WACCAMAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, 

South Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 2008 

Table of Contents i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Purpose And Need For The Plan .................................................................................................1

Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1

National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2

Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4

Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other 

Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 4

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 4

National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5

Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6

II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7

Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 7

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 12

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................15

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 15

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 17

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 18

Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 18

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................23

Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 25

Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 27

Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28

Prehistoric and Historic Background ................................................................................. 28

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 30

Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31

Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 31

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 35

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 40

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 41

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 41

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 42
ii Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................... 42

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 43

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 43

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 44

Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 44

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 45

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 45

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 46

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

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 55

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 60

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 64

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 71

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 75

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 75

Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 75

Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 75

Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 75

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 76

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 76

Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 76

Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 77

Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 79

Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 79

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 79

Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 80

SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 81

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

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 81

Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 81

Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 82

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 82

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 82

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 85

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 87

Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 87

Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 87

Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 87

Alternative B – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1 .......................................... 89

Alternative C – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on all Units ....................................... 91
Table of Contents iii

Alternative D – Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services ................................ 94

(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 94

Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 97

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ................................................. 98

Pre-Settlement Conditions ................................................................................................ 99

Custodial Management of the Refuge ............................................................................... 99

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 100

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 109

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 109

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 109

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 109

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 109

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 110

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................110

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 110

Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 111

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 111

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 111

Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ........................................................... 111

Alternative B – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1 ......................................... 112

Alternative C – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on all Units ..................................... 113

Alternative D – Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services .............................. 114

(Proposed Alternative) .................................................................................................... 114

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 115

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 116

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance, Use of Herbicides, and Forest Management........ 123

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 124

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 124

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 124

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 124

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 125

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 125

Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 126

Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of Proposed Action on Refuge Programs, 

Facilities, and Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 132

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 134

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 134

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 135

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 135
iv Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

SECTION C. APPENDICES 

I. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 137

II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ......................................................................... 147

III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................. 151

IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 165

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 165

Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................. 165

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 165

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 166

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 167

V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 169

VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 177

VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................................... 207

VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 215

IX. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................................... 219

X. BUDGET REQUESTS .................................................................................................................. 231

XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 233
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR ................................................................................................ 8

Figure 2. Protected lands within authorized acquisition boundary of Waccamaw NWR ....................... 9

Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR .............................................................................. 10

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

United States with Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem (#33) highlighted ........ 13

Figure 5. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR ................................................................................. 20

Figure 6. Current organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR .............................................................. 78

Figure 7. Proposed future organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR ................................................ 78

Figure 8. Bull Island Wilderness Study Area on Waccamaw NWR .................................................. 218

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Habitat types and acreage within the Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary ..................... 21

Table 2. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry ....................................... 31

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

South Carolina, and the USA ............................................................................................... 34

Table 4. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 77

Table 5. Waccamaw NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives 

of the comprehensive conservation plan ............................................................................. 79

Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Waccamaw NWR ......................... 100

Table 7. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Waccamaw NWR ................................. 116

Table 8. Lands evaluated as potential wilderness inventory units .................................................... 216
vi Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) 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. This Draft CCP/EA 

describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and 

their effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to State and Federal 

Government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment. 

Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge 

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

System 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 the 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 
2 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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

and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and 

wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people through Federal programs relating to 

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

and wildlife research activities (142 DM 1.1). 

As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95 

million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest 

collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million 

acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United 

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

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

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

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

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

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

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.” 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear 

legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were 

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

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

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

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

for refuge management for the next 15 years. The 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 stipulates that comprehensive 

conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining Federal, State, and private landowners 

and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure 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). 
4 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 National Wildlife 

Refuge System, congressional legislation, Presidential executive orders, and international treaties. 

Policies for management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines 

established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 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 National Wildlife Refuge 

System and management of the Waccamaw NWR are provided in Appendix III. 

Lands within the National Wildlife 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 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 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 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 biological 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

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 into this Draft CCP/EA. 

This Draft CCP/EA 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. 
6 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency 

policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other 

State fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing 

refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the 

protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species 

in the State of South Carolina. 

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (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 

Draft CCP/EA planning process provides 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. The SCDNR manages 68 heritage 

preserves, 19 fishing lakes, 1 fish hatchery, and 20 wildlife management areas on over 83,000 acres. 

The 46 State parks and historic sites, located on over 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).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

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 Refuge 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’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 is 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. Over 400 species of animals are supported by the variety of habitats in the refuge acquisition 

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

white ibis, prothonotary warbler, and many species of waterfowl can be observed on a seasonal basis, 

while mammals, like the American black bear, frequent Waccamaw NWR’s forests year-round. Notably, 

the refuge acquisition area supports the highest density of nesting swallow-tailed kites in South Carolina 

and is the northernmost documented nesting 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 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 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 
8 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

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

Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

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. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to fulfill 

the purpose for which it was established but also the mission of the National Wildlife 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, neo-tropical migratory birds, 

and resident species; 

y Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, hunting, fishing, and wildlifedependent recreation opportunities; 
12 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Fish and 

Wildlife 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 

watershed including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships). 

The Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because it can't 

just look at a single animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that is around it. 

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

resources will not be restored 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

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 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. 

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. 
14 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 completes a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and 

focus management on “species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds 

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 those 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 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

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 ones 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. 

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 State consisted of farms. By 

1992, the number of farms in the State 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 
16 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 acreage of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there 

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

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

systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants. 

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

flooding throughout the entire 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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

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. 

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 acres, 

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 the mean sea level, 

which is the highest point in Georgetown County. 
18 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

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. 

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 5). All habitats in the 

refuge acquisition area are fresh water. 

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 acreage of each by unit are summarized in Table 1. 
20 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Table 1. Habitat types and acreage 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. 

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. 
22 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

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 

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 

fresh water, anadromous (fish that move up the rivers from the sea to spawn), catadromous (fish that 
24 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

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. 

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. 
26 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

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 

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 
28 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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). 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

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. 

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. 
30 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 one 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 five 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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

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% 

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 
32 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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.

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

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 Highway 378 Bridge and the confluence of the river 

with the Great Pee Dee River has been designated as a State Scenic River. The South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 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. 

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 should be to 

seek 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. 

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 
34 Waccama

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

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 National Wildlife 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. However, 

emergent wetlands and upland forest habitat types are most likely to benefit from the use of 

prescribed fire as a management tool. Management of emergent wetlands can be accomplished 

through some combination of prescribed burning on 3-year cycles and/or managing water levels. 

Burning, mowing, and/or disking are used on some wetlands to manipulate vegetation or to control 

woody shrub encroachment. Burning is an important management tool in some managed wetland 

areas to reduce tree and shrub encroachment for the establishment of moist-soil plants that provide 

food for wintering waterfowl. A program of prescribed fire is used on maritime sandhills and longleaf 

pine communities as a management tool for reducing fuel loadings and manipulating vegetation to 

meet refuge objectives. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Executive Order 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 

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 and commercial fishing. Hunting for whitetailed 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 
36 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

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. 

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 a 

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. 

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. 
38 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 Refuge participates in an Earth Stewards Program developed by the SEWEE 

Cooperating Association. Earth Stewards is a nine week program with classes being taught twice 

weekly on freshwater ecosystems. Teachers are trained to conduct most of the in-classroom lesson 

plans with refuge and SEWEE Association staff conducting the lesson plans dealing with live animals. 

There are a total of three field trips to the refuge. All programs are correlated to State education 

standards. Plantersville and Brown’s Ferry Elementary Schools participate in this program. The 

refuge has been participating in Earth Stewards since 2002. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

A second environmental education program with Waccamaw NWR staff participation is the EIC 

Program (Environment in Context of Learning). The refuge and SEWEE Association staff serve as 

mentors for students from the Waccamaw Middle School. The program consists of classroom 

presentations and a field trip to Sandy Island where students participate in four environmental 

education activities. Sandy Island, within the refuge acquisition boundary, is currently owned by the 

South Carolina Department of Transportation and managed by the Nature Conservancy. 

Refuge and SEWEE staffs also conduct environmental education programs for the Georgetown 

Family YMCA and day care centers sponsored by local churches. 

Waccamaw NWR does not have a Visitor Services’ Plan. After the CCP is completed, 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 would 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 plan would also 

address the specific services (e.g., eco-tourism opportunities, such as guided tours) the refuge could 

provide local communities, as well as the cooperative partnerships to increase awareness of fish and 

wildlife resources and systematically improve visitor experiences within 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. 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 

National Wildlife 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 not yet in place. 

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 Center 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. 
40 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 people, 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 sufficient facilities, lands, staff, and funds 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 (GS11). 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 Association staff provides assistance with environmental education and outreach within the 

local area. Waccamaw NWR’s annual budget in FY07 is anticipated to be 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. 

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 and 

construction may begin in 2007. 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 just 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 North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan). 

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 refuges. The SEWEE Association supports 

the environmental education at Waccamaw NWR. The SEWEE Association provides financial and 

technical support and serves as a liaison between the refuge and local communities. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

III. Plan Development 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS 

Generally speaking, scoping refers to the process by which the planning team gathers input from 

a variety of internal and external sources as to what the key issues, concerns, and opportunities 

are that need to be addressed in the comprehensive conservation plan. Internal scoping sources 

include the refuge staff itself, and other Service biologists and professionals in the region. 

External scoping sources include concerned private citizens; research and educational 

institutions; members of conservation, sportsmen and civic groups; refuge neighbors; members of 

the community; and State, Tribal, and local agencies. These various interests are sometimes 

referred to collectively as stakeholders, that is, those individuals and groups that have a stake in 

how the refuge is managed. In developing the Draft CCP/EA for Waccamaw NWR, the planning 

team conducted both internal and external scoping. 

The first step in developing the refuge’s Draft CCP/EA was a Biological Review that took place 

starting June 4, 2003. The review team included eight Service biologists and managers and nonService managers/biologists. 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 for achieving refuge and landscape-level conservation needs, while still giving 

priority to accomplishing the original purpose of refuge establishment. 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 Draft CCP/EA 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 Draft CCP/EA. 

A Visitor Services Review was conducted in 2005 in preparation for the upcoming Draft CCP/EA. 

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 Center 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 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. 
42 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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 for 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 was received during scoping for this Draft CCP/EA. 

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, email 

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 plan 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

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. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

y Establish an environmental education and interpretation center to provide ongoing programs 

for children and adults to learn 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 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. 
44 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 the visitor services, visitor center, outreach, and volunteer 

program. 

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 and 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 incorporated into the plan. 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 (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 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, and includes an 

evaluation of whether the WSA can be effectively managed to preserve its wilderness character. 

 

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 

through the Secretary 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 WSA as defined by the Wilderness Act. Therefore, this Draft 

CCP/EA includes an objective and strategies related to wilderness stewardship. The results of the 

wilderness review are included in Section C, Appendix VIII. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

IV. Management Direction 

INTRODUCTION 

The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats, 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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 Service has identified six 

priority wildlife-dependent public uses. Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

and environmental education and interpretation are therefore emphasized in this Draft CCP/EA. 

Described below is the proposed management direction for Waccamaw NWR 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 is described in Section B, under Alternatives. The Service chose Alternative D 

(Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services) as the proposed management direction. 

Implementing the proposed 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, 

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 for management. A signed lease agreement between the 
46 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, the mission of the National Wildlife 

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 approval, 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 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, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

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 approval, 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 approval. 

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 
48 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 approval, in addition to enlisting public participation in gathering sightings. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

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-yearold 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 
50 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

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 

pine-dominated 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 approval. Improve brood and 

wintering habitat on 300 acres in Units 2 and 3 within 10 years of CCP approval. Increase number of 

maintained wood duck nest boxes up to a total of 50 within 5 years of plan approval. Establish a 

long-term banding site within 7 years of CCP approval. 

Discussion: The Southeastern Region of the Fish and Wildlife 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. 
52 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 approval will enhance 

opportunities for colonial nesting water bird rookeries. Restore colonial water bird feeding areas on 

Unit 3 within seven years of CCP approval. Inventory, map, and monitor on an annual basis within 

five years of CCP approval. 

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 approval. 

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, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

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. 

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. 
54 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, BRD-University of Arizona. 

Objective: White-tailed Deer 

Over lifetime of 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 approval to improve breeding areas of 

amphibians. Increase managed wetland habitats by approximately 300 acres on Unit 3 within seven 

years of CCP approval that would benefit reptiles and amphibians. Within five years of CCP 

approval, 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 

American alligator is the largest reptile in the area. The brown water snake and eastern cottonmouth 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

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. 

Objective: Open Water 

Monitor water quality, contaminants, impacts of jet skis, and vegetation trends on open water 

throughout the refuge using partnerships. 
56 Waccamaw National Wildlife 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. 

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 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. Another potential additional 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, 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

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. 

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 phenomena. 

Strategies: 

y Consult and work with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

1993 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 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: 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. 

Strategies: 

y Consult and work with the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

1993 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. 
58 Waccamaw National Wildlife 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. 

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 approval. 

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. 

Objective: Upland Forests 

Within the 15-year life of the 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 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

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 course 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. 

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. 
60 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Objective: Controlling Invasive Plant Species 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, 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 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

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 Fish and Wildlife 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. 

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 approval, 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 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 
62 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

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 National Wildlife 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 Fish and 

Wildlife 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. 

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 approval, 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 

Section C, 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 
64 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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). 

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 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 wildlifedependent 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. 

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 and commercial 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

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 

construction by 2007, 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 3 years of CCP completion, develop a Visitor Services’ Plan to be used in expanding public use 

facilities and opportunities on the refuge. 

Discussion: 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 step-down 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. 

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 help the refuge accomplish 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 limited staff and 

resources. 

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. Plans are underway to build a new visitor center and associated trails at 

Yauhannah Bluff. 
66 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

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, design, and installation 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. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Objective: Fishing 

Maintain entire refuge open to fishing consistent with State regulations, except for Causey and 

Yauhannah Bluff tracts. Potentially allow mobility-impaired fishing access on Causey and 

Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

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. 

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. 

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 

Week. 

y Keep basic fishing information records, such as the number of local versus out-of-State 

anglers. 
68 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Objective: Environmental Education 

In partnership with SEWEE Association, continue on- and off-site environmental education programs in 

Georgetown County Public Schools, including five elementary schools and one high school. 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. Potentially use Sandy Island trails for environmental 

education. Expand environmental education into other schools in Georgetown County and into public 

schools in Horry and Marion Counties. 

Discussion: Currently, Waccamaw NWR participates in an Earth Stewards Program, which was 

developed by the Cape Romain Refuge and SEWEE Cooperating Association. Earth Stewards is a 

9-week program, with classes being taught twice weekly on freshwater ecosystems. Teachers are 

trained to conduct most of the in-classroom lessons, with refuge and SEWEE Association staff 

conducting the lessons dealing with live animals. There are a total of three field trips to the refuge. 

All programs are correlated to State education standards. Plantersville and Brown’s Ferry 

Elementary Schools participate in this program. The refuge is in the third year of Earth Stewards. 

A second environmental education program with Waccamaw NWR staff participation is the EIC 

Program (Environment in Context of Learning). The refuge and SEWEE Association staff serve as 

mentors for students from the Waccamaw Middle School. The program consists of classroom 

presentations and a field trip to Sandy Island where students participate in four environmental 

education activities. Sandy Island is managed by The Nature Conservancy and is within the refuge 

acquisition boundary. 

Refuge and SEWEE staffs also conduct environmental education programs for the Georgetown 

Family YMCA and day care centers in local churches. 

Waccamaw NWR is new (less than 10 years 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 and EIC 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

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. 

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 or the EIC programs.) 

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). 

Objective: Interpretation 

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. More 

interpretive opportunities will be provided in and around the new visitor center and the Cox Ferry 

Recreation Area. Interpretive materials will be located on existing trails at Yauhannah Tract and 

strategic boat landings within the acquisition boundary. 

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. 
70 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. 

Objective: Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Maintain Yauhannah Tract trails open to the public for observation and photography outside of 

hunting season. Continue to develop the Causey Tract public use area. When new visitor center is 

opened, additional opportunities will be developed along with new trails. Trails on Sandy Island will 

also provide opportunities. Canoe trails on the Waccamaw and Big Pee Dee Rivers and the addition 

of trails on the Haulover Tract will provide added opportunities within 15 years of CCP approval. 

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. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

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 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 these watercraft supplied by a commercial outfitter under Special Use 

Permit. 

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 governmental and non-governmental conservation agencies and 

institutions. Adequately administering the expansive vision in this CCP for Waccamaw NWR will 

require adequate resources. 

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 approval, 1 

full-time law enforcement officer, 1 administrative assistant, and 1 maintenance person within 7-10 

years of CCP approval. 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. 
72 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Objective: Facilities 

Construct new administrative office at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008, but keep existing 

maintenance yard in Georgetown for the foreseeable future. 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. 

Strategies: 

y Construct new Yauhannah Bluff facilities, including administrative offices, visitor center, 

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, 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, 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

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 Refuges. The SEWEE 

Association supports the environmental education program at Waccamaw Refuge; 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. Currently, the largest portion of disbursements from the SEWEE Association 

goes to the SEWEE Visitor Center, which supports the Cape Romain Refuge and Francis Marion 

Forest. There will be significantly larger disbursements to Waccamaw Refuge once the visitor center 

is open and the book store is operational. 

The SEWEE Association was the instrumental partner in planning, scheduling, and implementation of 

the Earth Stewards Program at Plantersville and Brown’s Ferry Elementary Schools. SEWEE 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 like materials and labor from the refuge or partners which is applied to a project. 

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). 
74 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

V. Plan Implementation 

INTRODUCTION 

Refuge lands are managed as defined under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

of 1997. 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 #10 – Black Bear Migration Corridors 

Convert an existing static refuge acquisition boundary expansion to a "floating expansion acquisition 

boundary" 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 #7 – 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 #9 – 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. 
76 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Priority #5 – 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 by the 

Land Acquisition Alternative. 

Priority #6 – 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 Alternative. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Priority #2 – 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 

Visitor Center Objective. 

Priority #8 – 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. 

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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Priority #3 – 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 helping to develop additional trail opportunities. This 

priority is addressed in the Staffing Objective. 

Priority #4 – 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 Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area $350,000 - 

Priority #3 Hire Full-time Park Ranger $35,752 -67,878 $35,752 -67,878 1 

Priority #4 Hire Administrative Officer $35,752 - 46,478 $35,752 - 46,478 1 

Priority #5 Lease portions of Sandy Island $150,000 

Priority #6 Acquire Haulover Tract $1,400,000 

Priority #7 Hire Full-time Biologist $52,912 - 68,787 $52,912 - 68,787 1 

Priority #8 

Expand Public Access, 

Recreation Opportunities, and 

EE Programs for Horry County

$2,000,000 

Priority #9 Acquire or Lease Managed 

Wetland Habitats $1,000,000 

Priority #10 Black Bear Migration Corridors $7,500,000 
78 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Waccamaw Refuge 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 

This CCP recommends adding one park ranger upon opening of the visitor center, one biotech 

and/or student through the Student Career Employment Program (SCEP) within 5 years of CCP 

approval; and one full-time law enforcement officer, one administrative assistant, and one 

maintenance person within 7-10 years of CCP approval. In addition, the assistant manager 

position would be converted to a biologist. 

Figure 7. Proposed future organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-12)

Assistant 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-11) 

Part-time Law 

Enforcement 

Officer 

(GS-7/9) 

Refuge 

Manager 

(GS-12)

Wildlife 

Biologist 

(GS-10/11) 

Full-time Law 

Enforcement 

Officer 

(GS-07/09) 

Park 

Ranger 

(GS-05/07) 

Biological 

Technician 

(GS-06) 

Administrative 

Assistant 

(GS-06/07) 

Maintenance 

Worker 

(WG-08) 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

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, Southeastern Wildlife and Environmental Education 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. 

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 the National Environmental Policy Act, 

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 comprehensive conservation plan 

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) 

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 evaluation 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 evaluation activities will be 

described in the step-down management plans. 
80 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Environmental Assessment 81

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) for Waccamaw NWR has been prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act. It discusses the purpose and need for the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the refuge in Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, 

and provides an analysis of the environmental impacts that could be expected from each of the 

management proposals outlined in the CCP. This analysis assists the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

determining if it will need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the refuge’s proposed CCP. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Nation’s primary conservation agency concerned with the 

protection and long-term management of wildlife resources. The Service administers the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, a system of more than 540 national wildlife refuges embracing over 95 

million acres, much of which is primarily managed for the enhancement of migratory bird populations 

and federally listed threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and plants. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of the CCP and EA is to establish and implement management direction for Waccamaw 

NWR for the next 15 years. 

The EA is needed to set forth and evaluate a range of reasonable management alternatives for the 

refuge. Each alternative was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a final CCP and to 

describe the predicted biological, physical, social, and economic impacts of implementing each 

alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

The Service identified issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency 

managers, conservation partners, and others. In particular, the Service’s planning team identified a 

range of alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected 

Alternative D as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning 

team, Alternative D is the best approach to guide the refuge’s direction. 

There is no current plan that identifies priorities and ensures consistent and integrated management of 

the refuge, thus necessitating the need for this CCP. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this document, the Fish and Wildlife Service will select an 

alternative to implement the CCP for Waccamaw NWR. The finalized CCP will include a Finding of 

No Significant Impact (FONSI), which is a statement explaining why the selected alternative will not 

have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. This determination is based on an 

evaluation of the Service and Refuge System mission, the purpose(s) for which the refuge was 

established, and other legal mandates. Assuming no significant impact is found, implementation of 

the CCP will begin and will be monitored annually and revised when necessary. 
82 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

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. 

This environmental assessment will identify management on refuge lands, as well as those lands 

proposed for acquisition by the Service. 

AUTHORITY, LEGAL COMPLIANCE, AND COMPATIBILITY 

The Service developed this Draft CCP/EA in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this document also meet the requirements of 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act 

through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of this EA in the Draft CCP, with a 

description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental consequences of the 

alternatives (Chapters III and IV in this section). When final, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision 

and purposes of Waccamaw NWR. 

The Final CCP’s overriding consideration will be to carry out the purposes for which the refuge was 

established. The laws that established the refuge and provided the funds for acquisition state the 

purposes. Fish and wildlife management is the first priority in refuge management, and the Service 

allows and encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or 

does not detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, states that national wildlife refuges must be protected from 

incompatible or harmful human activities to ensure that Americans can enjoy Refuge System lands 

and waters. Before activities or uses are allowed on a national wildlife refuge, the uses must be 

found to be compatible. A compatible use “...will not materially interfere with or detract from the 

fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge.” In addition, “wildlifedependent recreational uses may be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not 

inconsistent with public safety.” 

An interim compatibility determination is a document that assesses the compatibility of an activity 

during the period of time the Service first acquires a parcel of land to the time a formal, long-term 

management plan for that parcel is prepared and adopted. The Service has completed an interim 

compatibility determination for the six priority general public uses of the system, as listed in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. 

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 the Draft CCP for 

Waccamaw NWR. This Draft CCP has been written with input and assistance from interested 

citizens, conservation organizations, and employees of local and State agencies. The participation of 
Environmental Assessment 83

these stakeholders and their ideas has been of great value in setting the management direction for 

Waccamaw NWR. 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 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. 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). 

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. Later the team prepared a report 

(USFWS 2005) with a number of recommendations for improving and expanding upon visitor 

services’ facilities and operations. 

The core members of the CCP planning team itself met for the first time in February 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 

house and scoping meeting on each day. Members of the public were able to express concerns 

about the refuge and ideas and suggestions for its future management on a comment form that was 

distributed for 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. 

 

A wide range of issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified and addressed during the 

planning process. Many issues that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the 

decision to be made within this planning process. In some instances, the Service cannot resolve 

issues some people have communicated to us. We have considered all issues throughout the 

planning process, and have developed a Draft CCP/EA that attempts to balance the competing 

opinions regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Section C, Appendix IV. 
84 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 85

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II. 
86 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 87

III. Description of Alternatives 

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Alternatives are different approaches or combinations of management objectives and strategies 

designed to achieve the refuge's purpose and vision, and the goals identified in the CCP; the 

priorities and goals of the Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee (SSPD) Ecosystem Team; the goals of the 

Refuge System; and the mission on the Fish and Wildlife Service. Alternatives are formulated to 

address the significant issues, concerns, and problems identified by the Service and the public 

during public scoping. 

The four alternatives identified and evaluated represent different approaches to provide permanent 

protection, restoration, and management of the refuge’s fish, wildlife, plants, habitats, and other 

resources, as well as compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Refuge staff assessed the biological 

conditions and analyzed the external relationships affecting the refuge. This information contributed 

to the development of refuge goals and, in turn, helped to formulate the alternatives. As a result, 

each alternative presents different sets of objectives for reaching refuge goals. Each alternative was 

evaluated based on how much progress it would make and how it would address the identified issues 

related to fish and wildlife populations, habitat management, resource protection and conservation, 

visitor services, and refuge administration. A summary of the four alternatives is provided in Table 6. 

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 

Serving as a basis for each alternative, a number of goals and sets of objectives were developed to 

help achieve the refuge’s purpose and the mission of the Refuge System. Objectives are desired 

conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets and, for this planning effort, consolidated into four 

alternatives. These alternatives represent different management approaches for managing the 

refuge over a 15-year time frame while still meeting the refuge purposes and goals. The four 

alternatives are summarized below. A comparison of each alternative follows the general description. 

 ALTERNATIVE A – CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

Under Alternative A, Waccamaw NWR would continue to be managed as it is at present – there 

would be no change to refuge management. Like the other alternatives, Alternative A would pursue 

the 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. 

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; refuge staff would document all sightings and presence of listed species. 

The refuge would maintain 15 wood duck boxes. No active management of colonial nesting water 

birds would take place, except for protection of existing rookeries on the refuge. We would continue 

to maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds. 
88 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to manage its deer herd via annual hunting during the 

State season. No active management of reptiles and amphibians would occur. With regard to controlling 

invasive animal species, existing hunts for feral hogs on Units 1 and 3 would be maintained. 

Alternative A would also pursue the CCP’s habitat goal: to 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. There 

would be no active management of 2,430 acres of open water or 2,923 acres of freshwater marsh on 

the refuge. Likewise, we would conduct no active management or monitoring of 629 acres of existing 

moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation on the refuge. 

No active management of 6,362 acres of upland forest or 461 acres of bottomland hardwoods on the 

refuge would occur. Similarly, there would be no active management of 25,077 acres of cypress-gum 

forest, as well as no active management of invasive plant species. 

This alternative would also pursue the CCP’s resource protection goal: to identify, acquire, conserve, 

and protect natural and cultural resources through partnerships, land protection programs, 

stewardship, and law enforcement. The refuge would continue to cooperate closely with partners to 

identify willing sellers of properties within the acquisition boundary, while seeking funds outside of 

LWCF to secure these properties. The refuge would also continue to comply with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act in the management of the refuge’s cultural resources. 

Alternative A would continue to provide 1.0 FTE position shared with the Refuge Complex and 2 dual 

function officers. It would also continue to work with 3-5 landowners at any one time within the 

acquisition boundary to enhance and protect habitat and wildlife resources on their properties. Bull 

Island would generally continue to be passively managed as wilderness (i.e., no motorized access 

and equipment unless specifically authorized) but it would not be included as a Wilderness Study 

Area and no wilderness study report would be prepared. 

Alternative A also aims to pursue the visitor services’ goal: to provide opportunities for quality, wildlifedependent public uses, leading to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and habitats 

contained within the Winyah Bay Focus Area. Under this goal, Alternative A would continue to serve 

the public without a Visitor Services’ Plan. The refuge would also build and staff a new visitor center 

at the designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. 

Each of the recreational uses as identified in the Improvement Act of 1997 would continue at 

Waccamaw NWR under Alternative A. The refuge would continue to provide seasonal hunting for 

deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe, consistent with 

refuge and State regulations. The refuge would be open to fishing consistent with State regulations, 

except for the Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. In partnership with the SEWEE Association, onand off-site environmental education programs would continue in Georgetown County Public Schools, 

including five elementary and one high school. The new visitor center and Causey Tract public use 

area would be used for expanded environmental education efforts. Interpretive programs would 

continue to be provided to groups upon request and information provided to the public at the refuge 

office and on its website. Yauhannah Tract trails would be maintained and opened to the public for 

observation and photography opportunities outside of the hunting season. The staff would continue 

to develop the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake recreation Area) public use area. 
Environmental Assessment 89

Alternative A would also pursue the refuge administration goal: to 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. 

Waccamaw Refuge would maintain the current staff of three, including the refuge manager, assistant 

refuge manager, and law enforcement officer (shared with the Lowcountry Complex). An 

administrative office would be constructed on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008, but the existing maintenance 

yard would remain in Georgetown for the foreseeable future; the existing facilities on the Causey 

Tract would be maintained and new ones would be created. The staff would continue to cooperate 

with partners such as the SEWEE, SCDNR, TNC, Historic Ricefield Association, and Winyah Bay 

Focus Area Task Force. 

 ALTERNATIVE B – HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENTS ON UNIT 1 

The focus of Alternative B is habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on Unit 1, which consists of 

34,784 acres and is made up entirely of alluvial and black water floodplain forested wetlands. Like the 

other alternatives, Alternative B would pursue the fish and wildlife population management goal: in 

support of national and regional plans, to promote management actions that will support viable 

populations of native fish and wildlife species associated with black water and alluvial forested wetlands, 

with special emphasis on migratory birds, black bear, and threatened and endangered species. 

Under Alternative B, the refuge would aim to improve wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 

600 acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology through plugging drainage ditches and leveling pine 

plantation beds. With respect to neotropical migratory birds, Alternative B would be the same as 

Alternative A – that is, it would conduct informal surveys on swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s 

warblers on an occasional basis throughout the lifetime of the CCP – plus it would increase scrubshrub habitat by approximately 600 acres on Unit 1. 

Alternative B’s passive management of black bears would be identical to Alternative A: incidental 

observations of black bear on the refuge would be compiled but not off the refuge. With regard to 

threatened and endangered species, Alternative B’s proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 would 

enhance the existing wood stork rookery there. Management of wood ducks would be the same as 

Alternative A (maintain 15 wood duck boxes annually); additionally, Alternative B would improve 

brood habitat on 10 acres in Unit 1. The proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 would enhance 

opportunities for colonial nesting water bird rookeries. Management of marshbirds would be the 

same as Alternative A: continuing to maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh that they use. 

Under Alternative B, white-tailed deer would be managed as they are under Alternative A – a hunt 

during the annual State season. Restoration of isolated wetlands on the refuge would improve 

breeding areas for amphibians. The control of invasive animal species would be pursued using the 

same method as Alternative A, by maintaining existing hunts for feral hogs on Units 1 and 3. 

Alternative B would also pursue the CCP’s habitat goal: to 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. 

Management of open water on the refuge would be the same passive management as in Alternative 

A. Likewise, there would be no active management or monitoring of freshwater marsh or moist-soil 

and submerged aquatic vegetation, upland forests, bottomland hardwoods, or cypress-gum forest on 

the refuge. The refuge would map areas of invasive plant species on Unit 1 and develop 

control/eradication plans for each species. 
90 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Alternative B would also pursue the CCP’s resource protection goal: to identify, acquire, conserve 

and protect natural and cultural resources through partnerships, land protection programs, 

stewardship, and law enforcement. Land acquisition would be the same as Alternative A. The refuge 

would continue to cooperate closely with partners to identify willing sellers of properties within the 

acquisition boundary, while seeking funds outside of the LWCF to secure these properties. 

Management of cultural resources would be identical to Alternative A – the refuge would continue to 

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Law enforcement would also be the 

same as Alternative A. This alternative would continue to provide 1.0 FTE shared with the Refuge 

Complex and two dual function officers. As for private lands management, Waccamaw NWR would 

continue to work with 3-5 landowners at any one time within the acquisition boundary to enhance and 

protect habitat and wildlife resources on their properties, as in Alternative A. Bull Island would generally 

continue to be passively managed as wilderness (i.e., no motorized access and equipment unless 

specifically authorized) but it would not be included as a Wilderness Study Area and no wilderness 

study report would be prepared. 

Alternative B also pursues the visitor services’ goal: to 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. As with Alternative A, under Alternative B the refuge would continue to 

serve the public without a Visitor Services’ Plan. Also like Alternative A, Alternative B would build and 

staff a new visitor center at the designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. However, in addition, 

Alternative B would develop up to four nature trails associated with the visitor center. 

Alternative B would support each of the recreational uses as identified in the Improvement Act of 

1997. Like Alternative A, it would continue to provide seasonal hunting for deer, hog, turkey 

(including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe consistent with refuge and State 

regulations. Moreover, Alternative B would also explore the potential of opening the Jackson Bluff 

Tract to waterfowl hunting. Fishing would be the same as Alternative A: keep the entire refuge open 

to fishing consistent with State regulations, except for the Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

In addition to conducting the environmental education program conducted under Alternative A, 

Alternative B would explore a potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff, and 

utilization of up to four nature trails near the new visitor center for environmental education. 

Interpretation under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A, plus potential interpretive 

opportunities related to the wetland restoration site on Jackson Bluff. Added interpretive 

opportunities would be provided in and around the new visitor center and the Causey Tract. 

Interpretive programs would continue to be provided to groups upon request and information provided 

to the public at the refuge office and on its website. Wildlife observation and photography would be 

the same as Alternative A and when the new visitor center is opened, additional opportunities would 

be developed along with new trails. Yauhannah Tract trails would be maintained and opened to the 

public for observation and photography opportunities outside of hunting season. The staff would 

continue to develop the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public use area. 

Alternative B would also pursue the refuge administration goal: to 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. 

Staffing under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A with the addition of one park ranger 

upon opening of the visitor center. Existing facilities would be maintained and one dock each would 

be added at the Yauhannah Bluff and Causey Tracts (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area), with a 
Environmental Assessment 91

weather shelter at the latter. The refuge would construct a new administrative office at designated 

site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008 but keep the existing maintenance yard in Georgetown for the 

foreseeable future. The existing facilities would be maintained and new facilities would be created on 

the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area). Existing partnerships would continue and the 

refuge would seek additional partnerships and/or volunteers/interns for increased visitor services and 

habitat enhancement on Unit 1. 

 ALTERNATIVE C – HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENTS ON ALL UNITS 

Alternative C emphasizes habitat restoration efforts and enhancements on all units of the refuge – Units 

1, 2, and 3. Unit 1 consists of 34,784 acres and is made up entirely of alluvial and black water floodplain 

forested wetlands. Unit 2 includes 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 is 2,902 acres and contains historic 

rice fields, many of which remain intact and are managed for wintering waterfowl. 

Like the other alternatives, Alternative C would pursue the fish and wildlife population management goal: 

in support of national and regional plans, to promote management actions that will support viable 

populations of native fish and wildlife species associated with black water and alluvial forested wetlands, 

with special emphasis on migratory birds, black bear, and threatened and endangered species. 

Like Alternative B, Alternative C would manage migratory waterfowl by improving wintering waterfowl 

habitat on approximately 600 acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology through plugging drainage 

ditches and leveling pine plantation beds. In addition, this alternative would restore and enhance 

historic rice fields on approximately 400 acres in Units 2 and 3 over the life of the CCP. 

Management of neotropical migratory birds would be the same as Alternative B: within 10 years of 

CCP approval, scrub-shrub habitat would be increased by approximately 600 acres on Unit 1. 

Throughout the lifetime of the CCP, the refuge would also conduct informal surveys on swallow-tailed 

kites and Swainson’s warblers on an occasional basis. 

Under Alternative C, management for black bears would be more active than with the first two 

alternatives. 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. However, in addition to 

this, Alternative C would also restore wood stork feeding areas on Unit 3 and red-cockaded 

woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. 

Wood duck management in Alternative C would include each of the activities identified in Alternatives 

A and B – maintaining 15 wood duck nest boxes and improving brood habitat on 10 acres in Unit 1 – 

plus improving brood and wintering habitat on 300 acres in Units 2 and 3. In addition, the refuge 

would increase wood duck nest boxes up to a total of 50 within 5 years of plan approval. With regard 

to colonial nesting water birds, management would include the same hydrology restoration on Unit 1 

as proposed in Alternative B, plus the restoration of colonial water bird feeding areas on Unit 3. 

Marshbird management under Alternative C would be the same as Alternatives A and B – continuing 

to maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds – plus acquiring approximately 300 

acres of tidal or managed wetlands within Units 2 and 3 within seven years of CCP approval. Whitetailed deer would continue to be managed through annual hunting during the State season, as in 

Alternatives A and B. Reptiles and amphibians would be managed as in Alternative B, that is, 
92 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

isolated wetlands would be restored to improve breeding areas of amphibians. In addition, efforts 

would be made to increase managed wetland habitats by approximately 300 acres on Unit 3 within 

seven years of CCP approval, which would benefit reptiles and amphibians. Invasive animal species 

control would be exercised by maintaining existing hunts for feral hogs on Units 1 and 3 (as in 

Alternatives A and B) and adding hunting opportunities on Unit 2. 

Alternative C would also pursue the CCP’s habitat goal: to 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. Management 

of open water on the refuge would involve monitoring water quality, contaminants, jet skis impacts, and 

vegetation trends on open water throughout the refuge. This would be accomplished by using 

partnerships. Monitoring water quality, jet skis impacts, and vegetation trends on freshwater marshes 

would also be conducted throughout the refuge using partnerships. Waccamaw NWR would acquire, 

restore, develop, and improve moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation management, 

infrastructure, and monitoring on a total of 1,029 existing and newly acquired acres. 

Under Alternative C, forest management would be somewhat intensified throughout the refuge. For the 

duration of the CCP, the refuge would prescribe burn 6,362 acres of upland forest on a 3-year cycle, 

while maintaining unique plant communities. On bottomland forests, the refuge would thin 461 acres of 

bottomland hardwoods where needed to develop understory vegetation and encourage oaks, 

mimicking tree fall gaps. Other forest types would be converted to bottomland hardwoods where soils 

are appropriate. Where opportunities exist on the 25,077 acres of cypress-gum forest, the refuge would 

harvest overabundant red maple to ensure that cypress and gum regenerate, manage for old growth 

cypress and tupelo, and ensure the natural water regime. The refuge would map areas of invasive 

plant species on the entire refuge and develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

Alternative C would also pursue the CCP’s resource protection goal: to identify, acquire, conserve, 

and protect natural and cultural resources through partnerships, land protection programs, 

stewardship, and law enforcement. Land acquisition would be the same as Alternatives A and B. 

The refuge would continue to cooperate closely with partners to identify willing sellers of properties 

within the acquisition boundary, while seeking funds outside of the LWCF to secure these properties. 

Management of cultural resources under Alternative C would be identical to Alternatives A and B – the 

refuge would continue to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Law 

enforcement would also be the same as Alternatives A and B. The refuge would continue to provide 1.0 

FTE position shared with the Refuge Complex and two dual function officers. As for private lands 

management, Waccamaw NWR would continue to work with 3-5 landowners at any one time within the 

acquisition boundary to enhance and protect habitat and wildlife resources on their properties, as in 

Alternatives A and B. Bull Island would generally continue to be passively managed as wilderness (i.e., 

no motorized access and equipment unless specifically authorized) but it would not be included as a 

Wilderness Study Area and no wilderness study report would be prepared. 

Alternative C also pursues the visitor services’ goal: to provide opportunities for quality, wildlifedependent public uses, leading to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and habitats 

contained within the Winyah Bay Focus Area. As with Alternatives A and B, under Alternative C the 

refuge would continue to serve the public without a Visitor Services’ Plan. As under Alternatives A 

and B, the refuge would build and staff a new visitor center at the designated site on Yauhannah Bluff 

by 2008. However, in addition, Alternative C (like Alternative B) would develop up to four nature trails 

associated with the visitor center. 
Environmental Assessment 93

Alternative C would support each of the recreational uses as identified in the Refuge Improvement 

Act of 1997. Alternative C would expand hunting opportunities. It would explore the potential for a 

youth waterfowl hunt on managed wetlands. Like Alternative B, it would also potentially open 

waterfowl hunting on the Jackson Bluff Tract. And like Alternatives A and B, Alternative C would 

continue to provide seasonal hunting for deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, 

waterfowl, and snipe, consistent with refuge and State regulations. Fishing would be the same as 

with Alternatives A and B: keeping the entire refuge open to fishing consistent with State regulations, 

except for the Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

Under Alternative C, the environmental education offered by Alternatives A and B would be 

expanded. As with Alternatives A and B, in partnership with the SEWEE Association, on- and off-site 

environmental education programs would be expanded in Georgetown County Public Schools, 

including five elementary schools and one high school. The new visitor center and Causey Tract 

(Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public use area would be utilized for increased environmental 

education. As with Alternative B, a potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff, and 

utilization of up to four nature trails near the new visitor center for environmental education may be 

developed. Finally, under Alternative C alone, the potential for Sandy Island trails being utilized for 

environmental education would be explored. 

Interpretation would also be expanded under this alternative. In addition to each of the opportunities 

and activities described for Alternatives A and B, it would include the potential for interpretive 

activities on Sandy Island. Thus, it would also include potential interpretive opportunities related to 

the wetland restoration site on Jackson Bluff and added interpretive opportunities in and around the 

new visitor center and the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area). Interpretive programs 

would continue to be provided to groups upon request and information provided to the public at the 

refuge office and on its website. Wildlife observation and photography would be the same as 

Alternative B with the addition of trails on Sandy Island. 

Like Alternative B, when the new visitor center is opened, additional opportunities would be 

developed along with new trails. As with both Alternatives A and B, Yauhannah Tract trails would be 

kept open to the public for observation and photography opportunities outside of the hunting season, 

and the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public use area would continue to be 

developed. 

Alternative C would also pursue the refuge administration goal: to 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. With regard to staffing, Alternative C would add the positions recommended 

by Alternative B (one Park Ranger), as well as one biotech and/or one SCEP student. Additional 

facilities would be built under Alternative C over and above those of Alternatives A and B – 

boardwalks at Causey Tract and a potential dock at Sandy Island, in addition to kiosks at Causey 

Tract and at other strategic locations. Finally, the refuge would attempt to develop partnerships as in 

Alternatives A and B. It would seek additional partnerships and/or volunteers/interns for increased 

visitor services and habitat enhancement on all three units. 
94 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

 ALTERNATIVE D – OPTIMIZE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND VISITOR SERVICES 

 (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Alternative D, the Service’s proposed alternative and the basis for the objectives and strategies in 

Section A, Chapter IV, would optimize habitat management and visitor services throughout the 

refuge. In general, this alternative would implement each of the measures, steps, and programs 

proposed under Alternative C, as well as augmenting existing visitor services’ programs, facilities, 

and opportunities. 

Like each of the other alternatives, Alternative D would pursue the fish and wildlife population 

management goal: in support of national and regional plans, to promote management actions that 

will support viable populations of native fish and wildlife species associated with black water and 

alluvial forested wetlands, with special emphasis on migratory birds, black bear, and threatened 

and endangered species. 

Management of migratory waterfowl under Alternative D is identical to Alternative C. Alternative D 

would manage migratory waterfowl by improving wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 600 

acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology through plugging drainage ditches and leveling pine plantation 

beds. In addition, this alternative would restore and enhance historic rice fields on approximately 400 

acres in Units 2 and 3 over the life of the CCP. 

Like Alternatives B and C, management of neotropical migratory birds under Alternative D would 

entail increasing scrub-shrub habitat by approximately 600 acres on Unit 1. In addition to this, 

Alternative D would commence formal surveys of swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s warblers 

within five years of CCP approval. 

Under Alternative D, management for black bears would be stepped up from that of the previous 

three alternatives. As in Alternative C, refuge acquisition and habitat restoration efforts within 

wetland corridors would be targeted to improve connectivity between bear populations. In addition, 

Alternative D 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. 

Wood duck management under Alternative D would include everything Alternative C includes, and in 

addition, establish a long-term banding site within seven years of CCP approval. Like Alternative B, it 

would also improve brood habitat on 10 acres in Unit 1. Like Alternative C, it would improve brood 

and wintering habitat on 300 acres in Units 2 and 3 within ten years of CCP approval. It would also 

increase wood duck nest boxes up to a total of 50 within five years of CCP approval. 

Concerning colonial nesting water birds, Alternative D expands on Alternative C by including 

inventory, mapping, and monitoring on an annual basis within five years of CCP approval. Like 

Alternative C, it would restore colonial water bird feeding areas on Unit 3 within seven years of CCP 

approval. Like Alternative B, it includes proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 within five years of 

CCP approval to enhance opportunities for colonial nesting water bird rookeries. With regard to 

marshbirds, Alternative D also expands on Alternative C by conducting intensive marsh bird surveys 

during the nesting season. Like Alternative C, the refuge would acquire approximately 300 acres of 

tidal or managed wetlands within Units 2 and 3, and like Alternative A, the refuge would continue to 

maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds. 
Environmental Assessment 95

Over the lifetime of the CCP, Alternative D calls for reducing deer herd density to improve herd health 

and improve habitat quality for other species. With respect to reptiles and amphibians, Alternative D 

would expand on Alternative C by determining the presence/absence of amphibian and reptile 

species on the refuge. Like Alternative C, Alternative D would increase managed wetland habitats by 

approximately 300 acres on Unit 3 to benefit reptiles and amphibians. Like Alternative B, it would 

restore isolated wetlands to improve breeding areas of amphibians. With regard to controlling 

invasive animal species, control of feral hogs by hunting and trapping would be increased. 

 

Alternative D would also pursue the CCP’s habitat goal: to 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. 

Management of open water would be identical to Alternative C – involving the monitoring of water 

quality, contaminants, jet skis impacts, and vegetation trends on open water throughout the refuge. 

This would be accomplished by the use of partnerships. Monitoring water quality, jet skis impacts, 

and vegetation trends on freshwater marshes would also be conducted throughout the refuge by 

the use of partnerships. With respect to managed wetlands under Alternative D, Waccamaw NWR 

would acquire, restore, develop, and improve moist-soil and SAV management, and infrastructure 

and monitoring on a total of 1,029 existing and newly acquired acres. 

Under Alternative D, management of upland forests, bottomland hardwoods, cypress-gum forests, and 

invasive plants would all be identical to Alternative C. For the duration of the CCP, the refuge would 

prescribe burn 6,362 acres of upland forest on a 3-year cycle, while maintaining unique plant 

communities. On bottomland forests, 461 acres of bottomland hardwoods would be thinned where 

needed to develop understory vegetation and encourage oaks, mimicking tree fall gaps. The refuge 

would also convert other forest types to bottomland hardwoods where soils are appropriate. With respect 

to cypress-gum forests, where opportunities exist on the 25,077 acres of this forest type, the refuge would 

harvest overabundant red maples to ensure that cypress and gum trees regenerate, manage for old 

growth cypress and tupelo, and ensure the natural water regime. The Service would map areas of 

invasive plant species on the entire refuge and develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

Alternative D would also pursue the CCP’s resource protection goal: to identify, acquire, conserve, and 

protect natural and cultural resources through partnerships, land protection programs, stewardship, and 

law enforcement. Land acquisition would expand on the proposals of Alternatives A, B, and C. The 

refuge would continue to cooperate closely with partners to identify willing sellers within the acquisition 

boundary, while seeking funds outside of the LWCF to secure these properties. In addition, the refuge 

would 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. 

Like Alternatives A, B, and C, Alternative D would preserve cultural resources by complying with 

Section 107 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In addition, within 15 years of CCP approval, 

the refuge would develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

The law enforcement objective under this alternative would be achieved by providing 1.0 FTE for 

the refuge in addition to two dual function or seasonal officers. As pertains to private lands 

management, Waccamaw NWR would continue to work with 3-5 landowners at any one time 

within the acquisition boundary to enhance and protect habitat and wildlife resources on their 

properties, as in the other alternatives. 

Alternative D would include the 4,600-acre Bull Island as a Wilderness Study Area (WSA), maintain 

its wilderness character, and within ten years of CCP approval, prepare a wilderness study report on 

whether Bull Island should be formally designated as a unit of the National Wilderness Preservation 
96 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWPS). While Bull Island is a WSA, the refuge would maintain its wilderness character by 

prohibiting motorized access and equipment, unless specifically authorized. If designated as 

wilderness, Bull Island would continue to be managed in a manner that preserves its wild character. 

This would include allowing natural processes, such as flooding and ecological succession, to 

proceed unimpeded. Forest thinning and prescribed fire would not generally be carried out, but fire 

suppression could be, if necessary, to protect human health, life, and property. 

 

Alternative D also pursues the visitor services’ goal: to provide opportunities for quality, wildlifedependent public uses, leading to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and habitats 

contained within the Winyah Bay Focus Area. Under this goal, Alternative D is the only alternative 

that would develop a Visitor Services’ Plan (within three years of CCP approval) to be used in 

expanding public use facilities and opportunities on the refuge. Like Alternatives A, B, and C, 

Alternative D would build and staff a visitor center at the designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. 

However, up to four nature trails associated with the visitor center would be developed, as in 

Alternatives B and C. Alternative D would also construct a riverfront boardwalk and provide 

canoe/kayak access to Big Pee Dee River. 

Alternative D expands on the hunting opportunities of Alternative C by considering a mobility-impaired 

hunt for deer and hog. Like Alternative C, Alternative D potentially includes a youth waterfowl hunt on 

managed wetlands. Like Alternative B, there is the potential to open waterfowl hunting on the 

Jackson Bluff Tract. Like Alternative A, Alternative D would continue to provide seasonal hunting for 

deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe consistent with refuge 

and State regulations. 

Fishing under Alternative D would be the same as Alternatives A, B, and C, with the added potential 

of mobility-impaired fishing access on Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. Like the first three 

alternatives, Alternative D would maintain the entire refuge open to fishing consistent with State 

regulations, except for the Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

Alternative D includes all the environmental education features of the previous three alternatives. 

That is, like Alternative A, in partnership with SEWEE Association, it would continue offsite and onsite 

environmental education programs in Georgetown County Public Schools, including five elementary 

and one high school. It would also utilize the new visitor center and Causey Tract public use area for 

expanded environmental education. Like Alternative B, it would potentially partner with Coastal 

Carolina on Jackson Bluff, and utilize up to four nature trails near the new visitor center for 

environmental education. Like Alternative C, it would consider the potential for Sandy Island trails 

being utilized for environmental education. In addition to these activities and projects, under 

Alternative D alone, environmental education would expand into other schools in Georgetown County 

and into Horry and Marion Counties’ public schools. 

Alternative D expands on the interpretation activities, projects, and opportunities included under 

Alternative C by adding interpretive materials on existing trails at the Yauhannah Tract and strategic 

boat landings within the acquisition boundary, as well as conducting special outreach events. Like 

Alternative C, Alternative D entails the potential for interpretive activities on Sandy Island. Like 

Alternative B, it includes potential interpretive opportunities related to the wetland restoration site on 

Jackson Bluff and added interpretive opportunities provided in and around the new visitor center and 

the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area). Like Alternative A, Alternative D would continue 

to provide interpretive programs to groups upon request and information to the public at the refuge 

office and on the refuge website. 
Environmental Assessment 97

Alternative D expands on the wildlife observation and photography projects of Alternative C with the 

addition of canoe trails on the Waccamaw and Big Pee Dee Rivers and the addition of trails on the 

Haulover Tract within 15 years of CCP approval. Like Alternative C, it adds trails on Sandy Island. 

Like Alternative B, when the new visitor center is opened, additional opportunities would be 

developed along with new trails. Like Alternative A, Alternative D would maintain Yauhannah Tract 

trails open to the public for observation and photography outside of hunting season. It would also 

continue to develop the Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public use area. 

Alternative C would also pursue the refuge administration goal: to 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. 

Staffing under Alternative D would be the same as Alternative C but would add one full-time law 

enforcement officer, one administrative assistant, and one maintenance person within 7-10 years of 

CCP approval. The assistant manager position would be converted to a biologist position. Like 

Alternative C, Alternative D would also include one new biotech and/or SCEP student. Like 

Alternative B, Alternative D would add one park ranger upon opening of the visitor center. Like 

Alternative A, Alternative D would retain the current positions of refuge manager, assistant refuge 

manager (converted to biologist), and law enforcement officer (shared with complex). 

Facilities under Alternative D would expand on those proposed under Alternative C by adding new 

maintenance facilities at Yauhannah Bluff. Like Alternative C, this alternative would add boardwalks 

at the Causey Tract and a potential dock at Sandy Island, in addition to kiosks at Causey Tract and at 

other strategic locations. Like Alternative B, this alternative would add one dock each at Yauhannah 

Bluff and Causey tracts (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) and a weather shelter at the latter. Like 

Alternative A, Alternative D would construct a new administrative office at the designated site on 

Yauhannah Bluff by 2008, but keep the existing maintenance yard in Georgetown for the foreseeable 

future. Alternative D would also maintain existing and create new Causey Tract facilities. 

Partnerships under Alternative D would include all those initiatives listed under Alternative C and add 

a partnership-funded environmental education coordinator. Like Alternative C, Alternative D would 

seek additional partnerships and/or volunteers/interns for increased visitor services and habitat 

enhancement on for all units of the refuge. As in Alternative A, Alternative D calls for the refuge to 

continue to cooperate with partners such as the SEWEE, SCDNR, TNC, Historic Ricefield 

Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. These 

common features are listed below to reduce the length and redundancy of the individual alternative 

descriptions. Each of the four management alternatives assessed in this EA would: 

y Provide habitat for migratory waterfowl. 

y Conduct surveys on swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s warblers. 

y Compile observations or conduct surveys of black bears. 

y Protect threatened and endangered species on appropriate refuge habitats; document all 

sightings and presence of listed species. 

y Annually maintain at least 15 wood duck boxes. 

y Protect rookeries of colonial nesting water birds. 
98 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y Maintain freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds. 

y Manage the deer herd via annual hunting during State season. 

y Provide habitat for reptiles and amphibians. 

y Control feral hogs by hunting. 

y Provide 2,430 acres of open water habitat. 

y Provide 2,923 acres of freshwater marsh. 

y Maintain a minimum of 629 acres of existing moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation. 

y Provide 6,362 acres of upland forest. 

y Provide 461 acres of bottomland hardwoods. 

y Provide about 25,000 acres of cypress-gum forest. 

y Continue to cooperate closely with partners to identify willing sellers within the acquisition 

boundary, while seeking funds outside of LWCF to secure these properties. 

y Continue to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

y Continue to share law enforcement with other refuges in the Lowcountry Complex. 

y 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. 

y Build and staff new visitor center at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. 

y Continue to provide seasonal hunting for deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, 

squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe consistent with refuge and State regulations. 

y Maintain entire refuge open to fishing consistent with State regulations, except for Causey and 

Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

y In partnership with SEWEE Association, continue on- and off-site environmental education 

programs in Georgetown County public schools, including 5 elementary and one high school. 

Utilize new visitor center and Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public use area 

for expanded environmental education. 

y Continue to provide interpretive programs to groups upon request and provide information to 

the public at office and website. 

y Maintain Yauhannah Tract trails open to the public for observation and photography outside of 

hunting season. Continue to develop Causey Tract (Cox Ferry Lake Recreation Area) public 

use area. 

y Maintain a minimum staff of three, including refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and 

law enforcement officer (shared with complex). 

y Construct new administrative office at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008, but keep 

existing maintenance yard in Georgetown for the foreseeable future. Maintain existing and 

create new Causey Tract facilities. 

y Continue to cooperate with partners such as the SEWEE, SCDNR, TNC, Historic Ricefield 

Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternative’s development process under NEPA and the Refuge Improvement Act is designed to 

allow consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. 

During the alternative’s development process, many different solutions were considered. The 

following alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this CCP/EA 

for the reason(s) described. 
Environmental Assessment 99

PRE-SETTLEMENT CONDITIONS 

This alternative is often used as a baseline in the development of CCP alternatives. Pre-settlement 

conditions typically refer to extant habitat conditions that existed prior to significant Euro-American 

settlement of North America over the last several centuries. In the case of Waccamaw NWR, most 

upland sites would be covered by hardwood forests, pine forests, and mixed forests. There would be 

no cropland or grassy fields. None of the development with the refuge’s acquisition boundary, 

including roads, farms, bridges, and numerous buildings, would exist. 

This alternative was considered by the planning team but rejected on the basis of its impracticability. 

The ecology and hydrology of the surrounding ecosystems have been thoroughly transformed from 

more than three centuries of Euro-American settlement. Large-scale, man-made hydrological 

alterations have permanently 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. 

CUSTODIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE REFUGE 

Under this scenario, refuge staff would cease all active management of both upland and wetland 

habitat at Waccamaw NWR, employing “passive management” instead. Staff would allow natural 

succession to proceed unhindered on upland and bottomland sites and not control invasive species 

like kudzu, Chinese privet, phragmites, and water hyacinth. Fire management would be limited to fire 

suppression rather than use of prescribed fire to manipulate habitats and set back succession. No 

upland invasive plant species control would be carried out and no forest thinning would take place. 

Moist-soil units would cease to be actively managed. Staff would focus efforts on research and data 

collection related to successional trends and on management of public visitation to Waccamaw NWR. 

This alternative was considered and dismissed because of the unsatisfactory outcomes it would have 

for both wildlife and habitat. Habitat quality and indigenous wildlife populations would be expected to 

decline, which would not fulfill the purposes of the refuge. 
100 Waccamaw Na

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Waccamaw NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Migratory Waterfowl 

No active, direct management of waterfowl populations. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, improve wintering waterfowl habitat on approximately 600 acres on Unit 1 by restoring hydrology through plugging drainage ditches and leveling pine plantation beds. 

Same as Alternative B plus restoration and enhancement on historic rice fields on approximately 400 acres in Units 2 and 3 over the life of the CCP. 

Sam

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Throughout the lifetime of the CCP, conduct informal surveys on swallow-tailed kites and Swainson’s warblers on an occasional basis. 

Same as Alternative A plus within 10 years of CCP approval, increase scrubshrub habitat by approximately 600 acres on Unit 1. 

Same as Alternative B. Sam

plus survkites warbCCP 

Black Bear Compile incidental 

observations of black bear on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Target refuge acquisition and 

habitat restoration efforts within wetland corridors to improve connectivity between bear populations. 

Samplus survwithappenlispartsigh

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Listed species continue to be protected on appropriate refuge habitats; document all sightings and presence of listed species on the refuge.

Proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 will enhance existing wood stork rookery. 

Same as Alternative B, plus restore wood stork feeding areas on Unit 3 and RCW nesting and foraging habitat on Unit 2. 

Sam
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Wood Duck Maintain 15 wood duck 

boxes annually. 

Same as Alternative A (maintain 15 wood duck boxes annually) and improve brood habitat on 10 acres in Unit 1 within 7 years of CCP approval. 

Same as Alternative B and improve brood and wintering habitat on 300 acres in Units 2 and 3 within 10 years of CCP approval. Increase wood duck nest boxes up to a total of 50 within 5 years of plan approval. 

Samin adlongwithapp

Colonial Nesting Water Birds 

No active management except for protection of existing rookeries on refuge. 

Proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 within 5 years of CCP approval will enhance opportunities for colonial nesting water bird rookeries. 

Same as Alternative B, plus restore colonial water bird feeding areas on Unit 3 within 7 years of CCP approval. 

Samwith and annyear

Marshbirds Continue to maintain 

freshwater tidal emergent marsh used by marshbirds. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A, plus 

acquire approximately 300 acres of tidal or managed wetlands within Units 2 and 3 within 7 years of CCP approval. 

Samwith survseas

White-tailed Deer Continue to manage deer 

herd via annual hunting during State season. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Ove

reduto imimprothe

Reptiles and Amphibians 

No active management of reptiles and amphibians. 

Restoration of isolated wetlands within 5 years of CCP approval would improve breeding areas of amphibians. 

Same as Alternative B, and increase managed wetland habitats by approximately 300 acres on Unit 3 within 7 years of CCP approval that would benefit reptiles and amphibians. 

Samplus apppresampspec
102 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Controlling Invasive Animal Species 

Maintain existing hunts for feral hogs on Units 1 and 3. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A with 

the addition of hunting opportunities on Unit 2. 

Incrhogs trap

Open Water No active management of 

2,430 acres of open water on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Monitor water quality, 

contaminants, jet skis impacts and vegetation trends on open water throughout the refuge by using partnerships. 

Sam

Freshwater Marshes 

No active management of 2,923 acres of freshwater marsh on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Monitor water quality, jet skis 

impacts and vegetation trends on freshwater marshes throughout the refuge by using partnerships. 

Sam

Managed Wetlands 

No active management or monitoring of 629 acres of existing moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Acquire, restore, develop, 

and improve moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) management, infrastructure, and monitoring on a total of 1,029 existing and newly acquired acres within 10 years of CCP approval. 

Sam

Upland Forests No active management of 

6,362 acres of upland forest on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. For duration of CCP, 

prescribe burn 6,362 acres of upland forest on a 3-year cycle while maintaining unique plant communities. 

Sam
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Bottomland Hardwoods 

No active management of 461 acres of bottomland hardwoods on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Over the course 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. 

Sam

Cypress-Gum Forest 

No active management of 25,077 acres of cypressgum forest on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. Where opportunities exist on 

the 25,077 acres of cypressgum 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. 

Sam

Invasive Plants No active management of 

invasive plant species on refuge. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, map areas of invasive plant species on Unit 1 and develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, map areas of invasive plant species on the entire refuge and develop control/eradication plans for each species. 

Sam

Land Acquisition Continue to cooperate 

closely with partners to identify willing sellers within the acquisition boundary, while seeking funds outside of LWCF to secure these properties. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

addpartprotto famovincluand fund
104 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Cultural Resources 

Continue to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. With

appbegCultMan

Law Enforcement Continue to provide 1.0 

FTE shared with the refuge Complex and 2 dual function officers. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Prov

refufuncoffic

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. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

Wilderness Continue to generally 

maintain the wilderness character of Bull Island, but do not take the necessary steps to formally recommend that it be designated as wilderness. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Inclu

WildmaincharyearprepstudrecoConIslandesiNatiPres
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Visitor Services’ Plan 

Continue to serve public without Visitor Services’ Plan. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. With

comVisitused use opprefu

Visitor Center Build and staff new visitor 

center at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008. 

Same as Alternative A plus develop up to 4 nature trails associated with the visitor center at Yauhannah Bluff within 3 years of opening the visitor center. 

Same as Alternative A. Sam

plus boacanoPee 

Hunting Continue to provide 

seasonal hunting for deer, hog, turkey (including youth hunt), raccoon, squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe consistent with refuge and State regulations. 

Same as Alternative A with the potential to open waterfowl hunting on the Jackson Bluff Tract. 

Same as Alternative B with potential for a youth waterfowl hunt on managed wetlands. 

Samwith mobdee

Fishing Maintain entire refuge 

open to fishing consistent with State regulations, except for Causey and Yauhannah Bluff tracts. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Sam

addmobacceYau
106 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Environmental Education 

In partnership with SEWEE Association, continue on- and off-site environmental education programs in Georgetown County Public Schools, including 5 elementary schools and one high school. Utilize new visitor center and Causey Tract public use area for expanded environmental education. 

Same as Alternative A plus potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff, and utilization of up to 4 nature trails near new visitor center for environmental education. 

Same as Alternative B with potential for Sandy Island trails being utilized for environmental education. 

Samplus enviinto Geointo coun

Interpretation Continue to provide 

interpretive programs to groups upon request and provide information to the public at office and website. 

Same as Alternative A plus potential interpretive opportunities related to wetland restoration site on Jackson Bluff. Added interpretive opportunities will be provided in and around the new visitor center and the Causey Tract. 

Same as Alternative B plus potential interpretive activities on Sandy Island. 

Samplus matat Ystratwithbouspec

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Maintain Yauhannah Tract trails open to the public for observation and photography outside of hunting season. Continue to develop Causey Tract public use area. 

Same as Alternative A and when new visitor center is opened, additional opportunities will be developed along with new trails. 

Same as Alternative B with the addition of trails on Sandy Island. 

Samwith trails and and on twithapp
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

(Pr

Man

Staffing Maintain current staff of 

three, including refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and law enforcement officer (shared with complex). 

Same as Alternative A and add one park ranger upon opening of the visitor center. 

Same as Alternative B plus one biotech and/or SCEP student within 5 years of CCP approval. 

Samplus enfoadmand withappassibiolo

Facilities Construct new 

administrative office at designated site on Yauhannah Bluff by 2008 but keep existing maintenance yard in Georgetown for the foreseeable future. Maintain existing and create new Causey Tract facilities. 

Same as Alternative A and add 1 dock each at Yauhannah Bluff and Causey tracts and weather shelter at the latter. 

Same as Alternative B and add boardwalks at Causey Tract and potential dock at Sandy Island, in addition to kiosks at Causey Tract and at other strategic locations. 

Samplus facilBluf

Partnerships Continue to cooperate 

with partners such as the SEWEE, SCDNR, TNC, Historic Ricefield Association, and Winyah Bay Focus Area Task Force. 

Same as Alternative A and seek additional partnerships and/or volunteers/interns for increased visitor services and habitat enhancement on Unit 1. 

Same as Alternative B but for all units of refuge. 

Samadd envicoor
108 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 109

IV. Environmental Consequences 

OVERVIEW 

This section analyzes and discusses the potential environmental effects or consequences that can be 

reasonably expected by the implementation of each of the four alternatives described in Chapter III of 

this environmental assessment. For each alternative, the expected outcomes are portrayed through 

the 15-year life of the CCP. 

EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

A few potential effects will be the same under each alternative and are summarized under seven 

categories: environmental justice, climate change, other management, land acquisition, cultural 

resources, refuge revenue-sharing, and other effects. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations” was signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994, to focus 

Federal attention on the environmental and human health conditions of minority and low-income 

populations, with the goal of achieving environmental protection for all communities. The Order 

directed Federal agencies to develop environmental justice strategies to aid in identifying and 

addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. The Order is also intended 

to promote nondiscrimination in Federal programs substantially affecting human health and the 

environment, and to provide minority and low-income communities with access to public information 

and opportunities for participation in matters relating to human health or the environment. 

None of the management alternatives described in this environmental assessment will 

disproportionately place any adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts on minority 

and low-income populations. Implementation of any action alternative that includes public use and 

environmental education is anticipated to provide a benefit to the residents residing in the 

surrounding communities. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

The Department of the Interior issued an order in January 2001 requiring Federal agencies under its 

direction that have land management responsibilities to consider potential climate change impacts as 

part of long-range planning endeavors. 

The increase of carbon within the earth’s atmosphere has been linked to the gradual rise in surface 

temperatures commonly referred to as global warning. In relation to comprehensive planning for 

national wildlife refuges, carbon sequestration constitutes the primary climate-related impact to be 

considered in planning. The Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Research and 

Development (U.S. Department of Energy 1999) defines carbon sequestration as “...the capture and 

secure storage of carbon that would otherwise be emitted to or remain in the atmosphere.” 

The land is a tremendous force in carbon sequestration. Terrestrial biomes of all sorts—grasslands, 

forests, wetlands, tundra, perpetual ice, and desert—are effective both in preventing carbon emissions 
110 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

and in acting as a biological “scrubber” of atmospheric carbon monoxide. The conclusions of the 

Department of Energy’s report noted that ecosystem protection is important to carbon sequestration and 

may reduce or prevent the loss of carbon currently stored in the terrestrial biosphere. 

Conserving natural habitat for wildlife is the heart of any long-range plan for national wildlife refuges. 

The actions proposed in this comprehensive conservation plan would conserve or restore land and 

water, and would thus enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, contributes positively to efforts to 

mitigate human-induced global climate changes. 

OTHER MANAGEMENT 

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soils, water and air, and historical and 

archaeological resources, would be managed to comply with all laws and regulations. In particular, 

any existing and future oil and gas exploration, extraction, and transport operations on the refuge 

would be managed identically under each of the alternatives. Thus, the impacts would be the same. 

LAND ACQUISITION 

Funding for land acquisition from willing sellers within the approved acquisition boundary of 

Waccamaw NWR would come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund, Corps of Engineers mitigation programs, or donations from conservation and 

private organizations. Conservation easements and leases can be used to obtain the minimum 

interests necessary to satisfy refuge objectives if the refuge staff can adequately manage uses of the 

areas for the benefit of wildlife. The Service can negotiate management agreements with local, State 

and Federal agencies, and accept conservation easements. Some tracts within the refuge 

acquisition boundary may be owned by other public or private conservation organizations. The 

Service would work with interested organizations to identify additional areas needing protection and 

provide technical assistance if needed. The acquisition of private lands is entirely contingent on the 

landowners and their willingness to participate. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

All alternatives afford additional land protection and low levels of development, thereby producing 

little negative effect on the refuge’s cultural and historic resources. Potentially negative effects could 

include logging, construction of new trails or facilities, and development of water impoundments. In 

most cases, these management actions would require review by the Service’s Regional Archaeologist 

in consultation with the State of South Carolina Historic Preservation Office, as mandated by Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, the determination of whether a particular 

action within an alternative has the potential to affect cultural resources is an on-going process that 

would occur during the planning stages of every project. 

Service acquisition of land with known or potential archaeological or historical sites provides two 

major types of protection for these resources: protection from damage by Federal activity and 

protection from vandalism or theft. The National Historic Preservation Act requires that any actions 

by a Federal agency which may affect archaeological or historical resources be reviewed by the State 

Historic Preservation Office, and that the identified effects must be avoided or mitigated. The 

Service’s policy is to preserve these cultural, historic, and archaeological resources in the public trust, 

and avoid any adverse effects wherever possible. 

Land acquisition, within the current acquisition boundary, by the Service would provide some degree 

of protection to significant cultural and historic resources. If acquisition of private lands does not 
Environmental Assessment 111

occur and these lands remain under private ownership, the landowner would be responsible for 

protecting and preserving cultural resources. Development of off-refuge lands has the potential to 

destroy archaeological artifacts and other historical resources, thereby decreasing opportunities for 

cultural resource interpretation and research. 

REFUGE REVENUE-SHARING 

 

Annual refuge revenue-sharing payments to Georgetown, Horry and Marion Counties would continue 

at similar rates under each alternative. If lands are acquired and added to the refuge, the payments 

would increase accordingly. 

OTHER EFFECTS 

Each of the alternatives would have similar effects or minimal to negligible effects on the soils; water 

quality and quantity; noise; transportation; human health and safety; children; hazardous materials; 

waste management; aesthetics and visual resources; and utilities and public services. 

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY ALTERNATIVE 

The following section describes the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Table 7 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues, and is organized by broad issue categories. 

 ALTERNATIVE A – CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

In general, implementing Alternative A, that is, continuing current management direction would have 

neutral to mildly beneficial impacts on the human environment, wildlife populations, and wildlife 

habitat at Waccamaw NWR. Populations of migratory waterfowl, wood duck, neotropical migratory 

birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, marshbirds, white-tailed deer, reptiles, amphibians, and threatened 

and endangered species on the refuge are unlikely to either increase or decrease substantially over 

the next 15 years as a result of this alternative. 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. The herd size of the 

area’s most threatening invasive animal species – the feral hog – would probably not change 

significantly under this alternative. 

Under Alternative A, the quantity and quality of the refuge’s habitats – including open water, 

freshwater marsh, managed wetlands (moist-soil units and submerged aquatic vegetation), upland 

forests, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-gum forest – would not change significantly. However, 

the continuing spread and infestation of invasive plant species could degrade the quality of aquatic, 

wetland, and upland habitats somewhat. 

Cultural resources would continue to be protected from human activities (especially excavation) under 

Alternative A, according to the stipulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, but not from 

natural forces such as erosion, weathering, and flood damage. There would be no new knowledge 

about cultural resources gained under this alternative that could improve their management, 

interpretation, or appreciation. 

The wilderness character of Bull Island would probably not be altered appreciably under this 

alternative. No facilities development would take place on the island, but it could still be subjected to 
112 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

habitat improvement projects such as forest thinning and prescribed fire. If it were to be thinned, 

depending on the logging method(s) used, this could necessitate temporary skid roads and pads for 

timber harvesting equipment, which could potentially, at least temporarily, compromise Bull Island’s 

wilderness character. 

Certain visitor services and public use opportunities would remain unchanged under Alternative A. 

Hunting and fishing opportunities, for example, would stay the same as they are at present. 

However, with the construction and operation of the new visitor center and associated facilities at 

Yauhannah Bluff, environmental education and especially interpretation on the refuge would be 

increased substantially. Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography would also increase 

somewhat because of the ongoing development of the Causey Tract. 

 ALTERNATIVE B – HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENTS ON UNIT 1 

In general, implementing Alternative B, that is, undertaking habitat restoration and enhancements on 

Unit 1, would have beneficial impacts on the human environment, wildlife populations, and wildlife 

habitat of Unit 1 itself. Undertaking the refuge, as a whole, would also be generally beneficial, since 

Unit 1 constitutes the bulk – nearly two-thirds – of the total refuge area within the acquisition 

boundary. Populations of migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, wood duck, colonial 

nesting waterbirds, reptiles, amphibians, and the federally listed wood stork on Unit 1 may increase 

slightly as a result of the actions proposed under Alternative B. On the other hand, marshbirds and 

white-tailed deer populations would probably not change appreciably. 

As in Alternative A, under Alternative B, 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 and traffic and 

general development, which would tend to exert downward pressure on bear numbers. The herd size 

of the area’s most threatening invasive animal species – the feral hog – would probably not change 

significantly under this alternative. 

Under Alternative B, the quantity and quality of the refuge’s habitats – including open water, 

freshwater marsh, managed wetlands (moist-soil units and submerged aquatic vegetation), upland 

forests, bottomland hardwoods, and cypress-gum forest – would not change significantly, even on 

Unit 1. The continuing spread and infestation of invasive plant species could degrade the quality of 

aquatic, wetland, and upland habitats somewhat. However, under Alternative B, increased mapping, 

monitoring, and control efforts on Unit 1 could reduce encroachment by invasive species. 

Cultural resources would continue to be protected from human activities (especially excavation) under 

Alternative B, according to the stipulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, but not from 

natural forces such as erosion, weathering, and flood damage. There would be no new knowledge 

about cultural resources gained under this alternative that could improve their management, 

interpretation, or appreciation. 

The wilderness character of Bull Island would probably not be altered appreciably under this 

alternative. No facilities development would take place on the island, but it could still be subjected to 

habitat improvement projects, such as forest thinning and prescribed fire. If it were to be thinned, 

depending on the logging method(s) used, this could necessitate temporary skid roads and pads for 

timber harvesting equipment, which could potentially, at least temporarily, compromise Bull Island’s 

wilderness character. 

Overall, visitor services and public use opportunities would increase under Alternative B. This would 

be greatly assisted by the new visitor center on Yauhannah Bluff. The potential for opening a 
Environmental Assessment 113

waterfowl hunt on the Jackson Bluff Tract would increase hunting opportunities over those at present. 

Fishing opportunities would probably stay the same as they are at present. 

A potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff and utilization of up to four nature trails 

near the new visitor center would increase the level of environmental education opportunities available to 

the public. The potential for interpretive opportunities related to the wetland restoration site on Jackson 

Bluff, plus added interpretive opportunities in and around the new visitor center and the Causey Tract, 

would increase overall interpretation on the refuge. Likewise, new trails at the visitor center would 

increase opportunities for wildlife observation and photography at Waccamaw NWR. 

 ALTERNATIVE C – HABITAT RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENTS ON ALL UNITS 

In general, implementing Alternative C, that is, undertaking habitat restoration and enhancements on 

all units, would extend the beneficial impacts of Alternative B on the human environment, wildlife 

populations, and wildlife habitat from Unit 1 to the entire Waccamaw NWR. 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 Alternative C. On the other hand, white-tailed deer populations would probably not 

change appreciably. 

As in Alternatives A and B, under Alternative C, black bear numbers may 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. In Alternative C, 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 its 

hunting would be encouraged. 

Under Alternative C, 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 cypress-gum forests would not change significantly under 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, under Alternative C, 

increased mapping, monitoring, and control efforts could reduce encroachment by invasive species. 

Cultural resources would continue to be protected from human activities (especially excavation) under 

Alternative C, according to the stipulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, but not from 

natural forces such as erosion, weathering, and flood damage. There would be no new knowledge 

about cultural resources gained under this alternative that could improve their management, 

interpretation, or appreciation. 

The wilderness character of Bull Island would probably not be altered appreciably under this 

alternative. No facilities’ development would take place on the island, but it could still be subjected to 

habitat improvement projects, such as forest thinning and prescribed fire. If it were to be thinned, 

depending on the logging method(s) used, this could necessitate temporary skid roads and pads for 

timber harvesting equipment, which could potentially, at least temporarily, compromise Bull Island’s 

wilderness character. 
114 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Overall, visitor services and public use opportunities would increase under Alternative C. This would be 

greatly assisted 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 waterfowl hunt, would increase hunting opportunities over 

those at present. Fishing opportunities would probably stay the same as they are at present. 

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 under Alternatives A or B. 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, would 

substantially increase overall interpretation on the refuge. Likewise, new trails at the visitor center 

and Sandy Island would increase opportunities for wildlife observation and photography at 

Waccamaw NWR. 

 ALTERNATIVE D – OPTIMIZE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND VISITOR SERVICES 

 (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

In general, implementing Alternative C, that is, optimizing habitat management and visitor services 

throughout the refuge, would encompass the potential benefits of Alternatives B and C on the human 

environment, wildlife populations, and wildlife habitat, and would increase benefits further by 

expanding visitor services and public uses. 

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 Alternative D. On the other hand, white-tailed deer 

populations would probably not change appreciably. 

As in each of the other alternatives, under Alternative C, 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. In 

Alternative D (like Alternative C) 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; this 

decrease could be greater than under Alternative C. 

Under Alternative D, as in Alternative C, 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 cypress-gum 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, under Alternative D, increased 

mapping, monitoring, and control efforts could reduce encroachment by invasive species. 
Environmental Assessment 115

Cultural resources would continue to be protected from human activities (especially excavation) under 

Alternative D, 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. While this would be a benefit of Alternative D, 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 more under this alternative than 

any of the others. Preparation and implementation of a Visitor Services’ Plan would help organize 

and systematize the refuge’s visitor services, with a probable increase in the quality and quantity of 

visitor experiences. As in the other alternatives, 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 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. These opportunities would also be provided by Alternatives A or B. However, 

only Alternative D would 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 only occur under Alternative 

D. Like Alternative C, Alternative D 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, 

Alternative D would substantially increase the level of interpretation now occurring on the refuge. 

With regard to wildlife observation and photography, like Alternative C, Alternative D would result in new 

trails at the visitor center and Sandy Island, thus increasing opportunities for wildlife observation and 

photography at Waccamaw NWR. Only Alternative D, however, calls for adding canoe trails on the 

Waccamaw and Big Pee Dee Rivers and trails on the Haulover Tract. Because of this, Alternative D 

would represent the greatest beneficial impact on wildlife observation and photography. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A – the No Action Alternative – there are numerous unavoidable long-term impacts, 

including law enforcement that is not adequate for protecting any significant visitor use; continued 

degradation of the biological functions of native plant communities and wildlife habitat due to the 

invasion of exotic (non-native) plants and nuisance animals; and a probable continued decline in 

biodiversity. Over time, if these issues are not addressed, they will continue to adversely impact the 

refuge’s biophysical resources. There would also be short-term impacts on soils, water, and 
116 Waccamaw Na

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE Table 7. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Waccamaw NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Migratory Waterfowl 

Waterfowl populations on refuge unlikely to change over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Beneficial impact – minor increase in wintering waterfowl numbers on Unit 1. 

Beneficial impact – minor increase in wintering waterfowl numbers on all 3 units. 

Same a

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

Neotropical migratory populations on refuge unlikely to change over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Beneficial impact – minor increase in neotropical migratory bird use of Unit 1. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Same aplus incknowleswallowSwainsrefuge. 

Black Bear 

Local black bear population likely to slowly increase as habitat values improve on and near refuge and in keeping with regional trends. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A, but if migration corridors can be established, black bear population would be more secure. 

Same aplus incbase of area. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

All listed species would continue to be protected; status unlikely to change. 

All listed species would continue to be protected; proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1 may enhance existing wood stork rookery. 

All listed species would continue to be protected and status is unlikely to change, except for wood stork, which would likely benefit from proposed actions. 

Same a
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Wood Duck 

Annual wood duck production likely to remain the same. 

Annual wood duck production on refuge as a whole likely to remain the same or increase slightly because of proposed actions and increased production on Unit 1. 

Proposed improvements to brood and wintering habitat on all three units, plus increase in nest boxes likely to lead to increase in wood duck production on refuge. 

Same a

Colonial Nesting Water Birds 

Existing rookeries on refuge would continue to be protected; populations and use of refuge unlikely to change. 

Populations may increase because of proposed hydrology restoration on Unit 1. 

Populations may increase even more than in Alternative B because of proposed hydrology restoration on Units 1 and 3. 

Same aimprovcould immanagpopulat

Marshbirds 

Marshbird populations on refuge unlikely to change over the 15-year life of the CCP. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Marshbird populations on refuge would likely remain the same or increase slightly. 

Same ainformaimprovassist f

White-tailed Deer 

Deer population unlikely to change in size or health. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Populato decliapprop

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Reptile and amphibian populations unlikely to change. 

Reptile and amphibian populations likely to increase slightly. 

Reptile and amphibian populations likely to increase somewhat due to proposed restorations. 

Same aplus refknowleof herp

Controlling Invasive Animal Species 

Feral hog population on refuge unlikely to increase or decrease. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Feral hog population may decrease somewhat because of increased hunting. 

Same aeffect w

Open Water 

Quantity of open water on refuge would not change; water quality could either be degraded or improved somewhat. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same a
118 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Freshwater Marshes 

Quantity of freshwater marshes on refuge would not change; quality of marshes could either be degraded or improved somewhat. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A, but in addition, refuge may be better able to quantify impacts of boats and jet skis on marsh habitat. 

Same a

Managed Wetlands 

No change to the 629 acres of existing moist-soil and submerged aquatic vegetation on the refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Moist-soil and sub-merged aquatic vegetation acreage would increase. 

Same a

Upland Forests 

Area of upland forest on the refuge would remain unchanged, as would habitat quality in this acreage. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Acreage of upland forest would not change; prescribed fire would help maintain and restore quality of upland forest habitat by reducing understory and overstocking. 

Same a

Bottomland Hardwoods 

No change in the quantity or quality of bottomland hardwoods on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Area of bottomland forest would remain the same or increase slightly; proposed thinning would decrease stand density and increase understory, improving stand structure and diversity. 

Same a

Cypress-Gum Forest 

No change in the quantity or quality of cypress-gum forest on refuge. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Area of cypress-gum forest would remain unchanged, but quality of forest habitat may improve slightly. 

Same a
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Invasive Plants 

Invasive plant species would continue to spread in both upland and wetland habitats on refuge, degrading these habitats and displacing native species, while generally having adverse effects on native wildlife. 

Increased mapping, monitoring and control efforts on Unit 1 could reduce spread of invasive species and associated adverse effects there; elsewhere on refuge, invasive plants would continue to spread. 

Increased mapping, monitoring, and control efforts throughout the refuge could reduce spread of invasive species and associated adverse effects. 

Same a

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources would continue to be protected according to the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Develowould egreater protect

Wilderness 

Wilderness character of Bull Island would probably be maintained, but could be compromised temporarily by possible forest thinning and prescribed fire activities. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Include Wildernmaintacharactyears oprepare study rrecommCongreIsland sdesignaNationaPreserv
120 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Visitor Services 

The new visitor center at Yauhannah Bluff would substantially improve visitor services for the public. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Same aadditionimplemServiceto greaopporturefuge. 

Hunting 

Public hunting opportunities (for deer, hog, turkey, raccoon, squirrel, waterfowl, and snipe) would remain the same. 

The potential to open waterfowl hunting on the Jackson Bluff Tract would increase hunting opportunities over those at present. 

The potential to open waterfowl hunting on the Jackson Bluff Tract and a youth waterfowl hunt would further increase hunting opportunities over those at present. 

The powaterfoJacksoyouth wa mobifor deeincreasopportuthe oth

Fishing 

Public fishing opportunities would remain the same. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A.

Public fwould ipotentimobilityaccess Yauhan
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Environmental Education (EE) 

Level of EE would increase somewhat due to the presence and operation of the new visitor center. 

Potential partnership with Coastal Carolina on Jackson Bluff and utilization of up to 4 nature trails near new visitor center would increase level of EE opportunities available to the public. 

The potential for Sandy Island trails being utilized for EE, in addition to the facilities and opportunities listed under Alternative B, would further increase level of EE on the refuge. 

Expansschools County schools Marion addition and proAlternamake texpansin termalterna

Interpretation 

Level of interpretation would increase substantially due to the presence and operation of the new visitor center. 

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, would increase overall interpretation on the refuge. 

Addition of potential interpretive activities on Sandy Island would increase opportunities even more than under Alternative B. 

Adding materiaat Yauhstrategwithin tboundaspecial addition and facAlternawould gthe grebeneficinterpre
122 Waccamaw Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on Unit 1 

Alternative C 

Habitat 

Restoration/Enhancements 

on All Units 

A

(Prop

Op

Manag

Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would increase slightly with continuing development of the Causey Tract. 

New trails at visitor center would increase opportunities. 

The addition of trails on Sandy Island would further increase opportunities and provide greater benefits. 

Additiothe WaPee Deon the under oin additprovideAlternawould rgreateson wildphotog
Environmental Assessment 123

potentially cultural resources from constructing the new visitor center and other projects. However, 

these impacts are unlikely to be significant, at least over the 15-year lifetime of the CCP. There 

would also be adverse impacts on public uses, mostly in terms not being able to adequately respond 

to rising demand for public use on the refuge. Many of the potential impacts on the refuge’s 

environmental quality, habitat, and wildlife populations originate from human activities and 

development beyond the refuge’s boundaries and are outside the jurisdiction of the Service. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts under Alternatives B and C would be similar to those of Alternative A, 

though probably less severe in scope and intensity. Alternatives B and C would aim to restore and 

enhance habitat in Unit 1 and throughout the refuge, respectively. A portion of these efforts would 

include an intensified program to monitor and control invasive plant species that infest aquatic and 

upland habitats. Additionally, the proposed program to control feral hogs may reduce the long-term 

impacts of this species on habitat and native wildlife. Overall, the unavoidable adverse impacts 

associated with Alternatives B and C would probably not be significant. 

Alternative D, the proposed alternative, also results in some unavoidable impacts. Generally, these 

impacts are expected to be minor and/or short term in duration, such as localized impacts to air, soils, 

water quality, and cultural resources from constructing the visitor center. However, the refuge will attempt 

to minimize these impacts whenever possible. As with the other three alternatives, other impacts stem 

from human actions outside the refuge and are beyond the ability of the Service to control. 

The following sections describe the measures the refuge would employ to mitigate and minimize the 

potential impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed alternative. 

WATER QUALITY FROM SOIL DISTURBANCE, USE OF HERBICIDES, AND FOREST 

MANAGEMENT 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and levee maintenance; 

forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire); and the construction of observation 

towers, boat ramps, and the new headquarters and visitor center are expected to be minor and of 

short duration. To further reduce potential impacts, the refuge would use best management practices 

to minimize the erosion of soils into water bodies. 

Foot traffic on new and extended foot trails is expected to have a negligible impact on soil erosion. 

To minimize the impacts from public use, the refuge would include informational signs that request 

trail users to remain on the trails in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems. 

Forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire) that expose and disrupt soils can 

temporarily degrade water quality from turbidity and siltation. The low relief and negligible 

topography of the refuge would tend to minimize erosion. Additionally, the refuge would use a 

number of methods and techniques that are standard practices in modern fire suppression and 

management to minimize impacts to soils and subsequent erosion and sedimentation. 

Long-term herbicide use for exotic plant control could result in a slight decrease in water quality in 

areas prone to exotic plant infestation. Through the proper application of herbicides, however, this is 

expected to have a minor impact on the environment, with the benefit of reducing or eliminating exotic 

plant infestations. 
124 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

WILDLIFE DISTURBANCE 

Disturbance to wildlife is an unavoidable consequence of any public use program, regardless of the 

activity involved. While some activities, such as wildlife observation, may be less disturbing than 

others, all of the public use activities proposed under the proposed alternative would be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered to be 

significant. Nevertheless, the refuge would manage public use activities to reduce impacts. Providing 

access for fishing opportunities allows the use of a renewable natural resource without adversely 

impacting other resources. Hunting would also be managed with restrictions that ensure minimal impact 

on other resources. General wildlife observation may result in minimal disturbance to wildlife. If the 

refuge determines that impacts from the expected additional visitor uses are above the levels that are 

anticipated, those uses would be discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less sensitive areas. 

Forest management activities, such as thinning and prescribed fire, would attempt to avoid and 

minimize adverse effects to sensitive wildlife species by conducting surveys beforehand. Times and 

places that might threaten sensitive species would be avoided. 

VEGETATION DISTURBANCE 

Negative impacts could result from the creation, extension, and maintenance of trails that require the 

clearing of nonsensitive vegetation along their length. This is expected to be a minor short-term impact. 

Increased visitor use may increase the potential for the introduction of new exotic species into areas when 

visitors do not comply with boating regulations at the boat ramps and other access points, or with 

requests to stay on trails. The refuge would minimize this impact by enforcing the regulations for access 

to the refuge’s water bodies, and by installing informational signs that request users to stay on the trails. 

Forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire) would also temporarily disturb vegetation 

including trees, understory plants, and ground cover (saplings, shrubs, forbs, grasses). These 

effects, which would also be localized and temporary, would be minimized by proper marking of areas 

and diligent monitoring. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge would adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge would use methods that have proven to be effective in reducing or eliminating 

public use conflicts. These methods include establishing separate use areas; different use periods; 

and limits on the numbers of users in order to provide safe, quality, appropriate, and compatible 

wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. 

EFFECTS ON ADJACENT LANDOWNERS 

Implementation of the proposed alternative is not expected to negatively affect the owners of private 

lands adjacent to the refuge and within the acquisition boundary. Positive impacts that would be 

expected include higher property values, less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, and increased 

opportunities for viewing more diverse and abundant wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that might occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands, and noise associated with increased traffic. To minimize these potential 
Environmental Assessment 125

impacts, the refuge would provide informational signs that clearly mark refuge boundaries; maintain 

the refuge’s existing parking facilities; use law enforcement; and provide increased educational efforts 

at the visitor center. 

LAND OWNERSHIP AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 

Land acquisition efforts by the Service could lead to changes in land use and recreational use 

patterns. However, most of the non-Service-owned lands within the refuge’s approved acquisition 

boundary are currently undeveloped. If these lands are acquired as additions to the refuge, they 

would be maintained in a natural state, managed for native wildlife populations, and opened to 

wildlife-compatible public uses, where feasible. 

Potential development of the refuge’s buildings, trails, and other improvements could lead to minor, shortterm negative impacts on plants, soils, and some wildlife species. When building the observation towers, 

efforts would be made to use recycled products and environmentally sensitive treated lumber. The visitor 

center would be constructed to be aesthetically pleasing to the community and to avoid any additional 

impacts to native plant communities. All construction activities would comply with the requirements of 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (concerning placement of fill in “jurisdictional wetlands” and “waters of 

the United States”); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management; and other applicable regulatory requirements. 

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

A cumulative impact is defined as an impact on the natural or human environment, which results from 

the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of which agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions (40 Code of Federal Regulations, 1508.7). 

Cumulative impacts are the overall, net effects on a resource that arise from multiple actions. Impacts 

can “accumulate” spatially, when different actions affect different areas of the same resource. They can 

also accumulate over the course of time, from actions in the past, the present, and the future. 

Occasionally, different actions counterbalance one another, partially canceling out each other’s effect 

on a resource. But more typically, multiple effects add up, with each additional action contributing an 

incremental impact on the resource. In addition, sometimes the overall effect is greater than merely the 

sum of the individual effects, such as when one more reduction in a population crosses a threshold of 

reproductive sustainability, and threatens to extinguish the population. 

A thorough analysis of impacts always considers their cumulative aspects, because actions do not 

take place in a vacuum: there are virtually always some other actions that have affected that resource 

in some way in the past, or are affecting it in the present, or will affect it in the reasonably foreseeable 

future. So any assessment of a specific action’s effects must in fact be made with consideration of 

what else has happened to that resource, what else is happening, or what else will likely happen to it. 

The refuge is not aware of any past, present, or future planned actions that would result in a significant 

cumulative impact when added to the refuge’s proposed actions, as outlined in the proposed alternative. 

Nevertheless, because of concerns expressed about the cumulative effects of hunting on certain 

national wildlife refuges, this section analyzes and discusses in some detail the cumulative impacts of 

the hunting program of each alternative on a variety of resources at Waccamaw NWR. The section 

draws heavily upon the cumulative impacts analysis in the Environmental Assessment for the 2007 

Recreational Hunt Plan at Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS 2007). 
126 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Migratory Birds 

The Fish and Wildlife Service 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. 

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 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. 

The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations, located in 50 CFR Part 20, is 

constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the 

rulemaking process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the dates on which these results are available 

for consideration and deliberation. The process of adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations 

includes two separate regulations-development schedules, based on "early" and "late" hunting 

season regulations. Early hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other than waterfowl (e.g. 

dove and woodcock); and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. 

Early hunting seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons generally start on or 

after October 1 and include most waterfowl seasons not already established. There are basically no 

differences in the processes for establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle, 

Service biologists and others gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey data and provide this 

information to all those involved in the process through a series of published status reports and 

presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested parties (USFWS 2006). Under the proposed 

action, it is estimated that a maximum additional 100 wood ducks would be harvested each year on 

the refuge. This harvest impact represents 0.001 percent of South Carolina’s 4-year average harvest 

of 80,440 wood ducks (USFWS Waterfowl Harvest and Population Data July 2006). 
Environmental Assessment 127

Waccamaw NWR entered into a long-term lease agreement in fiscal year 2006 with the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, which allowed the 7,661-acre Bucksport Wildlife Management Area 

(WMA) to be combined with other fee title refuge lands. By adding this large block of land, the refuge is 

now able to better manage important riverine habitats, as well as provide a more consistent set of 

regulations for the visiting public. One primary condition of the lease agreement is that there would be no 

net loss of hunting opportunities now that these lands are administered under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. To meet this lease agreement, the refuge proposes to offer waterfowl hunting on a more 

restricted basis than was previously allowed on Bucksport WMA. To make up lost waterfowl hunting days 

and overall reduction in hunting opportunities, the refuge proposes to offer additional hunting opportunities 

through hog hunts and the youth turkey hunt. Equally as important as uniform management throughout 

the refuge acquisition boundary, by adding the Bucksport WMA to the refuge, the refuge 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 other 

managed wetlands do not exist. 

Public waterfowl hunting provides an economical means for statistical data collection. Random 

checks of hunters can provide kill ratio, population composition, and bird habit data, as well as the 

possibility of organ collection (gizzards, etc.) for various studies. However, wildlife disturbance 

associated with waterfowl hunting has a negative impact on diurnal and nocturnal use of an area by 

waterfowl (Cronan 1957, McNeil et al., 1992, Paulus 1984). Because most of the refuge is bisected 

by a multitude of navigable, public waterways over which the refuge has no management authority, 

disturbance by public hunting on the creeks and rivers would exist with or without a refuge waterfowl 

hunt. Disturbance associated with a refuge hunt would have an additive effect on reducing waterfowl 

use within the hunt area; however, it would be minimal in areas where unrestricted public hunting 

already occurs in nearby public waters. 

There are, however, management tools that can be used to minimize and/or mitigate disturbance and 

the interruption of use of refuge habitats by wintering waterfowl. Afternoon closure of hunting 

reduces disturbance (Gordon et al., 1989), as well as reducing the total take of waterfowl (Kirby et al., 

1983). Managed wetlands that are not hunted provide areas utilized for resting and feeding when 

adjacent areas are hunted (Gordon et al., 1989, Paulus 1984). Privately owned, diked-managed 

wetlands, as well as natural bays, ponds, oxbows and tidal marshes within or adjacent to the refuge 

acquisition boundary that have been permanently set aside for waterfowl sanctuary, are few and far 

between and the few areas that have been set aside are heavily used by waterfowl during the day as 

resting/loafing areas. Many of these areas are now being impacted by land use changes as 

commercial development continues to grow throughout the region. As refuge tracts are acquired, 

consideration would be given to closing isolated water areas to provide much needed waterfowl rest 

sites on the refuge. Additionally, other mitigative management measures would be incorporated into 

the refuge hunt program, such as noon closure to waterfowl hunting and opening no more than 60 

percent of the refuge to waterfowl hunting. 

Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory birds and other factors into 

consideration, it undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the 

Canadian Wildlife Service, State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies, and others. To 

determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as 

population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding 

and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are 

established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, migratory game 

bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State and Federal governments. 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 
128 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. At Waccamaw NWR, hunting season length is more restrictive for waterfowl and snipe 

than the State allows. 

NEPA considerations by the Service for hunted migratory game bird species are addressed by the 

programmatic document, ‘‘Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88– 14),’’ filed with the 

Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. The Service published a notice of availability in 

the Federal Register on June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582), and its Record of Decision on August 18, 

1988 (53 FR 31341). Annual NEPA considerations for waterfowl hunting frameworks are covered 

under a separate Environmental Assessment, “Duck Hunting Regulations for 2006-07,” and an 

August 24, 2006, Finding of No Significant Impact. Further, in a notice published in the September 8, 

2005, Federal Register (70 FR 53376) the Service announced its intent to develop a new 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program. Public 

scoping meetings were held in the spring 2006, as announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register

notice (71 FR 12216). More information may be obtained from: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 

1849 C Street, NWR, Washington, DC 20240. 

Although woodcock are showing declines in numbers on their breeding grounds, habitat loss is 

considered to be the culprit, not hunting. This assertion was tested in a study conducted by the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in 2005 (McAuley and Clugston, no date). 

Results showed no significant differences in woodcock survival between hunted and non-hunted 

areas. Furthermore, the authors concluded that hunting was not having a considerable impact on 

woodcock numbers in the northeast (McAuley and Clugston 2005). 

Woodcock was one of the species of migratory birds that was permitted to be hunted on Bucksport 

WMA prior to the long-term lease agreement between SCDNR and Waccamaw NWR. Because of 

low numbers of woodcock found throughout the refuge, a decision was made to offer snipe hunting in 

place of woodcock hunting, which would help maintain a no net loss of hunting opportunities, a 

primary condition on the lease agreement. Snipe hunting is proposed for only the tidal wetland 

marshes in Unit 3 and on a much more restricted basis (two days a week for one month of the season 

or approximately eight days) than allowed by South Carolina State regulations. In addition to 

restricted hunting days, non-toxic shot is required to be used by hunters. This refuge restriction 

further restricts hunters, possibly even more than days open, due to the lack of availability of smaller 

shot sizes in non-toxic shot. Other factors, such as weather, daily tidal cycles, and private lands, 

which are rarely hunted for snipe, would have additive impacts on hunter success. 

Based on the U.S. 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 harvest 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. 
Environmental Assessment 129

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 Waccamaw NWR. 

Deer herd health checks are conducted every five years on most national wildlife refuges by the 

Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study at the University of Georgia. In 2005, the 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 suggest 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. 

SCDNR estimates that 14,028,896 deer were harvested in South Carolina in 2005 (SCDNR Harvest 

Records 2005). 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 (SCDNR 2005). These harvest records fluctuate from 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 adverse to the biological integrity of the refuge, 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 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 (SCDNR Hog Harvest Report 2005). 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. 
130 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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). These data indicate that the local turkey population has withstood hunting on surrounding 

private lands for several years without negative cumulative effects on turkeys. Therefore the refuge 

should not cumulatively adversely impact the population by providing a half-day hunt for 10 youth that 

could harvest a maximum of 10 turkeys. 

Small Game 

Squirrel, 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. 

Refuge staff consulted with biologists at the SCDNR in association with this assessment on the 

cumulative impacts of hunting squirrel, raccoons and opossum. 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 thee 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 modern hunting regulations. 

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. 

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, chickadees, etc. The 

cumulative effects of disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the proposed action are 

expected to be negligible due to the following: hunting season would not coincide with the nesting 

season; long-term impacts that could occur if reproduction was reduced by hunting are not relevant 
Environmental Assessment 131

for this reason; disturbance to the daily wintering activities, such as feeding and resting, of birds might 

occur; and disturbance to birds by hunters would probably be commensurate with that caused by 

non-consumptive users. 

The cumulative effects of disturbance to non-hunted migratory birds under the proposed action are 

expected to be negligible due to the following: disturbance would be unlikely because small mammals, 

including bats, are inactive during winter when hunting season occurs and 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; and 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 one hunter per 1000 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. Thus any disturbance would be negligible to very minor and is 

unlikely to be cumulative in effect. 

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. 

Some species of bats, butterflies, and moths are migratory. Cumulative effects to these species at 

the “flyway” level should be negligible. These species are in torpor or have completely passed 

through South Carolina by peak hunting season in November-January. Some hunting occurs during 

September and October when these species are migrating; however, hunter interaction would be 

commensurate with that of non-consumptive users. 

Endangered Species 

Six federally listed threatened or 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 (listed in Chapter II of the CCP). 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 will 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 will be established to buffer the area from any 

human activity. Because of seasonal use parameters listed above and the legal authority that 

refuges have to close areas to public access when necessary, there would be no significant 

cumulative effects under any alternative. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation Consultation was completed in 2003 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 that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect these 

species (Refer to 2003 Section 7 Evaluation for Recreational Hunt Plan on Waccamaw NWR). 

Another Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation Consultation has been included in this CCP as Appendix 
132 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

VI. Under the Effects Determination section, the evaluation finds that impacts on listed species from 

the objectives, strategies, programs, and projects proposed in this CCP, in their entirety, would either 

be “no effect” or “not likely to adversely affect.” 

ANTICIPATED DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON REFUGE 

PROGRAMS, FACILITIES, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation 

As public use levels expand over time, unanticipated conflicts between competing user groups may 

occur. The refuge’s visitor use programs would be adjusted as needed to eliminate or minimize each 

problem and provide quality wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities. Experience has proven 

that time and space zoning (e.g., establishment of separate use areas, use periods, and restrictions 

on the number of users) is an effective tool in eliminating conflicts between user groups. Waccamaw 

NWR has focused more resources on establishing public use areas that are closed year-round to 

hunting than it has on hunting programs throughout the remaining 17,889 acres of refuge lands. 

The level of recreation use and ground-based disturbance from visitors would be largely concentrated 

at trails and the refuge’s office and maintenance areas. This use should remain the same or increase 

as interest grows at the same rate with or without hunting. Access to more areas will remain a refuge 

priority; however, the lay of the land will preclude most areas from increased visitor access. 

However, the hunting season (except for the limited turkey hunt) is during the winter and not during 

most birds’ nesting periods. It is unlikely that bald eagles would establish nests near developed 

facilities or during the hunting season. 

The opportunities for hunting would remain the same under the proposed action. High deer, feral 

hog, and raccoon numbers are recognized as a problem, causing crop damage, reducing some forest 

understory species, and reducing reforestation seedling survival. Hunting would be used to keep 

these populations, as well as other resident wildlife, in balance with the habitat’s carrying capacity, 

resulting in long-term positive impacts on wildlife habitat. 

The refuge prohibits all land conveyance vehicle access for any public use on the refuge to minimize 

wildlife disturbance and habitat degradation. Some areas, such as waterfowl sanctuaries, would be 

closed seasonally to hunting to minimize disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

Refuge Facilities 

The Service defines facilities as: “Real property that serves a particular function(s) such as buildings, 

roads, utilities, water control structures, raceways, etc.” Under the proposed action, those facilities 

most utilized by hunters are roads, parking lots, trails, and boat launching ramps. Because hunters 

are permitted to access the refuge by foot only, no additional maintenance or improvements of 

existing facilities would be required. 

Cultural Resources 

Hunting, regardless of method or species targeted, is a consumptive activity that does not pose any threat 

to historic properties on and/or near the refuge. In fact, hunting meets only one of the two criteria used to 
Environmental Assessment 133

identify an “undertaking” that triggers a Federal agency’s need to comply with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. These criteria, which are delineated in 36 CFR Part 800, state: 

1. an undertaking is any project, activity, or program that can alter the character or use of an 

archaeological or historic site located within the “area of potential effect;” and 

2. the project, activity, or program must also be either funded, sponsored, performed, licensed, 

or have received assistance from the agency. 

Consultation with the South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office and federally recognized 

tribes is therefore not required. 

Anticipated Impacts of Proposed Hunt on Refuge Environment and Community 

The refuge expects no sizeable adverse impacts of the proposed action on the refuge environment, 

which consists of soils, vegetation, air quality, water quality and solitude. Hunting would benefit 

vegetation as it is used to keep many resident wildlife populations in balance with the habitat’s 

carrying capacity. The refuge would also control access to minimize habitat degradation. 

The refuge expects impacts to air and water quality to be minimal and only due to boat emissions 

traveling to and from refuge lands. The effect of these refuge-related activities, as well as other 

management activities, on overall air and water quality in the region are anticipated to be relatively 

negligible, compared to the contributions of industrial centers, power plants, and non-refuge vehicle traffic. 

Existing State water quality criteria and use classifications are adequate to achieve desired on-refuge 

conditions; thus, implementation of the proposed action would not impact adjacent landowners or users 

beyond the constraints already implemented under existing State standards and laws. 

Impacts associated with solitude are expected to be minimal given time and space zone management 

techniques, such as seasonal access and area closures, used to avoid conflicts among user groups. 

The refuge would work closely with State, Federal, and private partners to minimize impacts to 

adjacent lands and their associated natural resources; however, no direct or indirect impacts are 

anticipated. The refuge hunts would result in a net gain of public hunting opportunities positively 

impacting the general public, nearby residents, and refuge visitors. The refuge expects increased 

visitation and tourism to bring additional revenues to local communities but not a significant increase 

in overall revenue in any area. Through these direct and indirect economic impacts, community 

support has increased significantly for refuge land acquisition and public use opportunity funding. For 

example, in the past year a $35,000 donation was made by a national hunting/fishing equipment 

distributor to help fund and to be used as a match for additional grants to establish Waccamaw 

NWR’s first nature trail system. To date, this and other donations now total more than $100,000. 

Other Past, Present, Proposed, and Reasonably Foreseeable Hunts and Anticipated Impacts 

Cumulative effects on the environment result from incremental effects of a proposed action when these 

are added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. While cumulative effects 

may result from individually minor actions, they may, viewed as a whole, become substantial over time. 

As proposed in this CCP, hunting has been designed so as to be sustainable through time, given 

relatively stable conditions. Changes in refuge conditions, such as sizeable increases in refuge acreage 

or public use, are likely to change the anticipated impacts of the CCP and could trigger a need for a new 

review and assessment process. CCPs are designed to allow for their amendment, if circumstances 

change substantially, prior to their expected 15-year lifetimes. 
134 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

The past refuge hunting program has been very similar to the proposed action in season lengths, 

species hunted, and bag limits. Changes to the hunt program in the past decade have been made to 

open hunting on more land within the refuge. These lands were usually those that had been recently 

acquired. The refuge does not foresee any changes to the proposed action in the way of 

substantially increasing the intensity of hunting in the future. 

Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate 

National wildlife refuges, including Waccamaw NWR, conduct hunting programs within the framework 

of State and Federal regulations. Waccamaw NWR is more restrictive than most State WMAs. By 

maintaining hunting regulations that are as, or more, restrictive than the State regulation on private 

lands and/or State WMAs, individual refuges ensure that a better diversity of management option 

exists upon which statewide and regional management implications can be better assessed. The 

proposed CCP, including its hunting objective, strategies, and provisions, has been reviewed and is 

supported by SCDNR. Additionally, South Carolina NWRs coordinate with SCDNR annually to 

maintain regulations and programs that are consistent with the State management program. 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OR IMPACTS 

Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time as the action. Indirect effects are 

caused by an action but are manifested later in time or further removed in distance, but still 

reasonably foreseeable. 

The actions proposed for implementation under the proposed alternative include facility development 

(especially the new visitor center and trails); wildlife and population management; resource protection; 

public use; and administrative programs. These actions would result in both direct and indirect effects. 

Facility development, for example, would most likely lead to increased public use, a direct effect; and it, in 

turn, would lead to indirect effects such as increased littering, noise, and vehicular traffic. 

SHORT-TERM USES VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 

The habitat protection and management actions proposed under the proposed alternative are 

dedicated to maintaining the long-term productivity of refuge habitats. The benefits of this plan for 

long-term productivity far outweigh any impacts from short-term actions, such as the construction of 

observation towers and a visitor center, or creation of new trails. While these activities would cause 

short-term negative impacts, the educational values and associated public support gained from the 

improved visitor experience would produce long-term benefits for the refuge’s entire ecosystem. 

The key to protecting and ensuring the refuge’s long-term productivity is to find the threshold where 

public uses do not degrade or interfere with the refuge’s natural resources. The projects and 

programs proposed under the proposed alternative have been carefully conceived to achieve that 

threshold. Therefore, implementing the proposed alternative would lead to long-term benefits for 

wildlife protection and land conservation that far outweigh any short-term impacts. 
Environmental Assessment 135

V. Consultation and Coordination 

OVERVIEW 

This chapter summarizes the consultation and coordination that has occurred to date in identifying 

the issues, alternatives, and proposed alternative which are presented in this Draft CCP. It lists the 

meetings that have been held with the various agencies, organizations and individuals who were 

consulted in the preparation of the Draft CCP. 

The following meetings, contacts, and presentations were undertaken by the Fish and Wildlife 

Service during the preparation of the Draft 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, 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. 
136 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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. 
Appendices 137

SECTION C. 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 help 

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. 
138 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 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 the United States 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 139

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 “to along” with a course of 

action that they actually oppose (Bleiker). 
140 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 NWRS (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 141

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; contributes to the 

Refuge System mission, addresses 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 Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife believe 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. 
142 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Public Involvement 

Plan: 

Broad long-term guidance for involving the public in the comprehensive 

planning process. 

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 and Secretary, 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. 
Appendices 143

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). 

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). 
144 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 145

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

BCC Birds of Conservation Concern 

BRT Biological Review Team 

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DU Ducks Unlimited 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EE Environmental Education 

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 

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) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 
146 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 147

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. 

Environment Canada. 2006. North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 

Accessed online at: http://www.qc.ec.gc.ca/faune/sauvagine/html/nawmp.html . 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

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 . 
148 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 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

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/. 
Appendices 149

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. 

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 
150 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 . 
Appendices 151

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 make 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 contribute 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. 
152 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 “sir 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 expenditures, 

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 153

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. 
154 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 155

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. 
156 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. 

Fish and Wildlife Programs 

Improvement and National 

Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Act of 2000 

Recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact 

that the System would celebrate its centennial anniversary in the 

year 2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Centennial Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 

100

th 

anniversary of the Refuge System, coordinate activities to 

celebrate that event, and host a conference on the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The commission is also responsible for 

developing a long-term plan to meet the priority operations; 

maintenance, and construction needs for the Refuge System, and 

improve public use programs and facilities. 

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 U.S. crop production from harmful 

foreign species. This Act prohibits interstate and international 

transport and commerce of fish, wildlife or plant taken in violation of 

domestic or foreign laws. It regulates the introduction to America 

of foreign species into new locations. 
Appendices 157

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 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. 

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 U.S. 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-ways over Federal 

lands for pipelines. 
158 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 

Authorizes several programs to engage citizens of the U.S. in fulland/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 establishes 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 Indian lands. 

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 decision-making 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 

Establishes 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. 
Appendices 159

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act of 2000 

Establishes 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, U.S. 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 

This Act 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 fees for public 

uses. 

Partnerships for Wildlife Act 

of 1992 

Establishes 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 the 

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. 
160 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 U.S. It requires the 

Secretary of each military department to use trained professionals 

to manage the wildlife and fishery resource 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. 
Appendices 161

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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) 

programs within the Department of Interior and Agriculture. Within 

the Service, YCC participants perform many tasks on refuges, fish 

hatcheries, and research stations. 
162 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 the archaeological or historic 

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.” 

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 of 

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. 
Appendices 163

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

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 CCP 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 

U.S. 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. 

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). 
164 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

EXECUTIVE ORDERS DESCRIPTIONS 

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. 
Appendices 165

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. 
166 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, to reduce and minimize conflicts 

and wildlife disturbance. 
Appendices 167

y Host annual youth fishing day during National Fishing Week or National 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 

program. 

y Hire a park ranger that 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. 
168 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 169

V. Appropriate Use Determinations 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Bicycling k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
170 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Commercial Services k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed. 
Appendices 171

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Commercial Fishing k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
172 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Research k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 173

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Camping k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
174 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Rights-of-way k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
Appendices 175

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge k 

Use: Forest Management – Commercial Timber Harvest k

This form is not required for wildlife-dependent recreational uses, take regulated by the State, or uses already described 

in a refuge CCP or step-down management plan approved after October 9, 1997. 

Decision Criteria: YES NO

(a) Do we have jurisdiction over the use? X 

(b) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations (Federal, State, tribal, and local)? X 

(c) Is the use consistent with applicable executive orders and Department and Service policies? X 

(d) Is the use consistent with public safety? X 

(e) Is the use consistent with goals and objectives in an approved management plan or other 

document? 

X 

(f) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use or is this the first time the use has 

been proposed? 

X 

(g) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? X 

(h) Will this be manageable in the future within existing resources? X 

(i) Does the use contribute to the public’s understanding and appreciation of the refuge’s natural 

or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge’s natural or cultural resources? 

X 

(j) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

or reducing the potential to provide quality (see section 1.6D, 603 FW 1, for description), 

compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation into the future? 

X 

Where we do not have jurisdiction over the use [“no” to (a)], there is no need to evaluate it further as we cannot control the 

use. Uses that are illegal, inconsistent with existing policy, or unsafe [“no” to (b), (c), or (d)] may not be found appropriate. 

If the answer is “no” to any of the other questions above, we will generally not allow the use. 

If indicated, the refuge manager has consulted with State fish and wildlife agencies. Yes _X_ No ___

When the refuge manager finds the use appropriate based on sound professional judgment, the refuge manager must justify 

the use in writing on an attached sheet and obtain the refuge supervisor’s concurrence. 

Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary conclusion is that the proposed use is: 

 Not Appropriate __ ___ Appropriate __X___

Refuge Manager:____________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

If found to be Not Appropriate, the refuge supervisor does not need to sign concurrence if the use is a new use. 

If an existing use is found Not Appropriate outside the CCP process, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

If found to be Appropriate, the refuge supervisor must sign concurrence. 

Refuge Supervisor:___________________________________________ Date:_____________________ 

A compatibility determination is required before the use may be allowed.
176 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 177

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: 

Several uses were evaluated to determine their compatibility with the mission of the Refuge System 

and the purposes of the refuge: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and interpretation, bicycling, commercial services, commercial fishing, 

research, camping, rights-of-way, and forest management – commercial timber harvest. 

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 mange 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 

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 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, 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. 
178 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Historical Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (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 USFWS 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, 

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. 
Appendices 179

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 hunt able 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. 

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: 
180 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

 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 the 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. 

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. 

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 181

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 harvest 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 

restricted to Wednesday and Saturdays only during the month of February and non toxic shot is 

required when hunting snipe. 
182 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 diseaseinduced 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 

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 
Appendices 183

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, raccoons and opossums 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. 
184 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. 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 1000 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 has been 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 185

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 reoccuring 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 National Wildlife Refuge System 

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. 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
186 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: Fishing 

Fishing has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act and is a traditional use on the refuge. Additionally, the Waccamaw NWR 

FEIS 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. 

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: 

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 
Appendices 187

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. 

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 Fisherman 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). 
188 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:

 

 

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 FTE 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. 
Appendices 189

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 fund 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. 

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. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 
190 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

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. 
Appendices 191

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. 

Waccamaw NWR has partnered with the South Eastern 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. 
192 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 wildlife-dependent 

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. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date 
Appendices 193

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, and would 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 level 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. 

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). 
194 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 

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. 
Appendices 195

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. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

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 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 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 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. 
196 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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: 

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 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. If refuge lakes are acquired or developed, 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 operations 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, 
Appendices 197

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. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Commercial Fishing 

Commercial fishing from the creeks and rivers that bisect the refuge has been a historic use on the 

refuge well before its establishment. The commercial fishing activities that have historically occurred 

throughout the refuge include fishing with large gill nets, hoop nets, traps, trotlines, and set hooks, all 

of which require fastening fishing implements to woody vegetation that is part of the refuge. Species 

most often targeted include American shad, American eel, rough fish (bowfin, gar), and blue and 

flathead catfish. These activities are allowed under a South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources commercial harvest permit and all State-approved commercial fishing methods will be 

allowed on refuge lands. 

 

Availability of Resources: Law enforcement officers are required to ensure that commercial 

fisherman adhere to State and Federal laws which regulate commercial fishing in State waters. For 

instance, some water areas may be closed seasonally to commercial harvest. Special State 

regulations, such as bait, hook size, permit identification, and time of day for commercial activities, 

must be adhered to. Currently, refuge law enforcement routinely patrols areas where commercial 

fishing occurs in conjunction with other public uses and presently there are no significant additional 

costs to the refuge. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Inherent impacts result from the operation of motorized boats in the 

aquatic environments, which include motor exhaust, disturbance to wildlife, turbidity of the water, and 

alteration of the river and creek bottoms. In addition, trotlines, traps, nets, and set hooks that have 

been abandoned or moved by storms continue to catch and kill many organisms. The level of 

recreational fishing from the shore and from boats is steadily increasing. At some point, direct 

competition will occur between the recreational and commercial fishing efforts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

y Commercial fishing shall be permitted only in the areas open to the public. 

y Seasonal or permanent closures in certain areas may be imposed on commercial fishing if the 

level of use becomes excessive, conflicts occur with other users engaged in priority wildlifedependent recreation, or wildlife impacts occur. 
198 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

y A commercial freshwater fishing license must be in possession at all times. 

y All State freshwater and saltwater regulations must be strictly adhered to during all 

commercial fishing operations. 

y Set hooks are prohibited on Big Bull Creek. 

y All set hooks must display the owners name and address. 

Justification: The refuge recognizes the family dependence on commercial fishing over the history 

of this local area. Many of the commercial fishing activities on the refuge occur in State waters and 

are sanctioned by the State. The refuge can only regulate fishing on isolated ponds, oxbow lakes, 

and standing water bodies that cannot be accessed by boat. Refuge regulations can, however, 

address specific commercial fishing practices that use vegetation or structures located on refuge 

lands to fasten fishing implements to trotlines, set hooks, nets, or traps. In order to allow a long 

tradition of family businesses and to not place undo hardship on these families and their businesses, 

the refuge has developed a policy that is fair and equitable to the commercial fishing industry. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

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 2005 b). 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. 
Appendices 199

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 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005 b). 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: 

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 including commercial fishing. 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 expand camping 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. 
200 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Availability of Resources: Presently, there are very few administrative costs to providing camping on 

a very limited basis as a support amenity for volunteers. Refuge law enforcement routinely patrols for 

illegal camping and the volunteers assist the refuge in litter clean up that is a result of years of 

irresponsible camping by illegal campers. The refuge manager and law enforcement officer coordinate 

the special use permits, monitor compliance, and ensure the conservation project is accomplished. The 

refuge’s operating budget is adequate to sustain this program at the current level of use. 

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. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Applicants must obtain a special use permit from 

the refuge. This use must have a conservation basis supporting the missions of the Service and 

Refuge System, the purposes and goals of the refuge, and the six priority public uses of the Refuge 

System. A conservation project assisting the refuge must be a part of the requirements. A temporary, 

portable sanitary system must be brought in by the campers and in place to support the activity. 

Justification: Many of the historic camp sites throughout the refuge are in remote locations which 

limits access, consequently lessening interest by the general public for volunteer conservation 

programs. Litter will always remain a problem on Waccamaw NWR and habitat degradation will 

increase unless annual litter sweeps occur. By allowing limited and very controlled camping on the 

refuge, refuge volunteers have increased to a level where the refuge can maintain litter levels at a 

sustainable level. Therefore, as long as the impacts are minimized and the refuge has adequate 

funds and staff to support this activity, it could continue. 

Mandatory 10-year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: Rights-of-way 

In 1997, Waccamaw NWR was established and with this establishment, a 49,800-acre acquisition 

boundary was designated for future land acquisition purposes. In 2001, the acquisition boundary was 

expanded through a minor expansion to 54,475 acres. At the time of refuge establishment, there 

were two existing electrical transmission line rights-of-way and three existing sewer line rights-of-way 

in place within the acquisition boundary. In addition to these existing rights-of-way, one water line 

right-of-way was under construction within an existing electrical transmission line right-of-way, which 

bisected the first tract of land to be acquired by the refuge. The refuge completed an environmental 

action statement and determined that because the water line was being installed within an existing 

right-of-way, and that all wetland habitats would be restored immediately after installation, this rightof-way was consistent with a categorical exclusion. 
Appendices 201

In addition to existing public water and sewer utility rights-of-way, there were several county, State, or 

Federal road rights-of-way that bisected the acquisition boundary at the time of refuge establishment. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service addressed road replacement and/or upgrades and maintenance to 

existing roads in the Waccamaw NWR Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1997). Within the Waccamaw NWR Final Environmental Impact Statement, an agreement 

between the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Appendix V) was developed specifically addressing existing road projects and future allowances for 

rights-of-way associated with these specific road projects. 

Availability of Resources: All of the existing rights-of-way that bisect lands owned or leased by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service as part of Waccamaw NWR are maintained and managed by the authorized party 

responsible for each particular right-of-way. With all but one right-of-way, the refuge still maintains 

ownership of the lands within the rights-of-way and refuge specific laws and regulations apply to all refuge 

visitors. The addition of any new rights-of-way will have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Depending on location, size, frequency of disturbance, as well as 

function, design and purpose of each right-of-way, direct and/or indirect impacts to wildlife habitats 

can vary significantly. Large rights-of-way can fragment habitat by altering forest or plant structure as 

well as impact hydrology and wetland functions. Road rights-of-way can have numerous direct 

impacts, including creating physical barriers to seasonal migration of many species of wildlife. 

Electrical transmission lines can cause avian mortality though collisions, and/or electrical shock 

generally associated with nesting or roosting on electrical lines. Because all of the existing rights-ofway within the acquisition boundary pre-existed the refuge, many of these impacts are beyond the 

refuge’s control unless a change in use or new construction occurs. At that time, the refuge will work 

with the company/agency responsible for the right-of-way to avoid and minimize potential impacts. 

Determination (check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The maintenance and management of existing 

rights-of-way should be continued in a manner that will minimize direct and indirect impacts to refuge 

wildlife and habitats. Use of pesticides/herbicides and other vegetation management should be 

consistent with refuge policies and Service regulations. Pesticides will be applied only when a Pesticide 

Use Proposal has been approved for that chemical. Pesticide Use Proposals will be developed annually 

in accordance with current Service policy. During utility infrastructure repairs or replacement, close 

coordination must be maintained between the refuge and the responsible company/agency. 

Justification: Because all of the existing rights-of-way within the acquisition boundary pre-existed the 

refuge, many of these impacts are beyond the refuge’s control unless a change in use or new construction 

occurs. At that time, the refuge will work with the company/agency responsible for the right-of-way to avoid 

and minimize potential impacts. As more lands are acquired by the refuge, more rights-of-way may be 

acquired. The refuge will continue to coordinate with the company/agency responsible for management of 

the right-of-way to ensure that measures are in place to reduce impacts to wildlife and habitat. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
202 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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. 
Appendices 203

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. 

Determination (Check one below): 

 Use is not compatible 

X Use is compatible with the following stipulations 

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. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

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. 
204 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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> 

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. 
Appendices 205

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. 

Public Review and Comment: 

These compatibility determinations are being made available for public review and comment in 

conjunction with the public comment period for the Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. 
206 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations: 

Signature: 

 Refuge Manager Date 

Review: 

 Regional Compatibility Coordinator Date 

Review: 

 Refuge Supervisor Date 

Concurrence: 

 Regional Chief 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Southeast Region 

Date 
Appendices 207

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, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: WACCAMAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN

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 Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (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. 
208 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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 
Appendices 209

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 
210 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Location map of Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 211

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. 
212 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 
Appendices 213

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”. 

____________________________ ________________________ 

Signature (originating station) Date

____________________________

Title
214 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

IX. Reviewing Ecological Services Office Evaluation: 

A. Concurrence ______ Nonconcurrence _______

B. Formal consultation required _______

C. Conference required _______

D. Informal conference required ________

E. Remarks (attach additional pages as needed):

_____________________________ __________________________

Signature Date

_____________________________ __________________________ 

 Title Office 
Appendices 215

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, 
216 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

 

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 8). 

Both of these islands are located in the Pee Dee River. 

Table 8. 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 8) 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 
Appendices 217

ability to accomplish other resource management objectives, these impacts would be fully described 

and evaluated in the wilderness study report. 

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. 
218 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 8. Bull Island Wilderness Study Area on Waccamaw NWR 
Appendices 219

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 
220 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 221

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 
222 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 223

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 
224 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 225

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
226 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 227

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
228 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 229

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
230 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 231

X. Budget Requests 

 

Budget requests will be included in the final CCP. 

 
232 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 233

XI. List of Preparers 

Karen Bashears, 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