ranges than does and 

these ranges can vary in size due to many environmental factors. In Florida, minimum home ranges 

averaged 622.8 hectares (1,539 acres) for two mature bucks, and 153.0 hectares (606 acres) for two 

does, and 153.0 hectares (378 acres) for a buck fawn (Smith 1970). Deer hunting does not have 

regional population impacts due to restricted home ranges of white-tailed deer. Therefore, only local 

impacts are likely to occur from deer hunting on the refuge. 

Deer herd health checks are conducted every 5 years on most national wildlife refuges by the 

Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study at the University of Georgia. In 2005, a herd 

health check was conducted on Waccamaw NWR. The herd health check report stated that 

“Although continuation of current herd density may result in declines in herd health or higher rates 

of disease-induced mortality, the data suggests that some level of covert mortality may be 

present. These losses will predominantly affect younger animals, 4-12 months of age, mainly 

during winter and early spring, and will be associated with parasitism by stomach worms 

(Haemonchus contortus) and lungworms (Dictyocaulus viviparous). Any significant increase in 

density likely would result in declines in population health from this density-dependent 

parasitism/malnutrition syndrome. The 18,251 acres of refuge lands currently open to deer 

hunting have averaged less than 15 deer harvested per season. 

Harvest and survey data confirm that decades of deer hunting on surrounding private lands 

(using bait and a longer season) have not had a local cumulative adverse effect on the deer 

population. The SCDNR estimates that 14,028,896 deer were harvested in South Carolina in 

2005 (2005 SCDNR Deer Harvest Report). 

Harvest records by each county indicate that Georgetown County harvested 3,464 deer in 2005. This 

total harvest also computes to 115.4 acres/deer or 5.5 deer/square mile. For Horry County, 4,113 

deer were harvested in 2005, which also computes to 129.7 acres/deer or 4.9 deer/square mile (2005 

SCDNR Deer Harvest Report). These harvest records fluctuate year-to-year and are down 

somewhat from a peak in 2002. Harvest rates on refuge lands have been significantly lower than 

private lands adjoining the refuge due to the allowance of baiting, longer seasons, and no restrictions 

of method of take on private lands. 

Feral Hogs 

Feral hogs are an extremely invasive introduced non-native species and are not considered a game 

species by the State of South Carolina. No bag limits are established for feral hogs. Hunting of feral 

hogs provides the refuge with another management tool in reducing this detrimental species, and at the 

same time, is widely enjoyed by local hunters. Cumulative effects to an exotic, invasive species should 

not be of concern because the refuge would like to extirpate this species on refuge lands. Hunting of 

hogs is not considered detrimental to the biological integrity of the refuge, and is not likely to create 

conflict with other public uses and is within the wildlife-dependent public uses to be given priority 

consideration. Since hogs are exotic, they are a priority species for refuge management only in terms 
Appendices 147

of their negative impacts on refuge biota and need for eradication. Georgetown County, South 

Carolina, ranked ninth in the State for overall hog harvest in 2005, an increase over all previous years 

surveyed (2005 SCDNR Feral Hog Harvest Report). This harvest trend indicates an increasing 

population and a need for increasing the overall annual harvest. They are a popular game species, and 

the public interest would best be served by allowing this activity on the refuge. However, even with 

hunting, feral hogs are likely to always be present because they are prolific breeders. 

Wild Turkey 

Turkeys are non-migratory and therefore hunting only impacts the local population. Because the refuge 

turkey hunts are restricted to refuge tracts along the Great Pee Dee River, frequent flooding along with 

many other environmental circumstances often further impedes hunter success. Proposed turkey 

hunting on the refuge would be limited to a half-day hunt for four youths during the spring. Based on 

harvest data from six SCDNR youth turkey hunts, the overall harvest rates were less than 40 percent 

unless accompanied by a professional guide (personal communications with SCDNR Biologist). It is 

estimated that harvest success on the refuge would be much lower than state-sponsored youth hunts 

due to habitat. Therefore, the refuge should not cumulatively adversely impact the population by 

providing a half-day hunt for 10 youths that could harvest a maximum of 10 turkeys. 

Small Game 

Squirrels, rabbit, raccoon, and opossum cannot be affected regionally by refuge hunting because of 

their limited home ranges. Only local effects will be discussed. Opossum and raccoon are hunted 

primarily at night. Raccoon are more sought after than opossum by the public. 

Hunting helps regulate opossum and raccoon populations; however, unless the popularity of this type 

of hunting increases, raccoon and opossum numbers will always be higher than desired. When these 

species become extremely overabundant, diseases such as distemper and rabies reduce the 

populations. However, waiting for disease outbreak to regulate their numbers can be a human health 

hazard. Cumulative adverse impacts to raccoon and opossum are unlikely considering they 

reproduce quickly, are difficult to hunt due to their nocturnal habits, and are not as popular for hunting 

as other game species. 

Studies have been conducted within and outside of South Carolina to determine the effects of hunting 

on the population dynamics of small game. Results from studies have consistently shown that small 

game, such as rabbits and squirrels, are not affected by hunting, but rather are limited by food 

resources. Although overall state harvest data were unavailable for South Carolina for these species, 

the refuge hunt program is not expected to have any significant impact even on local populations of 

the species due to limited refuge access and frequent flood events. Under the proposed action, the 

refuge estimates a maximum additional 50 squirrels would be harvested. Gray squirrels are prolific 

breeders and their populations have never been threatened by hunting in South Carolina, even prior 

to the passing of hunting regulations as we know them today. 

Non-hunted Wildlife 

Non-hunted wildlife would include non-hunted migratory birds, such as songbirds, wading birds, 

raptors, and woodpeckers; small mammals, such as voles, moles, mice, shrews, and bats; reptiles 

and amphibians, such as snakes, skinks, turtles, lizards, salamanders, frogs and toads; and 

invertebrates, such as butterflies, moths, other insects, and spiders. Except for migratory birds and 

some species of migratory bats, butterflies and moths, these species have very limited home ranges 

and hunting could not affect their populations regionally; thus, only local effects will be discussed. 
148 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds could have regional, local, and flyway effects. 

Regional and flyway effects would not be applicable to species that do not migrate, such as most 

woodpeckers and some songbirds, including cardinals, titmice, wrens, and chickadees. The 

cumulative effects of disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the proposed action are 

expected to be negligible for the following reasons. The hunting season would not coincide with 

the nesting season. Long-term future impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by 

hunting are not relevant for this reason. Disturbance to the daily wintering activities of birds might 

occur, such as feeding and resting. Disturbance to birds by hunters would probably be 

commensurate with that caused by non-consumptive users. 

The cumulative effects of disturbance to small mammals as a result of hunting are expected to be 

negligible for the following reasons. Small mammals, including bats, are inactive during winter when 

hunting season occurs. These species are also nocturnal. Both of these qualities make hunter 

interactions with small mammals very rare. Hibernation or torpor by cold-blood reptiles and 

amphibians also limits their activity during the hunting season when temperatures are low. Hunters 

would rarely encounter reptiles and amphibians during most of the hunting season. Encounters with 

reptiles and amphibians in the early fall are few and should not have cumulative negative effects on 

reptile and amphibian populations. Invertebrates are also not active during cold weather and would 

have few interactions with hunters during the hunting season. The refuge has estimated current 

hunter density on peak days to be no more than 1 hunter per 1,000 acres. During the vast majority of 

the hunting season, hunter density is much lower (1 hunter/3,000 acres). Refuge regulations further 

mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles and all-terrain vehicles are 

prohibited on refuge roads and the harassment or taking of any wildlife other than the game species 

legal for the season is not permitted. 

Although ingestion of lead shot by non-hunted wildlife could be a cumulative impact, it is not 

relevant to Waccamaw NWR because the use of lead shot would not be permitted on the refuge 

for any type of hunting. 

Endangered Species 

Six federally listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur or potentially occur within 

the proposed boundary of the refuge. These include two species of birds, one species of fish, and 

three species of plants. Use of refuge lands by these threatened and endangered species typically 

occurs after all refuge hunting seasons, with the exception of turkey season. The bald eagle, which 

was recently de-listed, nests during late winter in South Carolina. If bald eagle nesting activity occurs 

on or near refuge lands, closed areas would still be established to buffer the nesting area from any 

human disturbance and/or activity associated with a permitted public use. This would be the same 

with or without hunting. As with the potential for bald eagle nesting areas, if a wood stork rookery is 

established, a closed area would be established to buffer the area from any human activity. Based 

on the seasonal use parameters listed above and the legal authorities that refuges have to close 

areas to public access when necessary, adverse effects are expected to be negligible to both 

threatened and endangered species under the limited hunting and unlimited hunting alternatives. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation Consultation was completed in 2007 for the Waccamaw NWR 

Recreational Hunt Plan (preferred alternative). Based on the current known locations of feeding, nesting, 

spawning, or physical locations of threatened or endangered species on or adjacent to refuge lands, it has 

been determined by the Service that hunting is not likely to adversely affect these species. 
Appendices 149

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contacts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations* 

*This use has been found compatible assuming adherence to the stipulations identified. All 

circumstances cannot be anticipated, and therefore, discretion must be left up to the refuge manager 

to manage the hunting program within the framework of the refuge goals and objectives. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Number of hunters, hunting days, and bag limits will be modified as needed to minimize any 

chance of over-harvest of a particular species. 

y Law enforcement patrols will be conducted to ensure compliance with hunt regulations. 

y Any area on the refuge where recurring use for feeding or any nesting or other critical habitat 

for endangered species is determined to occur will be closed to hunting. 

y All-terrain vehicles are prohibited throughout the refuge and are not a component of the refuge 

hunts. 

y Primary access areas for public use facilities will be closed to hunting in order to provide yearround opportunites for other priority uses. 

y Monitoring of wildlife populations and habitats will occur on a regular basis to assess health 

and viability of species that may be impacted by the hunt program. 

Justification: 

Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent public use listed under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. Development of hunting opportunities fulfills both the Refuge System 

mission and the purposes for which the refuge was established. Controlled, limited hunting is 

compatible with specific refuge goals and objectives, sound wildlife management, and in fostering the 

public’s interest in Waccamaw NWR. 

The removal of surplus deer and hogs prevents overpopulation, which can be detrimental to herd 

health and negatively impact the environment. Big game, waterfowl, and upland game hunting has 

been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the Improvement Act and has a 

traditional use on lands that are now part of Waccamaw NWR. Additionally, the interagency lease 

agreement between SCDNR and the Service, which added the Bucksport WMA to Waccamaw NWR, 

specifically stated as a requirement of the lease agreement that there be no “net loss” of public 

hunting opportunities under refuge management. 
150 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

As a management objective, hunting provides the public with an opportunity to utilize a renewable 

resource. It will also provide an area for traditional public use in the Winyah Bay Focus Area, helping 

meet not only the objectives of the refuge, but also of the Winyah Bay Focus Area Joint Venture, a 

flagship project of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2023 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 and is a traditional use on the refuge. Additionally, the Waccamaw 

NWR Final Environmental Impact Statement listed fishing as a priority public use in the conceptual 

management plan and Interim Compatibility Determination. This wildlife-dependent recreational use 

is supported by boating; however, almost all boating activities occur on state navigable waters over 

which the refuge has no control. Therefore, boating impacts associated with fishing will not be 

considered in this review. 

Because of physical access issues, Waccamaw NWR has very few locations where shoreline fishing 

is feasible. Fishing is permitted throughout the 18,251 acres of refuge lands; however, there are only 

five locations that are accessible by a land conveyance. Fishing areas are currently limited to 

shoreline fishing along the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee rivers. If ponds, borrow pits, oxbow lakes, 

or other river access areas are acquired, these will also be open to the public for fishing. A common 

issue associated with bank fishing is litter. 

Fishing is allowed in accordance with state regulations. Additionally, the refuge has implemented 

refuge-specific fishing regulations, which can be updated annually in Title 50, Code of Federal 

Regulations. The following items are a summary of refuge-specific fishing regulations: 

y Fishing is allowed only during daylight hours. 

y Bush hooks and trotlines are permitted to be fastened, anchored, and or secured to refuge 

lands as long as they are in compliance with state laws. 

y Fisherman must attend their lines. 
Appendices 151

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support fishing are taken 

from the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current 

level. Costs to administer the fishing program will be primarily staff salaries. It is estimated 

that the following annual level of involvement by refuge staff will be required to adequately 

manage and monitor the fishing program. This information will be used to evaluate and 

estimate costs as the program grows: 

Funding for the access improvements outlined in the CCP is not currently available. For example, the 

cost for a fishing pier at the Cox Ferry Recreation Area is estimated to cost approximately $125,000. 

Funding would also be needed for road and parking improvements, restrooms, bank fishing 

improvements, and freshwater fishing improvements. As fishing facilities are developed, an access 

fee system may be necessary to cover operational and maintenance costs of these facilities. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated impacts of this use include litter and minor wildlife 

disturbance. Wildlife disturbance is generally limited to flushing individual or groups of feeding or 

resting wading birds, raptors, or waterfowl to other locations on the refuge or private property. It is 

anticipated that most of these wildlife disturbances will be attributable to boating on state navigable 

waters that bisect the refuge. 

Boating has been shown to alter distribution, reduce use of particular habitats by waterfowl and other 

birds, alter feeding behavior, and cause premature departure from areas. Impacts of boating can 

occur even at low densities, given the ability of powerboats to cover extensive areas in a short 

amount of time, the noise they produce, and their speed (Sterling and Dzubin 1967; Bergman 1973; 

Speight 1973; Skagen 1980; Korschgen et al., 1985; Kahl 1991; Bauer et al., 1992; Dahlgren and 

Korschgen 1992). For refuge tracts in areas of Unit 3 where waterfowl sanctuaries may be 

established, seasonal closure and/or motorized boat access may be restricted in man-made canals 

which bisect each tract. If this step is taken, close coordination with state and federal agencies will 

be maintained in order to meet all guidelines on barriers to navigation. 

No significant impacts to air or water quality are expected. There will be little or no impacts to 

vegetation except where heavy shoreline fishing occurs. Over time, these impacts may be lessened 

by the development of piers or other permanently enhanced access structures. There are no longterm or cumulative impacts identified. 

Position and 

GS/WG Level Involvement FTE Cost 

Refuge Manager 

(GS-12) 

Oversight and coordination with partners 

to develop better fishing access facilities. .05 4,630

Assistant Manager 

(GS-11) 

Monitor, reports, dual function law 

enforcement. .10 8,063

Law Enforcement 

Officer (GS-9) 

Conduct law enforcement and compliance 

checks. .10 5,000

Total Annual FTEs and Costs .25 $17,693
152 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contacts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Fishing is allowed on the refuge in 

accordance with state regulations. In addition, the refuge has the listed sports fishing 

regulations, which are paraphrased. 

y A refuge sports fishing permit is currently not required. 

y Fishing is allowed only during daylight hours. 

y Fishermen must attend their lines. 

y Frequent patrols by refuge personnel must be continued to ensure compliance with refuge 

regulations and state law, including fishing license checks. 

y Sensitive areas must be monitored and closed to public access as needed to protect fragile 

habitats and wildlife from disturbance during critical life-cycle periods (such as nesting). 

Justification: Fishing is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Fishing, as described, was determined to be compatible in view of the potential 

impacts that fishing and supporting activities (e.g., boating) can have on the Service’s ability to 

achieve purposes and goals of the refuge, because: (1) fishing densities and use levels are relatively 

low during most days; (2) Most human disturbance impacts will occur on state navigable waters, 

which the refuge has little control over; and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2023
Appendices 153

Description of Uses: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography are considered simultaneously in this compatibility 

determination. Wildlife observation and photography have been identified in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 as priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses provided 

they are compatible with the purposes of the refuge. This compatibility determination applies only to 

personal wildlife photography. Commercial photography or videography, if allowed, would be 

covered under the Commercial Services compatibility determination and would require a special use 

permit by the refuge with specific restrictions. 

Wildlife observation and photography may occur during daylight hours throughout all open areas of 

the refuge. Certain portions of the refuge are closed to protect wildlife and these areas will be posted 

with closed area signs. Wildlife viewing and photography improvements are being developed on the 

Cox Ferry Recreation Area and the Yauhannah Bluff Tract where a new environmental education 

center is being built and include boardwalks and hiking trails. These facilities will provide exposure to 

different refuge habitat types and diverse flora and fauna. 

In addition, numerous refuge dikes and roads are open year-round or seasonally to provide different 

wetland or upland habitats for wildlife viewing. Although no photography blinds currently exist on the 

refuge, one wildlife observation platform is planned for Cox Ferry Recreation Area. Restrooms and other 

improvements are planned on the recreation area to support wildlife observation and photography. 

Access for wildlife viewing and photography are limited to hiking, motorized and non-motorized boats, 

and bicycles on designated trails and roads. Certain areas may be closed to specific forms of 

transportation. The refuge may host special events where electric motorized vehicles, such as golf 

carts, will be allowed to provide additional access to handicapped or special needs visitors. 

Refuge brochures and maps will provide the public with the locations of visitor facilities. 

Availability of Resources: Many of the public use facilities that are in place or planned that would 

enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and photography also would enhance other uses such 

as hiking, biking, and environmental education. A specific cost breakdown is not provided that is 

specific to these uses. Operation and maintenance funds to support wildlife viewing and photography 

are taken from the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current 

level. Funds are needed annually to mow, grade, and maintain roads open to the public; replace 

gravel on the parking areas and other refuge roads; repair and replace boardwalks and trails; paint, 

repair, and replace signs; and develop and print brochures. 

Funding is not currently available to fully support all the planned wildlife observation and photography 

improvements identified in the CCP. To support the program and make improvements, the South 

Eastern Wildlife and Environmental Association (SEWEE Association), in cooperation with other 

partners, has currently raised over $95,300 to go towards the Cox Ferry Recreation Area and is 

pursuing additional funding sources to cover additional facility enhancements. These funds will help 

offset construction costs; however, they will not cover annual maintenance or operational costs. 

Additional funding will be necessary to cover these costs as additional infrastructure is added. 

Anticipate Impacts of Uses: This section is to critically and objectively evaluate the potential effects 

that wildlife observation and photography could have on the wildlife, habitat, and other public use 

activities based on available information and best professional judgment. Each activity has the 

potential to have impacts, but the focus is to minimize impacts to within acceptable limits. This is 

based on the impacts at the existing and projected level of use. 
154 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Short-term Impacts: Impacts associated with wildlife observation activities can be divided into two 

categories, based on whether the activity occurs within or outside of a vehicle. In general, activities 

that occur outside of vehicles tend to increase disturbance potential for most wildlife species (Klein 

1993; Gabrielson and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al., 2005). 

Wildlife observation trails have a greater potential for disturbing wildlife species. Among wetland 

habitats, human disturbances can reduce time spent foraging and can cause water birds to avoid 

foraging habitats adjacent to trails and public viewing areas. Similarly, walking on wildlife observation 

trails tends to displace birds and can cause localized declines in the richness and abundance of 

wildlife species (Riffell et al., 1996). Bicycling and people walking causes more disturbances to 

waterfowl than motorized vehicles (Pease et al., 2005). 

Wildlife photographers tend to have the largest disturbance impacts (Klein 1993; Morton 1995; Dobb 

1998). While wildlife observers frequently stop on trails to view wildlife, wildlife photographers are 

much more likely to approach wildlife on foot (Klein 1993). Even slow approach by wildlife 

photographers tends to have behavioral consequences to wildlife (Klein 1993). Other impacts include 

the potential for some photographers to remain close to wildlife for extended periods of time (Dobb 

1998), and the tendency of casual photographers with low power lenses to get much closer to their 

subject than other activities would require (Morton 1995). 

Long-term Impacts: Considering the high level of use and variety of activities occurring at the 

refuge, appropriate solutions to minimize impacts need to be developed and monitored. Due to 

the limited access areas on the refuge, long-term impacts may be lessened significantly by the 

availability and a wildlife preference shift to remote resting and feeding areas. Public use 

currently is not at a level to cause this shift, but anticipated increases relative to the expansion of 

the population and growth of visitor opportunities could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird 

use of the refuge’s wetland habitats. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contacts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

By design, wildlife observation and photography should have minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. 

However, as use increases, wildlife impacts are more likely to occur. Evaluation of the sites and 

programs will be conducted annually to assess if objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are 

minimized, and if wildlife populations are not being adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable 

impacts begins to appear, it will be necessary to change the activity or the program, move the activity 

or program, or eliminate the program. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Establishing buffer zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas and establishing 

additional no-entry zones. 
Appendices 155

y Vegetation that effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for birds can help minimize 

impacts of people in busy areas like the Cox Ferry Recreation Area. 

y Impacts from wildlife viewing and photography can be reduced by providing observation 

blinds. 

y Re-routing, modifying, or eliminating activities which have demonstrated direct wildlife impacts 

should also be employed. 

y Education is critical for making visitors aware that their actions can have negative impacts on 

birds. 

y Establishing well-marked trails where human use is more predictable will lessen wildlife 

impacts. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Providing quality, appropriate, and compatible opportunities for these activities 

contributes toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. 

Wildlife observation and photography would provide excellent forums for promoting increased 

awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs and of the Service. The 

stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. 

At the current level of visitation, these wildlife-dependent uses would not conflict with the national 

policy to maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

Description of Uses: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Environmental education and interpretation consist primarily of a curriculum-based, youth program 

that targets the education and interpretation of the natural resources of the refuge. Activities include 

on-site staff-led or teacher-led environmental education programs; off-site teacher-led classroom 

programs; teacher workshops; and interpretation of wildlife, habitat, other natural features, and/or 

management activities occurring on the refuge. 

These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and their 

habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation and support of the refuge. Environmental education 

and interpretation have been identified in the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act as 

priority public use activities, provided they are appropriate and compatible with the purposes for 

which the refuge was established. 
156 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Waccamaw NWR has partnered with the Southeastern Wildlife Environmental Education Association 

(SEWEE Association) in order to meet the current demands for environmental education programs on 

the refuge. The SEWEE Association has been successful in receiving several grants to help offset 

these program costs. One of the top priorities identified in the CCP is the construction of a new 

environmental education center on the Yauhannah Bluff Tract. Construction of the center has started 

and once built, this new facility will enhance the refuge’s ability to reach more students throughout a 

larger area surrounding the refuge. Staffing, operational, and maintenance costs will become a 

limiting factor once this facility is opened. It is anticipated that the refuge will have to work very 

closely with the SEWEE Association to meet many of these needs. 

The proposed interpretation program strives to increase awareness and understanding of the refuge’s 

natural features, habitat diversity, wildlife, human history, and refuge management activities. The 

CCP calls for minor changes, such as adding new signs, revising brochures, and developing new 

interpretive panels and kiosks. The CCP also calls for more extensive improvements, such as 

developing the Cox Ferry Recreation Area which is already underway. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds support the Visitor 

Services’ program and activities. The development of proposed facilities is contingent upon 

successfully locating a funding source. Costs for improvements identified in the CCP will typically 

come from the SEWEE Association, Fish and Wildlife Foundation, other grants or endowments, and 

refuge budget increases under the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). The SEWEE 

Association is currently supplementing the environmental education program and interpretive 

programs by $10,000, which covers almost all of the costs of the environmental education program. 

As the program grows, many of the additional costs and staff needs will have to be met through the 

cooperation and assistance of the SEWEE Association. 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses: Environmental education primarily occurs at the Yauhannah 

Tract, at the public boat ramp. As the new center comes on-line, these programs will shift more 

to Yauhannah Bluff. It is anticipated that the overall program will grow considerably at that time. 

The expansion of the program, as proposed, would increase disturbance on a new site; however, 

this site was acquired specifically for the construction of the new center. Impacts would be 

considered short-term and discrete due to the distance that this site is away from more sensitive 

wildlife habitats. Vegetation trampling, altering structure and species composition, and temporal 

wildlife impacts to species would be at a minimal level. This unavoidable impact associated with 

running the environmental education program is acceptable. 

Impacts associated with interpretive activities generally occur at developed facilities, such as the 

visitor center, trails, boardwalks, or other improved facilities. Adding the new interpretive sites would 

have some wildlife or habitat impacts. The Cox Ferry Recreation Area will utilize an existing road 

system, which will be converted to trails, and a parking lot will be associated with this project. The 

planned observation tower for visitors at the Cox Ferry Recreation Area would be located adjacent to 

a main trail and most improvements (e.g., parking lots and a kiosk) would be located in a previously 

cleared and disturbed area. The tower and tower trail would be located near some wetlands, but the 

footprint of the tower and trail would be in uplands where impacts are minimal. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contacts. 
Appendices 157

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: While anticipated impacts are anticipated to be 

minimal, stipulations are required to ensure that wildlife resources are adequately protected. The 

environmental education program activities will avoid sensitive sites and sensitive wildlife populations. 

A section on wildlife etiquette will be built into all curriculums. Environmental education programs and 

activities will be held at or near established facilities where impacts may be minimized. Evaluations of 

sites and programs should be conducted annually to assess if objectives are being met and to ensure 

that natural resources are not being adversely impacted. 

Impacts associated with interpretive programs are also anticipated to be minimal. One overarching 

aspect of the interpretive program is to build understanding and appreciation for the refuge and its natural 

resources, many of which can not be physically accessed by refuge visitors. As use increases, wildlife 

disturbances are unavoidable, but through interpretive material (e.g., brochures, signs, and kiosk panels) 

proper wildlife etiquette will be stressed. Education is critical for making visitors aware that their actions 

can have negative impacts on wildlife. Interpretive activities and programs will be conducted at developed 

sites where impacts can be minimized. Wildlife impacts on the Cox Ferry Recreation Area will be 

carefully monitored. If impacts are detected, adaptive strategies will be developed, such as seasonal trail 

closures to lessen wildlife disturbance. Annual evaluations will be conducted to assess if objectives are 

being met and that the natural resources are not being adversely affected. The refuge will modify or 

eliminate any use that results in unacceptable impacts. 

Justification: Environmental education and interpretation represent two priority wildlifedependent recreational activities listed under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act. Environmental education and interpretation are used to encourage all citizens to act 

responsibly in protecting natural resources. 

Environmental education and interpretation activities are tools the refuge can use to build 

understanding, appreciation, and support for the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Resources required to run the programs are minimal and are built into the refuge operation and 

maintenance budget. As long as stipulations to ensure compatibility are followed, the programs should 

remain compatible with the purposes of the refuge. At such time that the monitoring program identifies 

unacceptable wildlife impacts, the refuge will modify activities to minimize or eliminate the impacts. 

Both programs allow for the public to become knowledgeable of the missions of the Service, the 

Refuge System, and the purposes of the refuge. The programs highlight the areas which are most in 

line with the refuge’s management philosophy proposed under the CCP. Considering the minimal 

anticipated impacts through implementation of the environmental education and interpretation 

programs and the benefits that should arise through public education, participation, and involvement, 

the program is deemed compatible. 
158 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2023

Description of Use: Bicycling 

While not one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act, bicycling is a mode of transportation currently used to facilitate wildlife 

observation and hunting. This compatibility determination provides additional guidance on its specific use. 

As proposed, bike riding would occur only on designated roads and trails year-round. 

Availability of Resources: Operation and maintenance funds to support wildlife viewing are taken 

from the refuge’s annual budget, which is adequate to sustain the program at the current level. 

Funds are needed annually to mow, grade, and repair roads open to the public; replace gravel on the 

refuge roads; repair and replace boardwalks and trails; paint, repair, and replace signs; and develop 

and print brochures. Many of these direct and indirect costs are necessary for other public uses and 

so an FTE (position) cost breakdown specific to this use is not included in this compatibility 

determination. The refuge will seek outside funding, grants, and partnerships to fund the 

development of the refuge’s trails, which will also serve as future bicycle paths. Trails dedicated to 

hiking only will be closed to bicycling. 

Anticipate Impacts of Use: A critical and objective evaluation of the potential effects that bicycles 

could have on the wildlife, habitat, and other public use activities is based on available information 

and best professional judgment. Although bicycling has the potential to have impacts, the focus is to 

minimize impacts. This is based on the impacts at the existing and projected levels of use. 

Bicycling may be an appropriate form of transportation to view wildlife or to reach remote areas for hunting 

and has been approved in specific locations. However, bicycle riding takes several forms. For example, 

mountain biking, according to the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) is the sport of riding 

bicycles off paved roads. It requires endurance and bike handling skills and is performed on dirt roads, 

fire breaks, access roads, and public trails. According to the IMBA, the sport is broken down into several 

categories: cross country, downhill, street, dirt jumping, and free riding. Several aspects of mountain 

biking are more similar to trail running than to regular bicycling (Wikipedia 2005). 

Although wildlife viewing may be an incidental aspect of the mountain biking activity, it is not considered 

the main purpose or intent. Mountain bikers may enjoy the outdoor setting found at the refuge, but the 

activity may conflict with other wildlife-dependent recreation activities, may disturb migratory birds, and is 

not specifically aimed at viewing wildlife. Therefore, mountain biking is not permitted. 

Other forms of bike riding may be appropriate. The intent of some bike riders is wildlife viewing. 

Bicycle riders are not permitted to ride on refuge hiking trails. This activity disturbs other trail users 

and will be eliminated from hiking trails. 
Appendices 159

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife disturbance relative to bicycle riding has been poorly studied with most 

references using activities such as walking, hiking, and operating vehicles and their impacts on wildlife; 

therefore, bicycle impacts are inferred. In general, activities that occur outside of vehicles (including 

bicycling) tend to increase the disturbance potential for most wildlife species (Klein 1993; Gabrielson 

and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al., 2005). Among wetland habitats, out of vehicle approaches 

can reduce time spent foraging and can cause water birds to avoid foraging habitats adjacent to the out 

of vehicle disturbance (Klein 1993). One possible reason for this result is that vehicle activity is usually 

brief; while out of vehicle activities, such as walking, require longer periods of time to cover the same 

distance. Similarly, walking on wildlife observation trails tends to displace birds and can cause localized 

declines in species richness and abundance (Riffell et al., 1996). 

Wildlife may receive different cues from different modes of transportation, since wildlife do not flee as 

readily from cars, perhaps because the person is hidden in the vehicle and not perceived as a threat 

(Klein 1983). A 2005 study at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge (Pease et al., 2005) compared five 

different human activities (i.e., motorized tram, slow moving truck, fast moving truck, bicyclist, and 

pedestrian) in relation to waterfowl disturbance. The study found that people walking and biking 

disturbed waterfowl more than vehicles. 

Long-term Impacts: Considering the high level of use and variety of activities occurring at the 

refuge, appropriate solutions to minimize impacts need to be developed. Techniques to limit 

disturbance must first be evaluated, then implemented and monitored. This stems from the 

hypothesis that prolonged and extensive disturbance may cause migratory birds to abandon the 

wetlands most disturbed by humans and winter elsewhere. Current use may not be at a level to 

cause this shift, but anticipated increases relative to the expansion of the population and the growth 

of visitor opportunities could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird use of the refuge wetland 

habitat. Bicycling would add to the level of disturbance, especially in wetland habitats, and strategies 

need to be implemented to limit wildlife impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contacts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

All forms of wildlife observation should have minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. However, bicycling 

can cause wildlife impacts in open wetland areas, can increase wildlife impacts, and can disrupt other 

individuals viewing wildlife. Bicycles will not be permitted on established hiking trails. 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Establishing buffer zones that minimize disturbance around sensitive areas and establishing 

additional no-entry zones. 

y Vegetation that effectively conceals visitors and provides cover for birds can help minimize 

impacts of people. 
160 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y Impacts from wildlife viewing can be reduced by providing observation blinds. 

y Techniques specific to bicycling will include: re-routing, modifying, or eliminating bicycle riding 

activities that have demonstrated direct wildlife impacts in open wetland habitats. 

y Education is critical for making bicycle riders aware that their actions can have negative 

impacts on birds. 

y Establishing well-marked bike trails where this use is allowed and contained. 

Justification: Bicycling to observe wildlife facilitates priority public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Providing opportunities for these activities contributes toward fulfilling provisions of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Wildlife observation from bicycles in areas 

where there are few impacts to wildlife would provide an appropriate mode of transportation for 

promoting increased awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs. The 

stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. 

At the current level of visitation, bicycling does not seem to conflict with the national policy to maintain 

the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

Description of Use: Commercial Services 

While not one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses named in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act, commercial services support wildlife viewing, interpretation, hunting, 

and fishing and they assist the refuge in providing quality wildlife-dependent recreational activities. The 

refuge would authorize commercial services through the issuance of special use permits. For the 

purpose of this document, a commercial provider is defined as a permittee who charges a client a fee 

for a program or service in order to generate a profit. This does not include individuals who perform 

these services for no fee, not-for-profit groups, schools, colleges, or other governmental agencies. 

This activity would provide recreational and educational opportunities for members of the public who 

desire a quality wildlife-dependent experience, but who may lack the necessary equipment, skills, 

knowledge, ability, or resources to obtain it themselves. Commercial services on the refuge could 

include: motor vehicle tours; boat, canoe and kayak tours; filmmaking and professional photography; 

and guided sports fishing and hunting trips. Except for the fee charged to the customer by the 

commercial provider, the impacts associated with these activities would not be different than other 

activities already occurring on the refuge. The named activities covered by this compatibility 

determination are similar to the activities covered by the interpretation, wildlife observation, waterfowl 
Appendices 161

hunting, and fishing compatibility determinations, but this compatibility determination would provide 

additional guidance specific to commercial services. 

As proposed, some commercial services would be permitted in the open areas of the refuge under a 

special use permit. Interpretive training and further guidelines may be developed and required in the 

future. Currently, no administrative facilities for the providers of these commercial services are 

planned for the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: The program costs to refuge operations would include, but not be limited 

to: development and review of policy and procedure, administration of annual permits (e.g., 

addressing inquires, screening applicants, checking on insurance, and issuing permits), and 

enforcement and monitoring of permit holders. However, the size and scope of the program and 

number of permits issued would have to be balanced with the permit fee. Existing facilities, such as 

boat ramps and other infrastructure, could accommodate commercial services. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: To date, there are no commercial service programs on the refuge. It is 

anticipated that at some point in time a tour boat system may be necessary to access remote areas of 

the refuge where present access is only available by private boat. Commercial hunting guide 

services would not be permitted on refuge lands. Commercial trapping of turtles would not be 

permitted nor would traps fastened to woody vegetation on refuge lands be permitted. 

Guided tour activities may conflict with other refuge visitors. For example, commercial tours would 

use the same areas as other visitors engaged in wildlife observation, kayaking, hunting, and angling. 

Unregulated, commercial operations could adversely affect the safety of other visitors and the quality 

of their experience, and could contribute to wildlife disturbance. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contact. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Make the Use Compatible: Commercial operators shall be permitted 

only in the areas open to the public. Seasonal or permanent closures in certain areas may be 

imposed on commercial operators if the level of use becomes excessive, conflicts occur with other 

users engaged in priority wildlife-dependent recreation, or wildlife impacts occur. In the future, 

interpretive training and other stipulations may be required of commercial operators to help the refuge 

achieve its outreach and educational objectives. 

The fee for annual commercial use permits is $250. These fees are anticipated to be increased as 

the cost for administering the program increases. 

Commercial service providers would follow all refuge regulations along with additional special 

conditions stipulated in their permits. The following special conditions would be common to most 

commercial service providers: 
162 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y The permittee would provide proof of general liability insurance in the amount of $300,000. 

y The permittee would provide proof of a State charter license and/or Coast Guard Captain’s 

license. 

y The provider would supply the refuge with his/her fee schedule charged per client. 

y The provider would supply the refuge with the number of trips provided per year (this would 

include the number of clients). 

y Requests for special use permits would only be considered if they demonstrate a means to 

facilitate the priority public uses (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental education and interpretation) of the Refuge System. 

y A special use permit could be revoked for failure to comply with all conditions or for repeat 

violations of refuge regulations. 

y Boat, canoe, and kayak tours would be permitted to use all designated launch sites. Tour 

routes would be approved in the permit. A concessionaire permit would be required for any 

tour operator accessing refuge lands. 

y Fishing on State navigable waters that bisect the refuge is regulated by the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources and does not fall within the jurisdiction of the refuge. 

However, if refuge lakes are acquired or developed, these bodies of water would be under 

refuge jurisdiction and fishing guide services would be permitted in accordance with refuge 

and state regulations. Commercial fishing guides may be limited to sustainable levels as 

determined by the refuge. 

y Guide hunting trips would not be permitted in refuge hunt areas. 

y Filmmaking and professional photography would be permitted on a case-by-case evaluation. 

Justification: Commercial services could support wildlife observation, interpretation, and fishing. 

Further, they could provide recreational and educational opportunities for the public who desire a 

quality wildlife-dependent experience, but who may lack the necessary equipment, skill, knowledge, 

ability, or resource to obtain it themselves. Providing opportunities for these activities would 

contribute toward fulfilling provisions of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. The 

stipulations outlined above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. 

At the current level of visitation, commercial operations would not conflict with the national policy to 

maintain the biological diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
Appendices 163

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

Description of Use: Research 

Research is the planned, organized, and systematic gathering of data to discover or verify facts. In 

principle, research conducted on the refuge by universities, co-op units, non-profit organizations, and 

other research entities furthers refuge management and serves the purposes, vision, and goals of the 

refuge. The refuge hosts research from a variety of research institutions. 

All research activities, whether conducted by governmental agencies, public research entities, 

universities, private research groups, or any other entity, shall be required to obtain special use 

permits from the refuge. All research activities will be overseen by the refuge manager. 

Availability of Resources: Other than the administration of associated special use permits, no 

refuge resources are generally required for this use. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Generally, adverse impacts from research are minimal. 

Occasionally, slight or temporary wildlife or habitat disturbances may occur (e.g., minor trampling of 

vegetation may occur when researchers access monitoring plots). However, these impacts are not 

significant, nor are they permanent. Also, a small number of individual plants or animals might be 

collected for further scientific study, but these collections are anticipated to have minimal impact on 

the populations from which they came. All collections will adhere to the Service’s specimen collection 

policy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). Projects that are fish and wildlife managementoriented, which will provide needed information to refuge operation and management, will receive 

priority consideration and will even be solicited. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive conservation 

plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal agencies; news 

releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contact. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All research conducted on the refuge must 

further the purposes of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. All 

research will adhere to established refuge policy on research and policy on collecting specimens 
164 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005b). To ensure that research activities are compatible, the 

refuge requires that a special use permit be obtained before any research activity may occur. 

Research proposals and/or research special use permit applications must be submitted in 

advance of the activity to allow for review by refuge staff to ensure minimal impacts to the 

resources, staff, and programs of the refuge. Each special use permit may contain conditions 

under which the research will be conducted. 

Each special use permit holder will submit annual reports to update the refuge on research activities, 

progress, findings, and other information. Further, each special use permit holder will provide copies of 

findings, final reports, publications, and/or other documentation at the end of each project. The refuge 

will deny permits for research proposals that are determined to not serve the purposes of the refuge 

and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will also deny permits for research 

proposals that are determined to negatively impact resources or that materially interfere with or detract 

from the purposes of the refuge. All research activities are subject to the conditions of their permits. 

Justification: Research activities provide important benefits to the refuge and to the natural 

resources supported by the refuge. Supporting management, research conducted on the refuge can 

lead to new discoveries, new facts, verified information, and increased knowledge and understanding 

of resource management, as well as track current trends in fish and wildlife habitat and populations to 

enable better management decisions. Research has the potential to further the purposes of the 

refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Description of Use: Camping 

Camping on beaches and islands along the creeks and rivers that bisect the refuge has been a historic 

use that dates back thousands of years. In more recent years, camping has occurred in conjunction with 

hunting and fishing activities. Most often with modern camping use, selection of sites has been 

opportunistic and most often occurred without permission from private landowners who mange the land. 

The refuge has only permitted camping by special use permits for volunteers who pick up litter during 

annual river sweeps and then on a case-by-case basis as volunteer work has been necessary. As the 

refuge continues to grow, camping may be considered when it is necessary and beneficial for other 

permitted activities, such as hunting, fishing, canoeing, and kayaking. 

Any decision to provide camping in the future will take into account all environmental impacts and the 

availability of resources and other costs which might be required to support expansion of camping 

opportunities. 
Appendices 165

Availability of Resources: The refuge’s current operating budget is inadequate to sustain this 

program. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: The camping areas are selected based on conservation project needs 

and almost exclusively in remote areas away from areas of intensive bird use. All sites used for 

camping would be upland sites with no impacts to wetlands. Some minor soil compaction and 

vegetation trampling do occur associated with the use. Fires are restricted to an approved fire pit and 

fire wood must be brought to the site. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and local area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal 

agencies; news releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contact. 

Determination (check one below): 

X Use is not compatible 

 Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: N/A 

Justification: N/A 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Description of Use: Forest Management – Commercial Timber Harvest 

Waccamaw NWR currently has no commercial timber harvesting occurring on the refuge; however, 

recommendation to use timber harvesting as a habitat management tool is included in the refuge’s 

comprehensive conservation plan. Many of the newly acquired refuge tracts were formerly owned by 

industrial timber companies and forest conditions at the time of acquisition are often managed for 

commercial timber production rather than species and age class diversity. 

Timber harvesting will be used to help achieve several of the goals and objectives outlined in the 

comprehensive conservation plan. Included in these are restoration of forested wetland communities 

associated with the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee rivers, forest structure for migratory songbirds, 

creation of diversity in the greater landscape, and maintenance of ecological integrity. The strategies 

and techniques for each of these will be discussed in detail in the Habitat Management Plan, which 

will be developed as a step-down plan of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

Periodically, timbered areas of the refuge will be assessed as to their ability to meet habitat 

requirements. When it is necessary to remove part or all of a stand of trees, a prospectus will be 
166 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

prepared and the sale offered to commercial harvesting operations. Two general methods of 

choosing the trees will be used. The first is to mark the individual trees that are to be removed. This 

method is most often used where the purpose of the harvest is to diversify age classes and create 

midstory forest structure. 

The other method of choosing trees to be harvested is logger selection, which can be used when it is 

necessary to remove either the entire stand or the majority of it. With the logger selection method, 

the commercial operator is given the number of stems per acre that are to be left on the site, along 

with some size and form parameters. He is then allowed to select the trees that are cut as he works 

through the stand. The most beneficial use of this method is to reduce trees in areas where the 

shrub layer would provide habitat for the bird species which prefer early successional plant 

communities, or to replace commercial pine stands with native hardwoods generally associated with 

wetland habitats. Although this method reduces the amount of pre-harvest work by eliminating 

marking, it requires closer monitoring of the logging operation. 

Commercial timber harvesting may also be used to protect the health of the forests and woodlands. 

In this scenario, pockets of trees infested with insects or disease would be removed to prevent the 

spread of these pathogens throughout the area. 

Availability of Resources: In order to effectively use timber harvesting to achieve refuge goals and 

objectives, a member of the refuge staff needs to be knowledgeable in forest ecology. This staff 

person must also have an awareness of the capabilities and limitations of timber harvesting 

operations and be in a position to develop a forest management plan. Until such time that a forester 

can be added to the refuge staff, the services of a forester from another refuge would be utilized. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Harvesting operations can have a major impact on the shrub layer 

of forests. The equipment used in these endeavors crushes and breaks many of the plants as trees 

are felled and skidded to the loading docks. However, the understory quickly recovers. Within a 

year, much of the shrub layer has grown back. The removal of some of the stems opens up the 

understory and allows easier access by wildlife. Often times, the herbaceous layer responds 

positively to the removal of the overstory and portions of the shrub layer. This can create important 

foraging opportunities although they are short-lived. 

Soil compaction and disruption of local drainage can also be an important negative side effect of 

logging operations. These can be mitigated by selecting proper sites for loading areas, varying skid 

trails, and avoiding operations during wet periods. 

Noise level of the equipment and chainsaws will cause some minor disruption or displacement of wildlife. 

Public Review and Comment: Methods used to solicit public review and comment included posted 

notices at refuge headquarters and local area locations; copies of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan distributed to adjacent landowners, the public, and local, state, and federal 

agencies; news releases to area newspapers; local radio announcements; and personal contact. 

Determination (Check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 
Appendices 167

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All commercial timber harvesting operations will 

be carried out under a special use permit. Conditions of the sale will be specified in the permit and 

will depend on the purpose of the harvest, the characteristics of the site, current policy, and safety of 

refuge employees and visitors. 

While checking on harvest operations, refuge staff will be aware of present and forecasted weather 

conditions. If soil moisture reaches a point where excessive damage is being done to the site, 

operations will be shut down until conditions improve. Refuge staff will also check for damage to the 

residual stand and will make operators aware of any problems as soon as they are detected. 

Justification: Forest management actions proposed in the comprehensive conservation plan are in 

accordance with Service guidelines for the protection, management, and enhancement of wildlife 

populations and habitats on the refuge. The timber harvest will also help meet goals of maintaining 

upland habitat diversity and will help maintain the ecological integrity of the refuge landscape. 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Description: 

_____Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_____Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

__X__Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

_____Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 9/19/2018
168 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Literature Citations: 

Bauer, H. G., H. Stark, and P. Grenzel. 1992. Disturbance Factors and their Effects on Water Birds 

Wintering in the Western Parts of Lake Constance. Der Ornithologische Beobachter 89:81-91. 

Bergman, R. D. 1973. Use of Southern Boreal Lakes by Post Breeding Canvasbacks and Redheads. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 37:160-170. 

Burger, J. 1981. The Effects of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. Biological 

Conservation. 21:231-241. 

Bridges, R.J. 1968. Individual white-tailed deer movement and related behavior during the winter and 

spring in northwest Florida. M.S. Thesis. University of Georgia, Athens 86 pp. 

Dahlgren, R. B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human disturbance of waterfowl: and annotated 

bibliography. Resource Publication 188. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Washington D.C. 62 pp. 

Dobb, E. 1998. Reality Check: The Debate behind the Lens. Audubon: Jan.-Feb. 

Gabrielson, G. W. and E. N. Smith. 1995. Physiological Responses of Wildlife to Disturbance. 

Pages 95-107 in R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreation: Coexistence 

through Management and Research. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 372 pp. 

Kahl, R. 1991. Boating Disturbance of Canvasbacks during Migration at Lake Poygan, Wisconsin. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin19: pp. 242-248. 

Klein, M. L. 1993. Waterbird Behavior Responses to Human Disturbances. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 21: pp. 31-39. 

Korschgen, C.E. L.S. George, and W.L. Green. 1985. Disturbance of Diving Ducks by Boaters on a 

Migrational Staging Area. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: pp. 290-296. 

Morton J.M. 1995. Management of Human Disturbance and its Effects on Waterfowl. 

Pages F59-F86 in W. R. Whitman, T. Strange, L. Widjeskog, R. Whittemore, P. Kehoe, and L. 

Roberts (eds). Waterfowl Habitat Restoration, Enhancement and Management in the Atlantic 

Flyway. Third Ed. Environmental Management Committee, Atlantic Flyway Council Technical 

Section, and Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife. Dover, DE. 1114 pp. 

Pease, M. L., R.K. Rose, and M.J. Butler. 2005. Effects of Human Disturbances on the Behavior of 

Wintering Ducks. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1): 103-112. 

Riffell, S. K., J. Gutzwiller, and S. H. Anderson. 1996. Does repeated human intrusion cause 

cumulative declines in avian richness and abundance? Ecological Applications 6(2): 492-505. 

Sanderson, G.C. 1966. The Study of Mammal Movement – A Review. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 30 (I) :215-235. 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2005 Deer Harvest Report 

<http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/deer/2005 deerharvestreport.html> 
Appendices 169

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2005 Feral Hog Harvest Report 

<http://www.dnr.sc.gov/wildlife/deer/2005 deerharvestreport.html> 

Smith, F. H., Jr. 1970. Daily and seasonal variation in movements of white-tailed deer on Elgin Air 

Force Base, Florida. M.S. Thesis University of Georgia, Athens. 58 pp. 

Skagen, S.K. 1980. Behavioral Response of Wintering Bald Eagles to Human Activity on the Skagit 

River, Washington. Pages 231-241 in R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, M.V. Stalmaster, and C.W. 

Servhenn, eds. Proc. Wash. Bald Eagle Symposium, The Nature Conservancy. Seattle, WA. 

Speight, M. C. D. 1973. Outdoor Recreation and its Ecological Effects: A Bibliography and Review. 

University College London, England. Discussion Papers in Conservation 4. 35 pp. 

Sterling, T. and A. Dzubin. 1967. Canada Goose Molt Migrations to the Northwest Territories. 

Trans. N. Am. Res. Conf. 32:367-369. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement : Proposed 

Establishment of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, Vol. 1. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. 173pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Recreational Hunting Plan: Waccamaw National Wildlife 

Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, Georgetown , South Carolina. 44pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a Waterfowl Harvest and Population Survey Data: Estimates of 

U.S. harvest, hunting activity, and success derived from the State-Federal cooperative harvest 

information program. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, Columbia, Missouri. 92 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2005 b Director’s Order No. 109: Use of Specimens Collected on Fish 

and Wildlife Service Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington D.C. 1pp. 

Wikipedia. 2005. Mountain Biking. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain.biking>. 

Personal Communications: 

Charles R. Ruth, Jr., Deer Project Supervisor/ Wildlife Section, South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources, Columbia, S.C. 
170 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations: 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations reviewed within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is 

considered for compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature 

becomes part of that determination. 
Appendices 171

VII. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM

Originating Person: Marshall “Craig” Sasser 

Telephone Number: (843) 527- 8069 

E-Mail: Marshall_Sasser@fws.gov 

Date: May 15, 2008 

PROJECT NAME: WACCAMAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN (CCP)

I. Service Program: 

___ Ecological Services 

___ Federal Aid 

 ___ Clean Vessel Act 

___ Coastal Wetlands 

___ Endangered Species Section 6 

___ Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

___ Sport Fish Restoration 

___ Wildlife Restoration 

___ Fisheries 

 X Refuges/Wildlife

II. State/Agency: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

III. Station Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

The proposed action consists of approving and then implementing a CCP for Waccamaw 

National Wildlife Refuge in Georgetown, Horry and Marion Counties, South Carolina. The 

CCP provides overall management guidance on the refuge over a 15-year-period in the form 

of a vision and goals, objectives and strategies related to fish and wildlife management, 

habitat management, resource protection, visitor use, and refuge administration. 

 The aim of the CCP is to provide specific guidance in the pursuit of the purposes for which 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge was established. Wildlife, fish, and their respective 

habitats are the first priority in refuge management. Public uses (wildlife-dependent 

recreation), in particular, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation, are permitted as long as these uses are 

compatible with, or do not impinge upon, the refuge’s primary wildlife-related purposes. 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map: See Figure 5 of Draft CCP/EA and 

Figure 8 below. 
172 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Federally listed species near Waccamaw Refuge 
Appendices 173

Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) – nests within the 

refuge acquisition boundary in longleaf pine-dominated upland forests on 

Sandy Island.

E

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) – has been observed foraging and 

loafing on wetland habitats within the refuge acquisition boundary, but 

nesting has not been documented. E 

Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) – rivers and creeks 

within the refuge acquisition boundary represent important spawning 

habitat. 

E 

Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) – inhabits seasonally flooded 

wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, and swampy depressions; not 

known to occur within refuge acquisition boundary, but potential habitat 

present on Sandy Island and elsewhere. 

E 

Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) – inhabits a variety of coastal 

plain habitats including natural ponds dominated by pond cypress, grasssedge dominated bays, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, 

and cypress-pine swamps; unknown on refuge, but potential habitat 

present in sandy pinelands. 

E 

American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) – pine flatwoods and 

savannahs with a history of frequent burning; unknown within the refuge 

acquisition boundary, but potential habitat is present on Sandy Island 

and other pineland areas. 

E 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – coasts, rivers, and lakes, 

usually nesting in tall trees near bodies of water where it feeds. De-listed 

1

STATUS: E=endangered, T=threatened, PE=proposed endangered, PT=proposed threatened, CH=critical habitat, 

PCH=proposed critical habitat, C=candidate species, S/A=Similar Appearance 
174 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VI. Location (attach map): See next page for location map.

A. Ecoregion Number and Name: #33, Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers 

B. County and State: Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

33°36’ North Latitude, 79°6’ West Longitude (approximate center of refuge) 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town(s): 

 

 Conway, 3 miles to north, Georgetown, 10 miles to southwest of refuge 

E. Species/habitat occurrence within Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary: 

 Red-cockaded woodpecker: habitat and species both occur 

 Wood stork: habitat and species (foraging/loafing, not nesting) both occur 

 Shortnose sturgeon: habitat and species both occur 

 Pondberry: potential habitat present but species not known to occur 

 Canby’s dropwort: potential habitat present but species not known to occur 

 American chaffseed: potential habitat present but species not known to occur 

 Bald eagle: habitat and species (foraging, not nesting) both occur 
Appendices 175

Figure 9. Location map of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
176 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Red-cockaded woodpecker – 

longleaf pine forests 

 Open structure of longleaf pine forests to be maintained by 

 prescribed fire; impacts likely to be neutral to beneficial. 

Wood stork – wetland areas No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed 

 acquisition of additional areas would protect more habitat, and 

 thus likely be beneficial. 

Shortnose sturgeon – rivers 

and creeks No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed 

 acquisition of additional areas would protect more watershed 

 area, helping to maintain water quality and stream/river integrity. 

Pondberry – seasonally 

 flooded wetlands and pond 

 margins; undocumented on 

 refuge but potential habitat 

present 

 No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed 

 acquisition of additional areas would protect more potential habitat, 

 which would represent a possible benefit. 

 Canby’s dropwort – natural 

 ponds dominated by pond 

 cypress, grass-sedge 

 dominated bays, wet pine 

 savannahs, shallow pineland 

 ponds, and cypress-pine 

 swamps; undocumented on 

 refuge but potential habitat 

present. 

 No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed 

 acquisition of additional areas would protect more potential habitat, 

 which would represent a possible benefit.

 American chaffseed – pine

 flatwoods and savannahs with 

a history of frequent burning; 

 undocumented on refuge but 

potential habitat present 

 No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed 

 acquisition of additional areas would protect more potential habitat, 

 which would represent a possible benefit.

Bald eagle – coasts, rivers, and 

lakes, usually nesting in tall 

trees near bodies of water 

where it feeds 

Proposed habitat management would benefit the bald eagle by 

conserving nesting and roosting trees as well as forestland, shorelines, 

and water quality. 
Appendices 177

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Red-cockaded woodpecker – longleaf 

pine forests 

Conduct prescribed burns away from nest sites or during non- 

 nesting seasons. 

Wood stork – wetland areas 

No mitigation measures needed unless nesting is observed; if 

nesting observed, implement buffer zone around nesting area. 

Shortnose sturgeon – rivers and creeks No mitigation measures needed or proposed. 

Pondberry – seasonally 

 flooded wetlands and pond 

 Margins; undocumented on 

 refuge but potential habitat 

 present 

Conduct targeted survey periodically for this and other listed 

plant species prior to prescribed burns.

 Canby’s dropwort – natural 

 ponds dominated by pond 

 cypress, grass-sedge 

 dominated bays, wet pine 

 savannahs, shallow pineland 

 ponds, and cypress-pine 

 swamps; undocumented on 

 refuge but potential habitat 

 present 

 Conduct targeted survey periodically for this and other listed 

plant species prior to prescribed burns. 

 American chaffseed – pine

 flatwoods and savannahs with a history of 

frequent burning; undocumented on 

refuge but potential habitat present 

 Conduct targeted survey periodically for this and other listed 

plant species prior to prescribed burns. 

Bald eagle – coasts, rivers, and lakes, 

usually nesting in tall trees near bodies of 

water where it feeds Protect large trees (especially snags) near water bodies for 

potential nesting and roosting. 
178 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED

NE NA AA

Red-cockaded woodpecker – longleaf pine 

forests x Concurrence 

Wood stork – wetland areas x Concurrence

Shortnose sturgeon – rivers and creeks x Concurrence

Pondberry – seasonally flooded wetlands, 

 sandy sinks, and pond margins x Concurrence 

 Canby’s dropwort – natural ponds dominated 

 by pond cypress, grass-sedge dominated bays 

x Concurrence 

 American chaffseed – pine flatwoods and 

 savannahs with a history of frequent burning

x Concurrence 

Bald eagle – coasts, rivers, and lakes, and 

adjacent trees and upland sites x Concurrence 

1

DETERMINATION/ RESPONSE REQUESTED: 

NE = no effect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action will not directly, indirectly, or 

cumulatively impact, either positively or negatively, any listed, proposed, candidate species or 

designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested is optional but a “Concurrence” is recommended for a 

complete Administrative Record. 

NA = not likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is not likely to 

adversely impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat or there may be 

beneficial effects to these resources. Response Requested is a” Concurrence”. 

AA = likely to adversely affect. This determination is appropriate when the proposed action is likely to adversely 

impact any listed, proposed, candidate species or designated/proposed critical habitat. Response Requested for 

listed species is “Formal Consultation”. Response requested for proposed and candidate species is “Conference”. 
Appendices 179

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 
180 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 181

VIII. Wilderness Review 

Wilderness Review Summary 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

October 12, 2006 

The South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex Project Leader, Refuge Manager, and Refuge 

Complex Planner met at Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on October 12, 2006, to 

inventory and study the refuge as part of the wilderness review. The review team included: 

Donny Bowning, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex Project Leader 

Craig Sasser, Waccamaw NWR Refuge Manager 

Van Fischer, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex Planner 

The wilderness review is a required component of the comprehensive conservation plan. 

The Wilderness Act defines a Wilderness Area as an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, and 

managed to preserve its natural conditions such that it: 

1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s 

work substantially unnoticeable; 

2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

3) has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

4) 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; 

5) is a roadless island; and 

6) may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historic value. 

The wilderness review process is conducted in three phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. 

The inventory phase is a broad look at the planning area to identify lands and waters that meet the 

minimum criteria for wilderness and warrant further study for wilderness designation. These criteria 

include every area of at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or roadless areas sufficient in size to 

make practicable their preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; or be a roadless island of 

any size. Areas meeting these criteria are considered wilderness inventory areas. Wilderness 

inventory areas are then further evaluated for naturalness, opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation, and special or supplemental values. Those areas that meet these criteria are 

identified as wilderness study areas (WSAs). 

In the study phase, each WSA is evaluated, through careful analysis of alternative management 

options, to determine its suitability for wilderness designation. The analysis considers all values (e.g., 

ecological, recreational, cultural, economic, symbolic); resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, 

minerals, soils); refuge uses; and refuge management activities within the WSA. It includes an 

evaluation of whether the WSA can be effectively managed to preserve its wilderness character. 
182 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

The findings of the study determine whether a WSA, or portion of a WSA, will be recommended for 

designation as wilderness. Wilderness recommendations are forwarded or reported from the Director 

of the Fish and Wildlife Service through the Secretary of the Interior and the President to Congress in 

a wilderness study report. 

Wilderness Review Findings 

The wilderness review team identified two wilderness inventory units in Waccamaw NWR (Table 6). 

Both of these islands are located in the Pee Dee River. 

Table 6. Lands evaluated as potential wilderness inventory units 

Unit Acreage 

Richmond Island 40 

Bull Island 4,600 

Richmond Island meets the minimum criterion for a wilderness inventory area (a roadless island of any 

size), but could not be practicably managed as wilderness because of location and close proximity to a 

marina and heavy motor boating activity. This heavy public use, combined with the small size of the island, 

prevents opportunities for individuals to enjoy solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreational experience. 

Bull Island (Figure 10) meets the minimum criterion for a wilderness inventory area (a roadless island of any 

size), and provides values and resources in keeping with wilderness character. Historically, Bull Island was 

intensively logged but the last logging operations took place close to 100 years ago. The island has 

recovered from past logging activity and now exhibits century-old bottomland hardwood forests and forested 

wetlands. The island is one of the most remote areas on the refuge and provides excellent opportunities for 

solitude or primitive and unconfined types of wildlife-dependent recreation. Setting aside Bull Island as 

wilderness is in keeping with the establishing purposes of Waccamaw NWR, and management will be able 

to effectively maintain its wilderness character. 

The inventory and initial study phases of the wilderness review warrant inclusion of Bull Island as a 

wilderness study area in the comprehensive conservation plan. An objective and strategies will be 

developed as part of the comprehensive conservation plan to maintain the wilderness character and within 

ten years of CCP approval, the staff will prepare a wilderness study report on whether Bull Island should be 

recommended for formal designation as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). 

Wilderness Management 

The wilderness management policy and regulations allow motorized access and use of mechanized 

equipment for administrative purposes only if such uses are the minimum tool necessary to 

accomplish wilderness objectives. For the purpose of analysis in the comprehensive conservation 

plan/environmental assessment, managers should assume that authorization of such uses would be 

temporary and rare in a wilderness area. If such restrictions would significantly limit the Service’s 

ability to accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts would be fully described 

and evaluated in the wilderness study report. 
Appendices 183

Congressionally Designated Wilderness 

The National Wilderness Preservation System is a network of federally owned areas designated by 

Congress as wilderness and managed by one of four federal agencies: the Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Park Service, or the Forest Service. More than 70 designated wilderness 

areas, totaling 20.7 million acres, are currently found on 63 national wildlife refuges. This represents 

approximately 22 percent of the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The Service administers wilderness areas within the Refuge System consistent with refuge purposes 

and in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136), and the specific legislation 

designating a particular wilderness area. The purposes of the Wilderness Act are to: secure an 

enduring resource of wilderness; protect and preserve the wilderness character of areas within the 

National Wilderness Preservation System; and administer areas for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in a way that will leave these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as 

wilderness. Wilderness purposes are “within and supplemental” to refuge establishing purposes. 

They become additional purposes of the area within the refuge designated as wilderness. 

Preserving wilderness character is a primary criterion for judging the appropriateness of proposed refuge 

management activities and refuge uses, including public use and enjoyment in wilderness. Preserving 

wilderness character requires that we maintain both the tangible and intangible aspects of wilderness. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act prohibits commercial enterprises and permanent roads within 

wilderness. Commercial services, such as outfitter and guide services, are permitted only when they are 

“necessary for activities which are proper for realizing the recreational or other wilderness purposes of the 

areas.” We may allow commercial services where they are necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge, including Wilderness Act purposes. 

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act also lists a number of "generally prohibited uses" in wilderness: 

temporary roads, use of motor vehicles, use of motorized equipment or motorboats, landing of aircraft, 

other forms of mechanical transport, and structures or installations. We do not authorize generally 

prohibited uses in refuge wilderness except when the use is: allowed under the terms of the areaspecific wilderness legislation and the Wilderness Act; the minimum requirement for administering the 

area as wilderness and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act 

purposes; or an emergency involving the health and safety of persons within the area. 

The Service conducts and documents a "minimum requirement analysis" for all proposed refuge 

management activities, whether or not the activity involves a generally prohibited use. The minimum 

requirement analysis clarifies the need for and impacts of a proposed action. The Service authorizes an 

activity only if it is demonstrated that the activity is necessary to meet the minimum requirement for 

administering the area as wilderness and necessary to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including 

Wilderness Act purposes. The management alternative that has the least impact upon all of the area’s 

wilderness values and character, including intangible aspects of wilderness character, and accomplishes 

refuge purposes, including wilderness purposes, constitutes the minimum requirement. The Service does 

not use cost or convenience as the main factor in determining the minimum requirement or minimum tool. 

Furthermore, the Service will attempt to use primitive tools when possible. 
184 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 10. Bull Island Wilderness Study Area on Waccamaw NWR 
Appendices 185

IX. Refuge Biota 

Wildlife species likely found on Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 1997) 

BIRDS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

LOONS 

Common Loon Gavia immer 

GREBES 

 

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 

PELICANS AND ALLIES 

Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 

Anhinga Anhinga anhinga 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis 

HERONS, EGRETS AND ALLIES 

American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 

Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis 

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 

Great Egret Ardea alba 

Snowy Egret Egretta thula 

Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 

Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor 

Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 

Green-backed Heron Butorides striatus 

Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 

Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax violaceus 

IBISES, SPOONBILL, STORK 

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 

White Ibis Eudocimus albus 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana 
186 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

WATERFOWL 

Fulvous Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna bicolor 

Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus 

Snow Goose Chen caerulescens 

Canada Goose Branta canadensis 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes

Mottled Duck Anas fulvigula 

Mallard Anas platyrhynvchos 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

Canvasback Aytha valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

VULTURES, HAWKS AND ALLIES 

Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

American Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus 

Mississippi Kite Ictinia mississippiensis 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii 

Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius 

Merlin Falco columbarius 

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 

GALLINACEOUS BIRDS 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 
Appendices 187

RAILS, GALLINULES, COOTS AND CRANES 

Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis 

King Rail Rallus elegans 

Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 

Sora Porzana carolina 

Purple Gallinule Porphyrio martinica 

Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 

American Coot Fulica americana 

SHOREBIRDS AND GULLS 

Killdeer Charadrius vociferous 

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes 

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago 

American Woodcock Scolopax minor

Laughing Gull Larus atricilla 

Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 

Herring Gull Larus argentatus 

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia 

Royal Tern Sterna maxima 

Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis 

Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri 

Least Tern Sternula antillarum 

PIGEONS, DOVES 

Rock Dove Columba livia 

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 

Common Ground-Dove Columbina passerina 

CUCKOOS 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 

OWLS 

Barn Owl Tyto alba 

Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio 

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 

Barred Owl Strix varia 

GOATSUCKERS 

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 

Chuck-will's-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 

Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 
188 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

SWIFTS, HUMMINGBIRDS 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 

KINGFISHERS 

Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon 

WOODPECKERS 

Red-headed Woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus

Red-bellied Woodpecker* Melanerpes carolinus 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 

Downy Woodpecker* Picoides pubescens 

Hairy Woodpecker* Picoides villosus 

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis 

Northern Flicker* Colaptes auratus 

Pileated Woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus 

FLYCATCHERS 

 

Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 

Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens 

Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 

MARTINS AND SWALLOWS 

Purple Martin Progne subis 

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis 

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 

JAYS AND CROWS 

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 

Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus 

CHICKADEES AND TITMICE 

Carolina Chickadee Parus carolinensis 

Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor 

NUTHATCHES 

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 

Brown-headed Nuthatch Sitta pusilla
Appendices 189

WRENS 

Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 

House Wren Troglodytes aedon 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 

KINGLETS AND GNATCATCHERS 

 

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula 

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 

BLUEBIRDS, THRUSHES AND ROBIN 

Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 

Veery Catharus fuscescens 

Swainson’s Thrush Catharus ustulatus 

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 

American Robin Turdus migratorius 

THRASHERS 

Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 

Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 

Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

PIPITS 

American Pipit Anthus rubescens 

WAXWINGS 

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 

STARLINGS 

European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 

SHRIKES 

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 

VIREOS 

White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 

Solitary Vireo Vireo solitarius 

Philadelphia Vireo Vireo philadelphicus 

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 
190 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

WARBLERS 

Northern Parula Parula americana 

Black-throated Blue Warbler Dendroica caerulescens

Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata 

Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens 

Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 

Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 

Palm Warbler Dendroica palmarum 

Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 

Swainson's Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii 

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis 

Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus 

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypos trichas 

Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrine 

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens 

TANAGERS 

Summer Tanager Piranga rubra 

Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

NEW WORLD FINCHES 

Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 

Blue Grosbeak Passerina caerulea 

Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 

SPARROWS 

Rufous-sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerine 

Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 

Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus caudacutus 

Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus 

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 

Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 

White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis 
Appendices 191

BLACKBIRDS, GRACKLES, COWBIRDS AND ORIOLES 

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Red-winged Blackbird Agelais phoeniceus 

Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 

Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus 

Boat-tailed Grackle Quiscalus major 

Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Orchard Oriole Icterus spurious 

OLD WORLD FINCHES 

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus 

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 

WEAVER FINCHES 

House Sparrow Passer domesticus 

MAMMALS 

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus

Red Bat Lasiurus borealis

Seminole Bat Lasiurus seminolus 

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Evening Bat Nycticeius humeralis

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans 

Eastern Pipistrel Pipistrellus subfiavus

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat Plecotus rafinesquii

Southeastern Myotis Myotis austroriparius 

Whitetail Deer Odocoileus virginianus 

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Opossum Didelphis marsupalis

Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus 

Marsh Rabbit Sylvilagus palustris

River Otter Lutra canadensis

Mink Mustela vison

Longtail Weasel Mustela frenata 

Beaver Castor canadensis

Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Southern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys volans

Eastern Gray Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern Fox Squirrel Sciurus niger

Golden Mouse Peromyscus nuttalli

Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana
192 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Rice Rat Oryzomys palustris 

Hispid Cotton Rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Meadow Vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Pine Vole Pitymys pinetorum

Norway Rat Rattus norvegicus

Black Rat Rattus rattus 

Shorttail Shrew Blarina brevicauda

Eastern Mole Scalopus aquaticus

Black Bear Ursus americanus

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis

Common Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina serpentina 

Common Musk Turtle (Stinkpot) Sternotherus odoratus

Striped Mud Turtle Kinosternon bauri

Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum

Carolina Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin centrata 

Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata

Eastern Chicken Turtle Deirochelys reticularia reticularia 

Florida Cooter Chrysemys floridana 

Yellowbelly Slider Trachemys scripta scripta

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene carolina carolina

Gulf Coast Spiny Softshell Trionyx spiniferus asperus 

Green Anole Anolis carolinensis 

Southern Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulates undulatus

Ground Skink Scincella lateralis 

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Broadhead Skink Eumeces laticeps

Southeastern Five-lined Skink Eumeces inexpectatus 

Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophrus sexlineatus sexlineatus 

Eastern Glass Lizard Ophisaurus ventralis 

Eastern Slender Glass Lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus longicaudus

Banded Water Snake Natrix fasciata fasciata

Redbelly Water Snake Natrix erythrogaster erythrogaster

Brown Water Snake Natrix taxispilota 

Glossy Crayfish Snake Regina rigida

Carolina Black Swamp Snake Seminatrix pygaea paludis

Eastern Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis

Eastern Ribbon Snake Thamnophis sauritus. sauritus 

Pine Wood Snake Rhadinaea flavilata 

Midland Brown Snake Storeria dekayi

Florida Redbelly Snake Storeria occipitomaculata 

Rough Earth Snake Virginia striatula

Eastern Earth Snake Virginia valeriae valeriae

Southern Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus punctatus

Southern Hognose Snake Heterodon simus

Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodon platyrhinos

Eastern Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus amoenus

Northern Scarlett Snake Cemophora copei copei 
Appendices 193

Rough Green Snake Opheodrys aestivus

Rainbow Snake Farancia erytrogramma erytrogramma

Eastern Mud Snake Farancia abacura abacura 

Southern Black Racer Coluber priapus priapus 

Eastern Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum flagellum 

Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus

Yellow Rat Snake Elaphe obsoleta quadrivittata

Corn Snake Elaphe guttata guttata

Eastern Kingsnake Lampropeltis getulus getulus

Mole Kingsnake Lampropeltis calligaster rhombomaculata

Scarlet Kingsnake Lampropeltis traingulum elapsoides

Southeastern Crowned Snake Tantilla coronata 

Eastern Cottonmouth Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus 

Southern Copperhead Agkistrodon contortrix

Eastern Coral Snake Micrurus fulvius fulvius

Carolina Pygmy Rattlesnake Sistrurus miliarius miliarius 

Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus

Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake Crotalus adamanteus

Greater Siren Siren lacertina

Eastern Lesser Siren Siren intermedia intermedia 

Broad-striped Dwarf Siren Pseudobranchus striatus striatus

Two-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma means

Dwarf Waterdog Necturus punctatus

Broken-striped Newt Notophthalmus viridescens dorsalis

Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum

Mabees Salamander Ambystoma mabeei

Flatwoods Salamander Ambystoma cingulatum

Eastern Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum

Southern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus auriculatus

Eastern Mud Salamander Pseudotriton montanus montanus

Many-lined Salamander Stereocheilus marginatus 

South Carolina slimy Salamander Plethodon variolatus

Southern Two-lined Salamander Eurycea cirrigera

Three-lined Salamander Eurycea longicauda guttolineata

Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridigitata

Eastern Spadefoot Scaphiopus holbrookii holbrookii

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris

Oak Toad Bufo quercicus

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea

Pine Woods Treefrog Hyla femoralis

Barking Treefrog Hyla gratiosa

Squirrel Treefrog Hyla squirella

Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis

Northern Spring Peeper Pseudacris crucifer crucifer

Brimleys Chorus Frog Pseudacris brimleyi

Southern Chorus Frog Pseudacris nigrita nigrita

Little Grass Frog Pseudacris ocularis

Ornate Chorus Frog Pseudacris ornata
194 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Southern Cricket Frog Acris gryllus gryllus

Pig Frog Rana grylio

River Frog Rana heckscheri

Carpenter Frog Rana virgatipes

Bronze Frog Rana clamitans clamitans

Bull Frog Rana catesbeiana

Southern Leopard Frog Rana utricularia

Carolina Gopher Frog Rana capito capito

Pickerel Frog Rana palustris

FISHES 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

American Eel Anguilla rostrata

American Shad Alosa sapidissima

Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus

Banded Killfish Fundulus diaphanous

Banded Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma zonatum

Banded Sunfish Enneacanthus obesus

Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Blackbanded Sunfish Enneacanthtus chaetodon

Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Bluespotted Sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus 

Bowfin Amia calva

Broadtail Madtom Noturus n sp. 

Brook Silverside Labidethes sicculus

Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Carp Cyprinus carpio

Carolina Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma boehlkei

Chain Pickeral Esox niger

Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Coastal Shiner Notropis petersoni

Creek Chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

Dollar Sunfish Lepomis marginatus

Dusky Shiner Notropis cummingsae

Eastern Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki

Eastern Mudminnow Umbra pygmaea

Everglades Pygmy Sunfish Elassoma evergladei

Flat Bullhead Ameiurus platycephalus

Flathead Catfish Pylodictis olivaris

Flier Centrarchus macropterus

Freshwater Goby Gobionedllus schufeldti

Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Golden Topminnow Fundulus chrysotus

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Hickory Shad Alosa mediocris

Hogchoker Trinectes maculates

Ironcolor Shiner Notropis chalybaeus
Appendices 195

Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 

Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides

Least Killifish Heterandria formosa

Lined Topminnow Fundulus lineolatus

Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus

Margined Madtom Noturus insignis

Mud Sunfish Acantharchus pomotis

Pirate Perch Aphredoderus sayanus

Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus

Rainwater Killifish Lucania parva 

Red Drum Sciaenops ocellatus

Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis auritus

Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus

Redfin Pickerel Esox americanus americanus

Sawcheek Darter Etheostoma serriferum

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum

Silvery Minnow Hybognathus nuchalis

Snail Bullhead Ameiurus brunneus

Southern Flounder Paralichthys lethostigma

Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius

Spotted Sucker Minytrema melanops

Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus

Striped Bass Morone saxatilis

Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus

Summer Flounder Paralichthys dentatus

Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme fusiforme

Swamp Darter Etheostoma fusiforme barratti 

Swampfish Chologaster cornuta

Tadpole Madtom Noturus gyrinus

Taillight Shiner Notropis maculates

Tarpon Megalops atlanticus

Tessellated Darter Etheostoma olmstedi

Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense

V-lip Redhorse Moxostoma papillosum

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus

White Catfish Ameiurus catus

White Perch Morone americana

Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens
196 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 197

X. Budget Requests 

 
198 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 199
200 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 201
202 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 203
204 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 205

XI. Consultation and Coordination 

This appendix summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative which are presented in this CCP. It lists the 

meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations, and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the CCP. 

The following meetings, contacts, and presentations were undertaken by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service during the preparation of the CCP. 

The first step in developing the refuge’s CCP was a Biological Review that took place in June 2003. 

The review team included eight Service biologists and managers and non-Service managers/ 

biologists. Biological Review participants included: 

Frank Bowers, FWS, RO, former Chief, Division of Migratory Birds, Atlanta 

Bob Noffsinger, FWS, Supervisory Wildlife Biologist, Manteo, NC 

John Stanton, FWS, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Manteo, NC 

Dean Demarest, FWS, RO, Non-game Migratory Bird Coordinator, Atlanta 

Marshall “Craig” Sasser, Complex Wildlife Biologist, Cape Romain NWR, Awendaw, SC 

Craig Watson, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, Charleston, SC 

Jamie Dozier, Wildlife Biologist, SCDNR, Georgetown, SC 

Jan Tripp, Savannah Coastal Refuge Complex, GA 

Bob Perry, Wildlife Biologist, SCDNR, Georgetown, SC 

John Cely, Wildlife Biologist, SCDNR, Columbia, SC 

Pam Robinson - The Nature Conservancy, Columbia, SC 

Sam Stokes, Jr. - Wildlife Biologist, SCDNR, Florence, SC 

William Conner - Clemson University, Georgetown, SC 

Anne Kieser, USDA Forest Service, Francis Marion National Forest, McClellanville, SC 

The review involved on-site evaluations to help the refuge meet its purpose and determine the 

role(s) this refuge could play regarding wildlife needs/objectives at various geographical scales 

(i.e., 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 purpose of the refuge. 

A Visitor Services’ Review was conducted in 2005 in preparation for the upcoming CCP. The threemember review team consisted of Service personnel from the Region – Visitor Services and 

Outreach, a representative of Cape Romain NWR, and a representative of Santee NWR. The review 

team met with refuge staff to discuss the visitor services’ program. The staff explained what the 

visitor services’ program is currently doing to provide recreational, educational, and interpretive 

opportunities on the refuge. The refuge manager and assistant refuge manager took the review team 

to all the different public use areas on the refuge. After the refuge tour and discussions with some of 

the staff and the director of the SEWEE Center, the review team met to discuss the current status of 

the programs and to make recommendations. On the final day of the review, the team presented the 

recommendations to the staff and had an open discussion of the pros and cons of the various 

recommendations. Later, the team prepared a report (USFWS 2005) with a number of 

recommendations for improving and expanding upon visitor services’ facilities and operations. 

The nucleus of the CCP planning team itself – composed of the refuge manager and a contractor with 

experience in preparing CCPs – met for the first time on February 1-2, 2006, for a tour of the refuge 
206 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

and an overview of its habitat and wildlife resources and public use programs, facilities, and 

opportunities. At this time, the planning team also conducted additional internal scoping and 

prepared a preliminary schedule and plans for public involvement. 

Two open houses and public meetings were held on May 1-2, 2006. Since the refuge itself does not 

have meeting or conference facilities, the scoping meetings were held at the J.B. Beck Administrative 

and Education Center in Georgetown, and at the Coastal Carolina University Center for Marine and 

Wetland Studies in Conway. Approximately 15 members of the public attended the open house and 

scoping meeting on each day. Attendees were able to mingle at leisure with refuge staff, ask 

questions, provide comments, and look at exhibits and maps on hand. The public was able to 

express its concerns about the refuge and ideas and suggestions for its future management in writing 

on a comment form that was distributed to attendees and other interested parties. Written comments 

could either be submitted right at the meeting, mailed subsequently, or sent via email. A total of 82 

comment forms and letters were received during scoping for the Waccamaw NWR Draft CCP/EA. 

Public comments on the Draft CCP/EA were accepted from February 13 to March 14, 2008. A 

total of 94 individuals submitted written comments on the Draft CCP/EA. More than one 

individual represented some agencies or organizations and certain inviduals represented more 

than one organization. The number of affiliations can be summarized as follows: federal 

agencies 0; Indian Tribes 1; state agencies 0; local (city and county) agencies 0; 

nongovernmental organizations 16; private citizens (members of the general public, listed as ‘NA’ 

or no affiliation) 71; universities 2; and businesses 2. 

The types of media used to deliver the comments received by the refuge and planning staffs are 

categorized as follows: e-mail 90 (sometimes letter included in email, sometimes as an attached file); 

and written (hard copy) letter 4. 

The geographic origins of the individual commenters who submitted written comments are South 

Carolina 86; Pennsylvania 3; Georgia 2; Tennessee 1; Virginia 1; and New Jersey 1. 
Appendices 207

XII. Sea Level Affecting Marshes (SLAMM) 

Model 

Data Report on SLAMM Model Results for 

Ten National Wildlife Refuges in South Carolina and Georgia: 

 

Waccamaw NWR, South Carolina 

March 20, 2008 

Prepared for: 

Dr. Brian Czech, USFWS 

Prepared by: 

Dr. Jeff Ehman, Image Matters LLC 
208 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Acknowledgements 

 

The results of this analysis were extracted from a broader study, "Effects of Sea level Rise 

and Climate Variability on Ecosystem Services of Tidal Marshes, South Atlantic Coast," a Science to 

Achieve Results (STAR) grant awarded by the USEPA National Center for Environmental Research 

(EPA Agreement Number: RD 83222001-0). The research project team, led by Chris Craft (Indiana 

University), consists of Samantha Joye (University of Georgia), Steve Pennings (University of 

Houston), Dick Park (Eco Modeling), Jonathan Clough (Warren Pinnacle Consulting), and Jeff Ehman 

(Image Matters). 

Introduction 

 

Tidal marshes are among the most susceptible ecosystems to climate change, especially accelerated 

sea level rise (SLR). Sea level is predicted to increase by 30 cm to 100 cm by 2100 based on the 

International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) 

(Meehl et al. 2007). Rising sea level may result in tidal marsh submergence (Moorhead and Brinson 

1995) and habitat migration as salt marshes transgress landward and replace tidal freshwater and 

brackish marsh (Park et al. 1991). 

The data contained in this report were derived from a broader study, "Effects of Sea level Rise and 

Climate Variability on Ecosystem Services of Tidal Marshes, South Atlantic Coast." The research team, 

led by Chris Craft (Indiana University) and funded through an EPA grant, used GIS and simulation 

modeling to predict the effects of different scenarios of accelerated SLR on tidal marsh area and delivery 

of select ecosystem services along the Georgia and South Carolina coast. The basic rationale, methods 

and limitations of the approach as presented herein were described by Craft et al. (in review). 

 

Methods 

 

Changes in tidal marsh area and habitat type in response to SLR were modeled by Jonathan Clough 

using the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) that simulates the dominant processes 

involved in wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea level rise (Park et 

al. 1989; www.warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM). SLAMM was developed as a model that integrates 

elevation-submergence and wave action-erosion. SLAMM5 also incorporates a salinity algorithm, 

based on freshwater discharge and cross-sectional area of the estuary, to model saltwater intrusion 

in river-dominated estuaries. Model inputs included the USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) 

(http://ned.usgs.gov), NOAA tidal data, and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) data 

(http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov). SLAMM, a cell-based model, was run at 28 m resolution based on 

NED characteristics within the study region. 

Model simulations were based on the SRES A1B mean (39 cm) and maximum (69 cm) increase in 

SLR in the next 100 years, with a time step of 25 years. The SRES A1 scenario assumes rapid 

economic growth, low population growth and rapid introduction of new and more efficient technology 

(Church et al. 2001, Meehl et al. 2007). The SRES A2 scenario, that assumes a lower rate of 

economic growth, fewer technological advances but greater population growth, predicts a similar 

increase in sea level rise during the next century (Church et al. 2001). A third scenario, based on a 

100 cm increase, was also modeled. 

SLAMM accounts for localized conditions within its spatial domain, through the use of parameters such as 

tide range, historical trend, and NAVD-88 correction (see below table). This provides for site-specificity of 

the SLR scenario being applied. For example, while the global average of SLR is 1.8 mm/yr (Church et 

al. 2001), the measured rate of SLR (historical trend) around Waccamaw NWR is 3.28 mm/yr. 
Appendices 209

Accounting for all of these localized conditions, the following SLR scenarios were used for Waccamaw 

NWR: 57 cm (A1B mean), 87 cm (A1B maximum), and 117 cm (corresponding to 1 m globally) by 21001

. 

The table that follows includes the parameters used in the SLAMM Model Runs 

SLAMM Parameter Value Units

Initial Condition 1999 (yyyy)

NED Source Date 1960 (yyyy) 

NWI_photo_date 1994 (yyyy)

Direction_OffShore E (N|S|E|W) 

Historic_trend 3.28 (mm/yr) 

NAVD88_correction -0.11 (MTL-NAVD88 in meters)

Water Depth 2.0 (m below MLW; aggrading beaches only) 

TideRangeOcean 1.5 (meters: MHHW-MLLW) 

TideRangeInland 1.5 (meters) 

Mean High Water Spring 1.125 (m above MTL) 

Marsh Erosion 2.0 (horz meters/year) 

Swamp Erosion 1.0 (horz meters/year) 

TFlat Erosion 6.0 (horz meters/year) [from 0.5]

Salt marsh vertical accretion 1.9 (mm/yr)

Brackish Marsh vert. accretion 4.3 (mm/yr)

Tidal Fresh vertical accretion 4.8 (mm/yr)

Beach/T.Flat Sedimentation Rate 0.5 (mm/yr) 

Frequency of Large Storms 25 (yr/washover) 

Use Elevation Preprocessor for Wetlands TRUE TRUE/FALSE

Notes: 

Historic Trend Source: http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ga 

Range Source: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ngs_opsd.prl?PID=BR0078 

Water Depth means the average water depth 15 m off-shore. 

 

1

 About 18 cm of additional SLR is predicted based on the local conditions at this site vs. global SLR trends. 
210 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Limitations of the Approach

As with any study, there are caveats associated with the tools and approaches we used. Second, 

there are limitations associated with the data inputs used in the SLAMM SLR simulations. For 

example, (NED) elevation data that covers the entire coast has moderate resolution. Third, the 

SLAMM model lacks feedback mechanisms that may come into play as SLR accelerates. For 

example, increasing inundation of salt marshes may increase macrophyte production and lead to 

increased vertical accretion (Morris et al. 2002). Conversely, increasing salt water intrusion into tidal 

freshwater marshes may accelerate decomposition, (Weston et al. 2006), and lead to reduced vertical 

accretion. Despite these caveats, our approach provides first-order and important insights into how 

accelerated SLR may affect tidal marshes and their delivery of ecosystem services in the future. 

Results 

The results of the SLAMM model runs are presented below, with sets of two tables and a series of map 

graphics for each of the three global SLR scenarios: A1B Mean, A1B Maximum, and a 1 meter increase. 

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario A1B 

Parameters Mean, Protect Developed Lands 

 

Waccamaw Hectares of Cover by Year 

Cover Type Initial 2025 2050 2075 2100

Developed Dry Land 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2576.85 2576.46 2576.46 2575.68 2574.58 

Swamp 1041.62 978.51 960.24 939.39 881.45 

Cypress Swamp 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 

Inland Fresh Marsh 12.78 12.62 12.62 12.62 12.62 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1104.19 2040.60 7376.03 11608.53 12579.04 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Estuarine Beach 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Tidal Flat 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 

Inland Open Water 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1174.59 1174.59 1174.59 1173.96 1173.96 

Estuarine Water 0.55 0.63 36.53 55.19 75.58 

Brackish Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Freshwater Shoreline 6.51 6.51 6.51 6.51 6.51 

Tidal Swamp 15340.14 14467.31 9114.08 4885.34 3953.48 
Appendices 211

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario A1B 

Parameters Mean, Protect Developed Lands 

Waccamaw 

Init. 

Cond. 

(ha) 

Year 

2050 (ha) 

Year 

2100 (ha) 

Percent 

of Init. 

Cond. 

Percent 

Loss 

2050 

Percent 

Loss 2100 

Developed Dry Land 1 1 1 0% 0% 0% 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2577 2576 2575 12% 0% 0% 

Swamp 1042 960 881 5% 8% 15% 

Cypress Swamp 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 

Inland Fresh Marsh 13 13 13 0% 1% 1% 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1104 7376 12579 5% (568%) (1039%) 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 

Estuarine Beach 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 

Tidal Flat 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 

Inland Open Water 30 30 30 0% 0% 0% 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1175 1175 1174 6% 0% 0% 

Estuarine Water 1 37 76 0% (6557%) (13671%) 

Brackish Marsh 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 

Freshwater Shoreline 7 7 7 0% 0% 0% 

Tidal Swamp 15340 9114 3953 72% 41% 74% 
212 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scenario A1B Mean 
Appendices 213

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario A1B 

Parameters Maximum, Protect Developed Lands 

 

Waccamaw Hectares of Cover by Year 

Cover Type Initial 2025 2050 2075 2100

Developed Dry Land 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2576.85 2576.46 2576.46 2573.09 2425.77 

Swamp 1040.52 970.83 946.44 876.59 808.93 

Cypress Swamp 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 

Inland Fresh Marsh 12.78 12.62 12.62 12.54 12.23 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1114.77 2577.64 11540.17 12670.62 13477.67 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 

Estuarine Beach 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.01 

Tidal Flat 0.00 0.00 1.18 2.12 62.80 

Inland Open Water 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1174.59 1174.59 1174.59 1173.18 1157.26 

Estuarine Water 0.55 0.94 99.33 232.38 860.05 

Brackish Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.78 

Freshwater Shoreline 6.51 6.51 6.51 6.51 6.43 

Tidal Swamp 15330.65 13937.64 4899.92 3710.20 2407.82 
214 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario A1B 

Parameters Maximum, Protect Developed Lands 

Waccamaw 

Init. 

Cond. 

(ha) 

Year 

2050 (ha) 

Year 

2100 (ha) 

Percent 

of Init. 

Cond. 

Percent 

Loss 2050 

Percent 

Loss 2100 

Developed Dry Land 1 1 1 0% 0% 0% 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2577 2576 2426 12% 0% 6% 

Swamp 1041 946 809 5% 9% 22% 

Cypress Swamp 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 

Inland Fresh Marsh 13 13 12 0% 1% 4% 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1115 11540 13478 5% (935%) (1109%) 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0 0 0 0% N/A N/A 

Estuarine Beach 0 0 33 0% N/A N/A 

Tidal Flat 0 1 63 0% N/A N/A 

Inland Open Water 30 30 30 0% 0% 0% 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1175 1175 1157 6% 0% 1% 

Estuarine Water 1 99 860 0% (18000%) (156614%) 

Brackish Marsh 0 0 5 0% N/A N/A 

Freshwater Shoreline 7 7 6 0% 0% 1% 

Tidal Swamp 15331 4900 2408 72% 68% 84% 
Appendices 215

Scenario A1B Maximum 
216 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario 1 meter SLR 

Parameters Protect Developed Lands 

 

Waccamaw Hectares of Cover by Year 

Cover Type Initial 2025 2050 2075 2100

Developed Dry Land 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2576.85 2576.30 2575.52 2467.01 2257.92 

Swamp 1039.58 964.08 889.76 803.68 784.31 

Cypress Swamp 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 

Inland Fresh Marsh 12.78 12.62 12.54 11.92 10.98 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1136.09 3392.05 11578.43 12181.09 12883.79 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.55 

Estuarine Beach 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.03 50.41 

Tidal Flat 0.00 0.00 5.25 79.97 213.64 

Inland Open Water 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 30.50 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1174.59 1174.59 1174.59 1163.22 1072.90 

Estuarine Water 0.71 23.91 214.50 935.39 1985.17 

Brackish Marsh 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 5.02 

Freshwater Shoreline 6.51 6.51 6.51 6.43 5.64 

Tidal Swamp 15310.11 13107.15 4800.12 3581.94 1986.89 
Appendices 217

Site Waccamaw, SC 

Scenario 1 meter SLR 

Parameters Protect Developed Lands 

Waccamaw 

Init. 

Cond. 

(ha) 

Year 

2050 (ha) 

Year 

2100 (ha) 

Percent 

of Init. 

Cond. 

Percent 

Loss 2050 

Percent 

Loss 2100 

Developed Dry Land 1 1 1 0% 0% 0% 

Undeveloped Dry Land 2577 2576 2258 12% 0% 12% 

Swamp 1040 890 784 5% 14% 25% 

Cypress Swamp 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 

Inland Fresh Marsh 13 13 11 0% 2% 14% 

Tidal Fresh Marsh 1136 11578 12884 5% (919%) (1034%) 

Transitional Salt Marsh 0 0 1 0% N/A N/A 

Estuarine Beach 0 0 50 0% N/A N/A 

Tidal Flat 0 5 214 0% N/A N/A 

Inland Open Water 30 30 30 0% 0% 0% 

Riverine Tidal Open Water 1175 1175 1073 6% 0% 9% 

Estuarine Water 1 215 1985 0% (30300%) (281244%) 

Brackish Marsh 0 0 5 0% N/A N/A 

Freshwater Shoreline 7 7 6 0% 0% 13% 

Tidal Swamp 15310 4800 1987 72% 69% 87% 
218 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Scenario 1 meter SLR 
Appendices 219

Literature Cited 

Church JA, Gregory JM and others. 2001. Chapter 11: Changes in sea level. p. 639-693. In: JT 

Houghton and others (ed.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Craft C, Clough J, Ehman J, Guo H, Joye S, Machmuller M, Park R, and Pennings S. Effects of 

Accelerated Sea Level Rise on Delivery of Ecosystem Services Provided by Tidal 

Marshes: A Simulation of the Georgia (USA) Coast. In review for Frontiers in Ecology 

and the Environment.

Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy 

JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ and Zhao ZC. 2007. Global climate 

projections. Pp. 747-845. In: Solomon S, Qin, D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, 

Tignor, M and Miller HL, (eds.) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution 

of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Moorhead, KK and Brinson MM. 1995. Response of wetlands to rising sea level in the lower coastal 

plain of North Carolina. Ecological Applications 5: 261-271. 

Morris, JT, Sundareshwar PV, Nietch CT, Kjerfve B and Cahoon DR. 2002. Response of coastal 

wetlands to rising sea level. Ecological Applications 83: 2869-2877. 

Park RA, Lee JK, Mausel PW and Howe RC. 1991.Using remote sensing for modeling the impacts of 

sea level rise. World Resources Review 3: 184-220. 

Park, RA, Trehan, MS, Mausel, PW, & Howe, RC. 1989. The Effects of Sea Level Rise on U.S. 

Coastal Wetlands. Pp. 1-1 to 1-55. In Smith, J.B. & Tirpak, D.A. (Eds). The Potential Effects 

of Global Climate Change on the United States, Appendix B - Sea Level Rise. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 

Weston NB, Dixon RE and Joye SB. 2006. Ramifications of salinity intrusion in tidal freshwater 

sediments: Geochemistry and microbial pathways of organic matter mineralization. Journal of 

Geophysical Research, Biogeosciences 111: G0100, doi:10.1029/2005JG000071. 
220 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

XIII. Finding of No Significant Impact 

Introduction 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to protect and manage certain fish and wildlife 

resources in Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, through the Waccamaw 

National Wildlife Refuge (Waccamaw NWR). An Environmental Assessment has been prepared 

to inform the public of the possible environmental consequences of implementing a 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Waccamaw NWR. A description of the alternatives, 

the rationale for selecting the preferred alternative, the environmental effects of the preferred 

alternative, the potential adverse effects of the action, and a declaration concerning the factors 

determining the significance of effects, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969, are outlined below. The supporting information can be found in the Environmental 

Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Alternatives 

In developing the CCP for Waccamaw NWR, the Fish and Wildlife Service evaluated four 

alternatives: 

The Service adopted Alternative D, the “Preferred Alternative,” as the CCP for guiding the direction of 

the refuge for the next 15 years. The overriding concern reflected in this CCP is that wildlife 

conservation assumes first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreational uses are 

allowed if they are compatible with wildlife conservation. Wildlife-dependent recreation uses (e.g., 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) will be emphasized and encouraged. 

Alternative A. No Action Alternative 

Alternative A represented no change from current management of the refuge. Under this 

alternative, Waccamaw NWR would continue its current management. No active, direct 

management of waterfowl populations would occur. With regard to neotropical migratory birds, 

the refuge would continue to conduct informal surveys on swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s 

warblers on an occasional basis. Incidental observations of black bear on the refuge would be 

compiled. Threatened and endangered species would continue to be protected on appropriate 

refuge habitats. Each of the recreational uses as identified in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997 would continue. 

Alternative B. Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1

Under this alternative, the refuge would focus on habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on 

Unit 1, which consists of 34,784 acres (including acreage within the acquisition boundary not 

owned by the refuge) and is made up entirely of alluvial and black water floodplain forested 

wetlands. The refuge would aim to improve wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 600 

acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology. With regard to neotropical migratory birds and black 

bears, Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A. With regard to threatened and 

endangered species, Alternative B’s proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 would enhance its 

existing wood stork rookery. All existing recreational uses would be continued and additional 

wildlife-dependent public uses would be implemented. 
Appendices 221

Alternative C. Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on All Units

Under this alternative, the refuge would focus habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on all 

units of the refuge – Units 1, 2, and 3. Unit 1 consists of 34,784 acres of alluvial and black water 

floodplain forested wetlands. Unit 2 consists of 12,046 acres, with approximately 6,362 acres of 

upland longleaf pine forest and tidal forested and emergent wetlands. Unit 3 consists of 2,902 acres 

and contains historic rice fields, many of which remain intact and are managed for wintering 

waterfowl. Management of migratory waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds would be the same as 

Alternatives A and B. Management of black bears would be more active under this alternative. 

Refuge acquisition and habitat restoration efforts within wetland corridors would be targeted to 

improve connectivity between bear populations. 

Management of threatened and endangered species would generally be the same as Alternative B, 

restoring the hydrology on Unit 1 to enhance the existing wood stork rookery. In addition, it would 

restore wood stork feeding areas on Unit 3 and red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging 

habitat on Unit 2. Recreational use of the refuge would remain the same as Alternatives A and B, but 

would expand hunting opportunities. It would explore the potential for a youth waterfowl hunt on 

managed wetlands. In addition, opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and interpretation would be expanded. 

Alternative D. Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services

The preferred alternative, Alternative D, is considered to be the most effective management action for 

meeting the purposes of the refuge by optimizing habitat management and visitor services throughout 

the refuge. Management of waterfowl and migratory birds would be the same as Alternatives B and 

C; however, management of black bears would be stepped up from that of the previous three 

alternatives. This alternative would conduct annual surveys of black bears and attempt to enlist 

public participation in gathering, recording, and compiling sightings. 

Management of threatened and endangered species would generally be the same as Alternative C – 

restoring the hydrology on Unit 1 to enhance the existing wood stork rookery, restoring wood stork 

feeding areas on Unit 3, and red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. 

Recreational use of the refuge would continue. This alternative would expand on hunting 

opportunities for deer and hog by considering a hunt by mobility-impaired individuals. It would 

potentially include a youth waterfowl hunt on refuge management lands. Over the lifetime of the 

CCP, this alternative would call for reducing deer herd density to improve herd health and to improve 

habitat quality for other species. 

This alternative would identify the 4,600-acre Bull Island as a proposed Wilderness Study Area. The 

Service would maintain its wilderness character, and within 10 years of approval of the CCP, would 

prepare a wilderness study report and additional NEPA documentation on whether Bull Island should 

be formally designated by Congress as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. The 

refuge would prepare and implement a Visitor Services’ Plan and expand most wildlife-dependent 

public uses in a number of ways. 

Selection Rationale 

Alternative D is selected for implementation because it directs the development of programs to best 

achieve the refuge purpose and goals; emphasizes management and stewardship of the entire 

refuge; collects habitat and wildlife data; and ensures long-term achievement of refuge and Service 

objectives. At the same time, these management actions provide balanced levels of compatible 

public use opportunities consistent with existing laws, Service policies, and sound biological 

principles. It provides the best mix of program elements to achieve desired long-term conditions. 
222 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Under this alternative, all lands under the management and direction of the refuge will be protected, 

maintained, and enhanced to best achieve national, ecosystem, and refuge-specific goals and 

objectives within anticipated funding and staffing levels. In addition, the action positively addresses 

significant issues and concerns expressed by the public. 

Environmental Effects 

Implementation of the Service’s management action is expected to result in environmental, social, 

and economic effects as outlined in the CCP. Habitat management, population management, land 

conservation, and visitor service management activities on Waccamaw NWR would result in mostly 

beneficial impacts on habitat, wildlife, and public use. These effects are detailed as follows: 

Populations of migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, wood duck, colonial nesting 

waterbirds, marshbirds, reptiles, amphibians, and the federally listed wood stork may increase slightly 

as a result of the actions proposed under the Service’s management action. On the other hand, 

white-tailed deer populations would probably not change appreciably. 

Black bear numbers could increase somewhat due to an increase in the acreage of protected and 

connected habitats on and near the refuge, although offsetting this positive trend would be the growth 

in the area’s human population, traffic, and general development, which would tend to exert 

downward pressure on bear numbers. There would be a greater emphasis on securing migration 

corridors for the black bear, which could help ensure its continued survival and population stability. 

The herd size of the area’s most threatening invasive animal species – the feral hog – could 

potentially decrease under this alternative because their hunting and trapping would be encouraged. 

The quantity and quality of the refuge’s aquatic habitats – including open water, freshwater marsh, 

and managed wetlands (moist-soil units and submerged aquatic vegetation) – would either remain 

the same or improve slightly. The quantity of upland forests, bottomland hardwoods, and cypressgum forests would not change significantly in this alternative. However, because of the proposed use 

of prescribed fire and thinning, the quality of these forest habitats may improve somewhat. The 

continuing spread and infestation of invasive plant species could degrade the quality of aquatic, 

wetland, and upland habitats somewhat. However, increased mapping, monitoring, and control 

efforts could reduce encroachment by invasive species. 

Cultural resources would continue to be protected from human activities (especially excavation), 

according to the stipulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, but not from natural forces such 

as erosion, weathering, and flood damage. Development of a Cultural Resources Management Plan 

within 15 years of CCP approval would lead eventually to improved management, knowledge, and 

preservation of the refuge’s cultural resources. 

The wilderness character of Bull Island would be ensured under this alternative, pending a final 

decision by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the President, and the Congress on whether 

to adopt the refuge’s recommendation that it be designated a unit of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. One adverse effect of including Bull Island as a Wilderness Study Area would 

be to restrict management options, such as conducting forest thinning and prescribed fire on the 

island for the sake of wildlife habitat improvement. 

Overall, visitor services and public use opportunities would increase under the Service’s management 

action. Preparation and implementation of a Visitor Services’ Plan would help organize and 

systematize the refuge’s visitor services, with a probable increase in the quantity and quality of visitor 

experiences. Visitor services would be greatly expanded by the new visitor center on Yauhannah 

Bluff. The potential for opening a waterfowl hunt on the Jackson Bluff Tract, as well as a youth 
Appendices 223

waterfowl hunt and a mobility-impaired deer and hog hunt, would substantially increase existing 

hunting opportunities. Public fishing opportunities would increase with the potential addition of 

mobility-impaired fishing access on Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

A potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff, utilization of up to four nature trails 

near the new visitor center for environmental education, and use of Sandy Island trails would all 

increase the level of environmental education opportunities available to the public over those 

available at present. The Service’s management action would also expand environmental education 

into other schools in Georgetown County and into public schools in Horry and Marion Counties. 

Adding interpretive materials on existing trails at Yauhannah Tract and strategic boat landings within 

the acquisition boundary and conducting special outreach events would occur under the Service’s 

management action. The action would offer the potential for interpretive opportunities related to 

wetland restoration site on Jackson Bluff, plus added interpretive opportunities in and around the new 

visitor center and the Causey Tract, in addition to interpretive opportunities on Sandy Island. Overall, 

the Service’s management action would substantially increase the level of interpretation now 

occurring on the refuge. 

With regard to wildlife observation and photography, the Service’s management action would result in 

new trails at the visitor center and Sandy Island, thus increasing opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography at Waccamaw NWR. It also calls for adding canoe trails on the Waccamaw and Big Pee 

Dee Rivers and trails on the Haulover Tract. Because of this, it would represent a beneficial impact on 

wildlife observation and photography. 

Potential Adverse Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Wildlife Disturbance 

Disturbance to wildlife at some level is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, 

regardless of the activity involved. Obviously, some activities innately have the potential to be more 

disturbing than others. The management actions to be implemented have been carefully planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

As currently proposed, the known and anticipated levels of disturbance of the management action are 

considered minimal and well within the tolerance level of known wildlife species and populations 

present in the area. Implementation of the public use program would take place through carefully 

controlled time and space zoning, establishment of protection zones around key sites, closures of allterrain vehicle trails, and routing of roads and trails to avoid direct contact with sensitive areas, such 

as nesting bird habitat, etc. All hunting activities (season lengths, bag limits, number of hunters) 

would be conducted within the constraints of sound biological principles and refuge-specific 

regulations established to restrict illegal or non-conforming activities. Monitoring activities through 

wildlife inventories and assessments of public use levels and activities would be utilized, and public 

use programs would be adjusted as needed to limit disturbance. 

User Group Conflicts

As public use levels expand across time, some conflicts between user groups may occur. Programs 

would be adjusted, as needed, to eliminate or minimize these problems and provide quality wildlifedependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven that time and space zonings, such as 

establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restricting numbers of users, are effective 

tools in eliminating conflicts between user groups. 
224 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Effects on Adjacent Landowners 

Implementation of the management action would not impact adjacent or in-holding landowners. 

Essential access to private property would be allowed through issuance of special use permits. 

Future land acquisition would occur on a willing-seller basis only, at fair market values within the 

approved acquisition boundary. Lands are acquired through a combination of fee title purchases 

and/or donations and less-than-fee title interests (e.g., conservation easements, cooperative 

agreements) from willing sellers. Funds for the acquisition of lands within the approved acquisition 

boundary would likely come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act. The management action contains neither provisions nor proposals to pursue offrefuge stream bank riparian zone protection measures (e.g., fencing) other than on a 

volunteer/partnership basis. 

Land Ownership and Site Development 

Proposed acquisition efforts by the Service would result in changes in land and recreational use 

patterns, since all uses on national wildlife refuges must meet compatibility standards. Land 

ownership by the Service also precludes any future economic development by the private sector. 

Potential development of access roads, dikes, control structures, and visitor parking areas could lead 

to minor short-term negative impacts on plants, soil, and some wildlife species. When site 

development activities are proposed, each activity will be given the appropriate National 

Environmental Policy Act consideration during pre-construction planning. At that time, any required 

mitigation activities will be incorporated into the specific project to reduce the level of impacts to the 

human environment and to protect fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

As indicated earlier, one of the direct effects of site development is increased public use; this 

increased use may lead to littering, noise, and vehicle traffic. While funding and personnel 

resources will be allocated to minimize these effects, such allocations make these resources 

unavailable for other programs. 

The management action is not expected to have significant adverse effects on wetlands and 

floodplains, pursuant to Executive Orders 11990 and 11988. 

Coordination

The management action has been thoroughly coordinated with all interested and/or affected parties. 

Parties contacted include: 

All affected landowners 

Congressional representatives 

Governor of South Carolina 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer 

Local community officials 

Interested citizens 

Conservation organizations 
Appendices 225

Findings

It is my determination that the management action does not constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment under the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (as amended). As such, an environmental impact 

statement is not required. This determination is based on the following factors (40 C.F.R. 1508.27), 

as addressed in the Environmental Assessment for Waccamaw NWR: 

1. Both beneficial and adverse effects have been considered and this action will not have a 

significant effect on the human environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages 109-134). 

2. The actions will not have a significant effect on public health and safety. (Environmental 

Assessment, page 111). 

3. The project will not significantly affect any unique characteristics of the geographic area such as 

proximity to historical or cultural resources, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 119). 

4. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 114). 

5. The actions do not involve highly uncertain, unique, or unknown environmental risks to the human 

environment. (Environmental Assessment, pages116-121). 

6. The actions will not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor do they 

represent a decision in principle about a future consideration. (Environmental Assessment, 

page123). 

7. There will be no cumulatively significant impacts on the environment. Cumulative impacts have 

been analyzed with consideration of other similar activities on adjacent lands, in past action, and 

in foreseeable future actions. (Environmental Assessment, pages 125-134). 

8. The actions will not significantly affect any site listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National 

Register of Historic Places, nor will they cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, 

or historic resources. (Environmental Assessment, page 115). 

9. The actions are not likely to adversely affect threatened or endangered species, or their habitats. 

(Environmental Assessment, page 116). 

10. The actions will not lead to a violation of federal, state, or local laws imposed for the protection of 

the environment. (Environmental Assessment, page110). 
226 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Supporting References 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment for Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, Georgetown, Horry and Marion Counties, South 

Carolina. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region. 

Document Availability 

The Environmental Assessment was Section B of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for 

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge and was made available in February 2008. Additional copies are 

available by writing: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 1439, Georgetown, SC 29440. 
Appendices 227
228 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

XIV. List of Preparers 

Karen Beshears, Executive Director, South Eastern Wildlife and Environmental Education 

 Association (SEWEE) – Participant in Alternatives, Goals, and Objectives Workshop

Cooper Chavis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex – 

Participant in Alternatives, Goals, and Objectives Workshop 

Jamie Dozier, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources – Participant in Alternatives, Goals, 

and Objectives Workshop 

Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South Carolina Lowcountry 

Refuge Complex – Project guidance and management

Tim Kallgren, GIS Analyst, Mangi Environmental Group/Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge – GIS 

analysis, map production, and ground truthing 

Leon Kolankiewicz, Project Manager/Planner/Biologist, Mangi Environmental Group – Project 

 manager and primary CCP editor; facilitated alternatives, goals, and objectives workshop 

Eveline Martin, Environmental Analyst/Biologist, Mangi Environmental Group – Facilitated scoping 

Meetings; drafted CCP chapters 1-4 

Kay McCutcheon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Santee National Wildlife Refuge – Participant in 

 Alternatives, Goals, and Objectives Workshop 

Ray Paterra, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge – Participant in 

 Alternatives, Goals, and Objectives Workshop 

Craig Sasser, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Overall project guidance and input; CCP editor 
Appendices 229