DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

 

SANTEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

Clarendon County, South Carolina 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Southeast Region 

Atlanta, Georgia 

July 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

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

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

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

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

Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 19

Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 19

Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21

Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................22

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 22

Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 23

Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 24

Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 24

Climate .............................................................................................................................. 24

Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 25

Soils .................................................................................................................................. 26

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 27

Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 27

Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27

Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 28

Wildlife ...............................................................................................................................29

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

Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 32

Fishing ...............................................................................................................................33

Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 33

Wildlife Watching Activities ............................................................................................... 34

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

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

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

Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 38

III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 43

Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 43

Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 43

Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 43

Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 44

Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 44

Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 45

Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review ........................................................................... 45
ii Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 47

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 47

Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 48

Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 48

Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 71

V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 103

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 103

Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 103

Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 103

Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 103

Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 104

Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 104

Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 105

Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 105

Partnership/ Volunteers Opportunities ..................................................................................... 106

Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 107

Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 107

Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 108

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 109

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 109

Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 109

Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 110

Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 110

Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 111

Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 111

Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 112

II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 113

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 115

Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 115

Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 115

Alternative A: (No-Action) Continue Current Management ............................................. 115

Alternative B: Targeted Habitat Management Primarily for Waterfowl ............................ 116

Alternative C: Wildlfe and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Action) ....................................... 116

Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 117

Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 118

Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ............................................... 133

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 135

Overview .................................................................................................................................. 135

Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 135

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 135

Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 135
Table of Contents iii

Other Management ......................................................................................................... 136

Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................136

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 136

Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 137

Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 137

Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 137

Alternative A - (No-Action) Continue Current Management ............................................ 137

Alternative B – Targeted Habitat Management Primarily For Waterfowl ......................... 138

Alternative C – Wildlfe and Habitat Diversity (proposed alternative) ............................... 138

Comparison of Effects from Implementing Alternatives ............................................................ 138

Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 139

Water Quality from Soil Disturbance, Use of Herbicides, Farming and Forest 

Management ................................................................................................................... 139

Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 146

Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 146

User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 147

Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 147

Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 147

Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 148

Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 148

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

Facilities, and Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 151

Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 153

Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 154

V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 155

Overview ................................................................................................................................... 155

Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 155

Biological Review Team .................................................................................................. 155

Visitor Services Review Team ........................................................................................ 156

Other Contributors ........................................................................................................... 156

APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 157

APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 167

APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 169

APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 183

Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 183

APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 187

APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 199

APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 225

APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 229
iv Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 231

Birds ......................................................................................................................................... 231

Mammals .................................................................................................................................. 239

Amphibians .............................................................................................................................. 240

Reptiles .................................................................................................................................... 241

Fish .......................................................................................................................................... 242

Plants ....................................................................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 251

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 251

Maintenance Management System Needs .............................................................................. 252

APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 253
Table of Contents v

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Santee National Wildlife Refuge Location Map ................................................................... 10

Figure 2. Bluff Unit Forestland ............................................................................................................ 11

Figure 3. Bluff Unit Impounds ............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 4. Cuddo Unit Forestland ......................................................................................................... 13

Figure 5. Cuddo Unit Impounds .......................................................................................................... 14

Figure 6. Dingle Pond Forestland ....................................................................................................... 15

Figure 7. Dingle Pond Habitats ........................................................................................................... 16

Figure 8. Pine Island Unit Forestland .................................................................................................. 17

Figure 9. Pine Island Unit Impounds ................................................................................................... 18

Figure 10. Current organization chart for Santee NWR ...................................................................... 40

Figure 11. Proposed organizational chart for Santee NWR ................................................................ 41

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Monthly Temperature and Precipitation Data For Calendar Year 2004 ................................ 25

Table 2. Three-year summary of primary public uses - Santee NWR................................................. 36

Table 3. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 105

Table 4. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ................. 107

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Santee NWR ................................ 118

Table 6. Summary of environmental effects by alternative ............................................................... 140
vi Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1

SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

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

Santee National Wildlife Refuge (Santee 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. 
2 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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 (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, which 

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

fish and wildlife agencies. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM 

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

System Improvement Act of 1997 is: 

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

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

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

generations of Americans.” 

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

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

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

complete CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, help 

guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education 

programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines for 

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

managed to: 

y Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System; 

y Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge; 

y Consider the needs of wildlife first; 

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

the refuge system; 

y Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

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. 

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 (i.e., 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 species 

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

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

generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7 

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

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

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

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

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

Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana)—the 

same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that communities near 

refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per 

refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, 

surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income 

(Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data). 

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

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

than $22 million. 

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

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

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

management with broad participation from others. 

The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs are to be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, 

state, and private landowners and that the Service develops and implements a process to ensure an 

opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs. 

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 

compatibility standards, and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1). 
4 Santee 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. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and management of the Santee NWR are provided in Appendix C. 

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

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

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

between Santee NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Public Service Authority, South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and private landowners. 

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 

Improvement Act. Those mandates are to: 

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

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

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

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

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

y Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes. 

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

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

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

planning and management. 

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy 

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

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

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

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

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

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

managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological 

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

judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an 

ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside 

and outside the Service. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

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 the following: 

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

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

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

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

approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national 

bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S. 

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

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

an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to 

return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada 

and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico 

joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state 

and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies and many individuals, 

all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetlandassociated species and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional 

levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North 

American landscape. 

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

Southeastern Coastal Plain (Bird Conservation Region 27) physiographic area represents a 

scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of 

healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have 

been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. 

This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where 

conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and 

peripheral populations. 

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

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

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

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

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

programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face. 
6 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

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

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

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

abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas, 

marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are 

federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping 

cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan 

is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures. 

RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY 

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

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

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

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

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

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) developed a “Vision for the Future” 

in 1994, when various state conservations agencies were merged. This vision guides management 

actions of the SCDNR. The basic framework follows. 

Mission of the SCDNR: 

Our mission is to serve as the principal advocate for and steward of South Carolina’s natural 

resources. 

Vision of the SCDNR: 

Our vision for South Carolina is an enhanced quality of life for present and future generations through 

improved understanding, wise use, and safe enjoyment of healthy, diverse, sustainable and 

accessible natural resources. 

Our vision for the SCDNR is to be a trusted and respected leader in natural resource protection and 

management, by consistently making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state’s 

natural resources and its people. 

Core Values of the SCDNR: 

Our actions will be guided at all times by the following shared internal values: 

y Teamwork - We will accomplish our mission and achieve our vision through goal-focused, 

cooperative efforts that rely on effective internal and external communication and partnering. 

y Integrity - We will lead by example, ensuring that our standards are high, and our actions are 

fair, accountable, and above reproach. 

y Dedication - We will maintain a steadfast commitment to the state’s natural resources and our 

agency’s mission. 

y Excellence - We will always do our best, and continuously strive to improve our processes, 

activities, policies, operations, and products. 

y Service - We will provide quality service that meets the needs and exceeds the expectations 

of the public and our own employees. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Guiding Principles of the SCDNR: 

In carrying out our mission, we will continuously strive to: 

y Enhance public and private partnerships and open communications necessary to 

cooperatively protect and manage the state’s natural resources; 

y Ensure that agency decisions and actions regarding the state’s natural resources are based 

on a balance of scientific knowledge, strong conservation ethics, objectivity, fairness, and the 

needs and interests of the public; 

y Ensure the safety and well-being of the public in their use and enjoyment of the state’s natural 

resources; 

y Ensure the continuation and effective management of hunting, fishing, boating, and other 

natural resources-related activities; 

y Evaluate and improve agency functions and procedures to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, 

and accountability, emphasizing quality service to all customers, internal and external; and 

y Foster an organizational culture that emphasizes effective leadership at all levels; a diverse, 

well-trained, and professional workforce; and an enjoyable and fulfilling work environment. 

Strategy of the SCDNR: 

To more effectively accomplish our mission and attain our vision, the DNR will work diligently toward 

achieving the following overarching goals and objectives during the next five years: 

1. Enhance the effectiveness of the agency in addressing natural resource issues. 

a. Broaden strategies to address the impacts of population growth, habitat loss, 

environmental alterations, overuse and other challenges faced in protecting, 

enhancing and managing diverse natural resources; 

b. More effectively develop, coordinate, and integrate resource-specific conservation and 

management plans, research, and policies within the agency; and 

c. Expand sound application of science for natural resource management and decisionmaking. 

2. Improve the general operations of the agency. 

a. Develop and implement department-wide operational plans that clearly connect all 

agency activities to specific goals and annual accountability reports; 

b. Fully develop the agency’s regional hub system; 

c. Continue to develop and maintain modern, well-integrated information systems and 

technology throughout the agency; 

d. Enhance and maintain effective communications throughout all levels of the agency; 

e. Maximize efficiency of internal operations and business procedures; and 

f. Aggressively pursue increases in revenue, state and federal funding, and identify new 

funding sources to support accomplishment of our mission. 

3. Create an agency environment that supports a dedicated, professional workforce. 

a. Implement comprehensive workforce planning that is consistent with agency priorities; 

b. Expand consistent, agency-wide employee training, retention, and compensation 

efforts; 

c. Implement initiatives that improve employee morale and teamwork, instill a sense of 

pride in the agency, and emphasize the importance of its mission. 

4. Enhance public trust and confidence in the agency. 

a. Foster more effective communications, outreach, and partnering with the public and 

state legislature; 

b. Develop strategies that address divergent public opinion and expectations concerning 

issues related to accessibility, use, and protection of natural resources; and 
8 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

c. Optimize our customer service through regular monitoring of constituent needs, public 

opinion, and agency performance; and 

d. Enhance natural resource education to provide the public with knowledge necessary in 

making informed natural resource decisions. 

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

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

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

mission objectives where appropriate. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

II. Refuge Overview 

INTRODUCTION 

Santee NWR was established in 1942, and is in Clarendon County, South Carolina (Figure 1). The 

15,000-acre refuge lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and consists of mixed hardwoods, mixed pine 

hardwoods, pine plantations, marsh, croplands, old fields, ponds, impoundments, and open water. 

This tremendous diversity of habitats supports many kinds of wildlife. 

A myriad of wildlife species inhabit the varied landscape of Santee NWR (Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). 

During the winter months, the bald eagle and occasionally the peregrine falcon can be seen. From 

November through February, migrating waterfowl, such as mallards, pintails, teal, and wood ducks, 

along with Canada geese, are a major attraction. Throughout the year, red-tailed and red-shouldered 

hawks can be viewed soaring overhead, as can a variety of songbirds in the trees, and wild turkey. 

Birds are not the only residents of Santee NWR. The forest provides a home for white-tailed deer 

and other woodland creatures, such as raccoons, squirrels, and bobcats. The ponds and marshes 

provide a home for alligators, plus a number of other reptiles and amphibians. 

To support a large variety of wildlife species, intensive habitat management is a must. The habitat 

management programs at Santee NWR range from the very basic to complex. One of the basic 

programs is the wood duck nest box program, where nesting boxes are provided in areas that are 

lacking in available tree cavities, thus “adding to” the natural habitat. The water and marsh 

management program is more complex (Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9). Water levels are adjusted to provide 

maximum benefits for wildlife. In the impoundments and marshes different levels are used to help 

some types of vegetation to grow while controlling unwanted “pest plants.” Periodically flooded 

woodlands containing nut-producing hardwoods are food-rich and very beneficial to waterfowl. 

The management of forest and croplands is also critical. Refuge staff and contracted private farmers 

plant corn, wheat, millet, nutgrass, or other small grain crops. These crops attract many species of 

wildlife and provide an excellent source of high-energy foods for wintering waterfowl. Refuge forests 

are maintained with management techniques, ranging from prescribed burning to selective thinning. 

Habitat management is a complicated process but well worth the effort since it provides an abundant 

amount of food, cover, and shelter for a wide range of animals. 

Santee NWR also contains areas of cultural and local significance. The 420-acre Dingle Pond unit 

consists primarily of a Carolina Bay and is a designated public use natural area. A historic site on the 

refuge that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson 

area. The mound itself is more than 3,000 years old and artifacts of the Santee NWR have been dated 

to 3,500 years ago. During the Revolutionary War, the British kept a garrison of about 100 soldiers at 

the mound. This gave them strategic control over the Santee River and a major road connecting 

Charleston to Camden. The garrison was eventually captured by American revolutionary forces under 

General Francis Marion. 
10 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 1. Santee National Wildlife Refuge Location Map 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

Figure 2. Bluff Unit Forestland 
12 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 3. Bluff Unit Impounds 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

Figure 4. Cuddo Unit Forestland 
14 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 5. Cuddo Unit Impounds 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

Figure 6. Dingle Pond Forestland 
16 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 7. Dingle Pond Habitats 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

Figure 8. Pine Island Unit Forestland 
18 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Figure 9. Pine Island Unit Impounds 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE 

Santee NWR is in Clarendon County in the upper coastal plain region of South Carolina. The refuge was 

established on January 1, 1942, primarily to alleviate the loss of natural waterfowl and other wildlife 

habitat caused by the construction of hydro-electric power and navigational projects on the Santee and 

Cooper Rivers. Total refuge acreage is 15,095. Except for approximately 4,400 acres of fee title land, the 

refuge is superimposed on lands and waters of the 110,000-acre Lake Marion Reservoir, which is 

administered by the South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA). 

A new 50-year lease agreement between the Service and the SCPSA became effective in 1975. This 

lease completely altered the water boundary and changed much of the land boundary from the 

original lease. Provisions in the new lease permitted the posting of mutually agreed upon 

boundaries, which would become official refuge boundaries after the lines were surveyed. Both land 

and water boundary surveys were completed in 1985 and finalized approved maps were received 

from SCPSA in 1986. 

Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits and recreational opportunities served by the lands and 

waters of Santee NWR, the Service administratively designated Santee NWR in 1941, under the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Refuge Recreation Act, thus outlining the primary purposes 

of these lands and waters: 

”... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 

16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“...to conserve and protect migratory birds...and other species of wildlife that are 

listed...as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or develop 

adequate wildlife habitat.” 

16 U.S.C. 715i (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

“... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the 

protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or 

threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... 

real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and 

conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge 

Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended). 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

y Audubon Designated Important Bird Area 

y Refuge Designated Waterfowl Sanctuary 

y Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson is listed on the National Register of Historic Places 

ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 

An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (e.g., people, plants, animals, 

and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (e.g., 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 (e.g., a single stand of aspen) or large (e.g., an 

entire watershed, including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships). 
20 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation. We realize that we are not going to 

achieve conservation within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge; that we are not going to restore 

aquatic resources within a national fish hatchery; and that listing an endangered species is not going to 

conserve the ecosystem. All of these are interconnected. If we disturb or manage one, all of the others 

will be affected. The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources 

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

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

Comprising one of the 53 ecosystems around the country, the Service’s Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee 

Ecosystem (SSPD Ecosystem) includes the entire State of South Carolina, as well as the 

northeastern portion of Georgia, and the southwestern portion of North Carolina. The SSPD 

Ecosystem encompasses approximately 52,500 square miles and is divided into four main 

physiographic provinces, including the Blue Ridge Mountains, Piedmont, Carolina Sandhills, and 

Coastal Plain provinces. Two major types of river systems traverse these provinces. Alluvial rivers 

originate in the mountains and piedmont and include the Great Pee Dee, Savannah, Congaree, 

Wateree, Catawba, and Santee. Blackwater rivers originate in the coastal plain and include the 

Cooper, Ashley, Edisto, Salkahatchie, Combahee, Ashepoo, New, Four Holes, Little Pee Dee, 

Wacammaw, Black, and Lumber. The SSPD Ecosystem includes several important areas with 

protective designations, including 14 national wildlife refuges, 6 national forests, 4 national fish 

hatcheries, 2 national estuarine research reserves, and more than 50 state parks. 

A considerable acreage of tidal freshwater swamp and marsh are associated with the major river 

systems. In addition, the SSPD Ecosystem contains numerous palustrine wetlands that are isolated 

or contiguous with freshwater stream and river systems. The river basins drain into an extensive 

estuarine network of saltwater marsh with tidal creeks, inlets, and sounds intermixed with barrier, sea, 

and marsh islands. The estuarine system provides tremendous nursery grounds for commercially 

important fish and shellfish and fuels the base of the marine food chain. 

The SSPD Ecosystem supports large populations of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, game and 

non-game mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and anadromous fish. The habitats within the SSPD 

Ecosystem fall within the Atlantic Flyway. Forage, refuge, cover, and staging areas for a variety of 

migrating waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, raptors, and shorebirds are provided. The several 

species of flora and fauna listed as federally threatened or endangered in the SSPD Ecosystem are 

indicative of the development pressures and habitat losses incurred. Approximately 37 animal and 31 

plant species are listed as federally threatened or endangered within the SSPD Ecosystem. Numerous 

species of plants and animals are candidates for listing. Several federally protected species depend on 

the SSPD Ecosystem for some portion of their life cycle (e.g., eastern cougar, West Indian manatee, 

red wolf, five species of whales, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big-eared bat, Indiana bat, 

wood stork, piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman's warbler, eastern indigo snake, 

loggerhead and other sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, Carolina heelsplitter, and many plant species). 

The greatest problem facing the SSPD Ecosystem is the loss of habitat through direct destruction and 

fragmentation, as well as through impacts from human activities. The predominant stresses for the 

SSPD Ecosystem are: population growth, tourism, agriculture, silviculture, shipping ports, water 

channelization, urbanization, aquifer depletion, fire suppression, exotic species, non-point source 

pollution, and point source pollution. The actions of the SSPD Ecosystem Team are guided by two 

categories: trust resources and management issues. The trust resources include: migratory birds, 

anadromous fish, endangered species, and marine mammals. The management issues focus on: 

habitat protection and management, habitat restoration, contaminants, regulatory compliance, law 

enforcement, and biodiversity. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

To address these threats, the management issues, and the needs of the trust resources, the SSPD 

Ecosystem Team pursues a mix of objectives under the following seven goals. 

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 and endangered species 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. 

6. To protect, enhance, and manage interjurisdictional and diadromous fish populations 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 an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and 

implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement of 

SWG was 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 implementing 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 
22 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 (e.g., 

terrestrial and marine) organized within 5 ecoregions, as well as 13 ecobasins, which characterize the 

freshwater aquatic habitats of the state. 

Eight categories of conservation strategies or conservation action areas were developed: Education and 

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

Management; Regulatory Actions; Survey and Research Needs; and Urban and Developing Lands. 

Within each conservation action area, 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 nongovernmental. 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 conservation action areas 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 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, over 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. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

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 the state’s fish 

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

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

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

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

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

already, or soon would 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. 
24 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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

flooding throughout the entire SSPD Ecosystem, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in 

comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an 

enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species. 

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

impacted due to atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater 

inflow include erosion, sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe 

weather disturbances. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

prevents recreational use. 

Various species of exotic wildlife and fish also flourish in this southern coastal climate. Animals like 

feral hogs have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations. 

PHYSICAL RESOURCES 

CLIMATE 

South Carolina has a humid subtropical climate. Average annual precipitation is about 49 inches 

per year with the coast receiving 48 to 50 inches, while the area of the Blue Ridge Mountains 

receives up to 80 inches per year (Table 1). Average January temperatures range from 50 

degrees near the coast to 38 degrees in the mountains; July temperatures average 81 near the 

coast and 71 in the mountains. The growing season ranges from 200 to 290 growing days. 

During the winter months, the state is typically under a continental air mass that is cold and dry, 

while during summer, the Bermuda high pressure cell in the Atlantic drives much of the weather. 

Heat and humidity prevail when clockwise circulation around the Bermuda high brings a southerly 

flow of air from the Gulf of Mexico, a pattern that becomes rather stable as the mountains in the 

northwestern part of the state block any cool fronts which might arrive from the north. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

Table 1. Monthly temperature and precipitation data for 2004 

Month Temperature Precipitation (Inches) 

High Low 

January 78 19 3.28 

February 76 25 7.50 

March 84 28 0.79 

April 92 31 1.94 

May 96 42 5.38 

June 98 64 8.79 

July 100 67 4.73 

August 98 53 7.81 

September 92 54 5.72 

October 88 37 2.07 

November 85 29 2.42 

December 80 19 2.03 

 TOTAL 52.46 

GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY 

The Santee Limestone underlies a large portion of the South Carolina Coastal Plain Region but is 

exposed at the surface only along the Santee River valley and its surrounding counties. The 

most spectacular example of Karst topography (the term given to landscapes which are sculpted 

primarily by groundwater activity) is located in Santee State Park along the western shore of Lake 

Marion. The park contains sinkholes, caves, disappearing streams, solution valleys, and sinkhole 

lakes. Park naturalists conduct tours of the caves during times when visits will not bother the 

native bat population. Rock samples, many of which contain fossils, may be found outside of the 

park boundaries on both sides of Lake Marion. The limestone itself is composed of a mixture of 

limey sands, lime muds, and shell-hash layers. Accumulations of oyster beds, from the shallow 

continental shelf located here 40 million years ago, are found in several places within the major 

sinkhole area of Santee State Park. 
26 Santee 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: 

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 

The 110,600-acre Lake Marion was created from 1939-42 as a hydroelectric project by the SCPSA, 

and is commonly known as "Santee Cooper." (All references to “Santee Cooper” in this Draft 

CCP/EA refer to this hydroelectric project.) Being in the lower portion of the Santee River basin, it is 

one of the largest drainages on the east coast. Lake Marion and its companion reservoir, Lake 

Moultrie, are collectively called the Santee–Cooper Lake System. The Santee River begins at the 

confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers, approximately 11 miles upriver from the lake. Most 

of the water coming into the lake is from upstream “blackwater” drainage (Tufford and Mckellar 1999) 

and from seasonal precipitation patterns. 

There is an average annual rainfall of 43 inches, which mostly occurs in June, July, August, and 

September. With the creation of Lake Marion, the extensive flood-plain and bottomland forest that 

existed along the Santee River were drowned. The lake is more shallow (average 7 feet) in the upper 

stream (i.e., Santee Swamp) areas and deepens (average 16 feet) at the lower dam area of the lake. 

The lake becomes wider and deeper below the I-95 Highway, having more lacusturine characteristics. 

Santee Cooper manages the water levels in Lake Marion. Lake levels are typically high in summer to 

provide for hydro-power and recreation, and low in winter to provide flood storage. These seasonal 

levels are contrary to what is needed for good water management at the Santee NWR. 

The preferred hydrological management of managed impoundments during the summer would be to 

have lower, drawn-down conditions to encourage moist-soil vegetation and also tree growth and 

productivity in greentree reservoirs. Gravity drainage from the impoundments is slow or non-existent 

when the lake levels are high during the summer months. Under these conditions, pumping must be 

used to maintain lower water levels in the impoundments. Pumping costs and maintenance can be 

high where permeable dikes allow water to seep back into the impoundments from the lake. 

During the fall and winter, low lake levels are typical and may inhibit pumping when the water is 

needed. Under these conditions, the existing pump for the Bluff Unit often cannot provide water for 

late summer/early fall flooding of the units. If the elevation of the pump’s intake pipe is above the 

lake level (often at such times) no water is available for pumping. Permeability of soils and dikes also 

inhibit water retention, particularly at the Bluff Unit. However, lack of maintenance of the dike and 

water control systems on the Cuddo, Pine Island, and Dingle Pond units will require the refuge to 

conduct a comprehensive wetland management plan to upgrade and repair these systems. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

AIR QUALITY 

Clarendon 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 were no exceedances of NAAQS for these parameters. Clarendon County 

Air Quality Index in 2003 was considered very good and one of the best overall in the State of South 

Carolina (Scorecard 2005). 

WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY 

Limestone, found in the coastal plain of South Carolina, is exposed in the Santee area near Lake 

Marion, allowing the formation of features characteristic of Karst topography. This porous limestone 

is the aquifer for much of the lower part of the state. Because of the rapid flow of groundwater 

through the Karst system around Santee, the aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination. Quality 

groundwater supplies for home use and farm irrigation could easily be lost if proper conservation 

measures are not taken. Loss of water quality would also have a significant impact on the entire 

Santee community, including Santee NWR and Santee State Park. As recreation and tourism 

become an even greater economic resource to this region, a readily available source of groundwater 

is a critical requirement. The public must become aware of the special properties of limestone rock 

aquifers and protect such areas from pollution. Measures must be taken so that hazardous waste is 

not placed in a location that could affect major underground water supplies. 

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The coastal plain is the largest ecoregion in South Carolina. Land elevation in this ecoregion begins at 

270 to 300 feet at the inland boundary with the sandhills and reaches nearly to sea level at the coastal 

zone boundary. From a land use standpoint, the coastal plain consists of two significantly different 

landscapes. An inner belt is predominantly composed of cropland, with forests limited to small patches 

and hardwood “stringers” along creeks. An outer belt, sometimes called the “flatwoods” is primarily pinedominated forest. Bisecting both belts are major floodplains, which are largely forested. 

Seven major habitat types are defined for the coastal plain, of which six are either unique to the 

region or reach their greatest extent there. The predominant habitat types are: (1) grassland and 

early successional habitats, (2) pine woodland, and (3) river bottoms. Although the remaining 

types are less extensive, they provide habitat diversity that is important to a number of species, 

especially wetland species. 

Grasslands or early successional fields include those with cover provided by grasses and/or weeds 

and with few, if any, trees. These sites also include managed open areas, such as meadows, 

pastures, golf courses, or expansive lawns with or without damp depressions. These fields occur 

throughout the region; more extensively in the inner “agriculture belt.” Pine woodlands include all 

pine-dominated forests throughout the ecoregion. They include tracts that occupy a variety of soil 

moisture characteristics except floodplains. The canopy is dominated by one or several species of 

pine, generally loblolly (Pinus taeda), or longleaf (Pinus palustris), depending on elevation, soil type 

and silvicultural history. Dense shrub thickets of hollies (Ilex sps.) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) 

may be found throughout stands. Finally, the river bottoms of the coastal plain include a variety of 

hardwood and hardwood-pine communities occupying the floodplains of small streams and 

infrequently flooded flats in association with streams or rivers. These flats are often characterized by 

the presence of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and occur in scattered locations on sheltered 

sites with moist soils, particularly on north-facing river bluffs and on slopes of drains and creeks. 
28 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

At Santee NWR, forest cover comprises approximately 2,320 acres with 1,230 acres of mixed 

hardwood forest and 1,090 acres of pine forest. The forest lands are divided between four 

management units, namely Bluff, Cuddo, Pine Island, and Dingle Pond. The Bluff unit totals 130 

acres of forest with 60 acres of mixed hardwoods and 70 acres of pine. The Cuddo unit contains 

approximately 1,580 acres of forest lands comprised of 880 acres of mixed hardwoods and 700 acres 

of pine. The Pine Island unit contains 510 acres of forest with 230 acres of hardwoods and 280 acres 

of pine. Dingle Pond totals 100 acres with 60 acres of hardwoods and 40 acres of pine. 

Natural pine stands are predominantly loblolly while plantation areas are primarily slash pine. Some 

longleaf and shortleaf pine is scattered throughout the four units. Most of the pine stands were 

previously farmed and were either planted with slash pine or regenerated naturally. 

Mixed hardwood stands are primarily composed of sweet gum, willow oak, black gum, white oak, 

maple, water oak, post oak, Southern red oak, swamp chestnut oak, hickory and blackjack oak. 

Generally, hardwood stands are situated in and along coves. Most of the hardwood forests were 

heavily harvested prior to the creation of Lake Marion. 

HABITAT 

Grassland, Early Successional, and Cropland Habitats 

Grasslands include early successional fields, with cover provided by grasses and/or weeds, and few, 

if any, trees. Also, managed open areas such as meadows, pastures, croplands, golf courses, or 

expansive lawns with or without damp depressions are included. Grassland occurs throughout the 

coastal plain region; but more extensively in the inner “agriculture belt.” 

Pine Woodland 

Pine woodland includes all pine-dominated forests throughout the region, including those occupying a 

variety of soil moisture characteristics except floodplains. The canopy is dominated by one or several 

species of pine, generally loblolly (Pinus taeda), or longleaf (Pinus palustris), depending on elevation, 

soil type, and silvicultural history. Dense shrub thickets of hollies (Ilex sps.) and wax myrtle (Morella 

cerifera) may be evident. Higher elevation pine woodlands have abundant grasses and herbs, 

particularly when burning is frequent. 

Sandhill Pine Woodland 

Sandhill pine woodland is a complex of xeric pine and pine-hardwood forest types adapted to sandy soils. 

They occur principally in the Sandhills but also on fluvial sand ridges in the Coastal Plain. Absent frequent 

fire, a canopy of longleaf pine and a subcanopy of turkey oak prevail interspersed with scrub oak species 

and scrub/shrub cover. Frequent burning leads to development of longleaf pine-wiregrass communities. 

Upland Forest 

Upland forests are dominated by hardwoods, primarily with oaks and hickories, and typically on fire 

suppressed upland slopes near river floodplains or between rivers and tributaries. Vegetation composition 

is similar to oak-hickory forest in the Piedmont, where it is a major vegetation type. Upland forest is rare in 

the Coastal Plain. It intergrades with river slopes and is lumped with this type for species treatments (see 

below). Representative canopy trees are: white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak 

(Quercus stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), loblolly pine (Pinus 

taeda), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Ponds and Depressions 

Ponds and depressions are a variety of permanently and semi-permanently flooded isolated freshwater 

wetlands, with open or closed canopy forest cover, including depression meadows, pond cypress ponds, 

swamp tupelo ponds, pocosins, limestone sinks, and pond pine woodlands. Landforms include natural 

and artificial ponds dominated by cypress and/or swamp tupelo, limestone sinks, and Carolina Bays. 

They occur extensively throughout the region, and more in the outer “Atlantic Coast Flatwoods” belt. 

River Bottoms 

River bottoms are hardwood-dominated woodlands with moist soils that are usually associated with 

major river floodplains and creeks. They may contain small creeks or pools and may be seasonally 

flooded. Characteristic trees include: sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), 

water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cherrybark 

oak (Quercus pagoda) and American holly (Ilex opaca). In the southern coastal counties on drier 

sites, spruce pine (Pinus glabra) may be an associate. The cypress-tupelo swamp subtype occurs on 

lower elevation sites as seasonally flooded swamps. It is usually transected by tannic-acid rivers and 

creeks and contains oxbow lakes and pools. Dominant trees are bald cypress (Taxodium distichium), 

water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp gum (Nyssa biflora), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), water 

elm (Planera aquatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum). 

River Slopes and Stream Bottoms 

River slopes and stream bottoms consist of a variety of hardwood and hardwood-pine communities, 

occupying the floodplains of small streams and infrequently flooded flats in association with streams 

or rivers. Several mixed mesophytic subtypes, characterized by the presence of American beech, 

occur in scattered locations on sheltered sites with moist soils, particularly on north-facing river bluffs 

and on slopes of drains and creeks. The calcareous cliff and marl forest subtype occurs on circumneutral soils derived from limestone or unconsolidated calcareous substrates, such as marl. 

WILDLIFE 

Mammals 

The variety of habitats at Santee NWR provide 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 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 

Many species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur within and adjacent to the refuge acquisition 

area. 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 
30 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

Lake Marion supports a wide diversity of freshwater fish. Several species of fish are associated with 

the refuge acquisition area, including fresh water, anadromous (fish that move up the rivers from the 

sea to spawn), and estuarine-dependent fish (USFWS 1997). Anadromous fish known to occur 

include the striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon, and 

shortnose sturgeon. 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 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. Baldcypress-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 area. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds

The mosaic of wetland habitats on the refuge, along with a specialized flora composition associated 

with each component, provide habitat for breeding neotropical migratory birds. This wetland and 

upland habitat diversity is important to several high-priority species, such as painted buntings, indigo 

buntings, and Swainson’s and prothonotary warblers. Additionally, the habitat mosaic represented 

within Santee NWR serves as an important migration stop for transient neotropical migratory species, 

as well as feeding, foraging, and nesting habitat for other temperate migratory and resident species. 

Waterfowl

South Carolina’s coastal plain wetlands 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. 

Santee NWR provides year-round, as well as nesting and brood rearing habitat for wood ducks. 

There is an abundance of wood ducks at the refuge and the wood duck banding program provides 

one of the best long-term records for wood ducks in the southeast. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Marsh and Wading Birds

All of the priority marshbirds that are found in the refuge acquisition area 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 Santee NWR is supported in managed 

wetland impoundments, where management techniques can provide tall emergent habitat for 

marshbirds along with providing for waterfowl. 

Nesting long-legged wading birds have plenty of available habitats, 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, yellowcrowned night heron, wood stork, and white ibis. 

Shorebirds

Shorebirds suspected or known to occur on the refuge include the killdeer, greater and lesser 

yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, common snipe, and American woodcock. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

 

Santee NWR used to be an important location for Native American culture and became strategically 

important during the Revolutionary War. Built on the Santee Indian Mound overlooking the Santee 

River, British Fort Watson controlled movement through this important transportation route. Its siege 

and eventual capture by Francis Marion and his men highlights an interesting chapter of the 

American Revolution. 

The Santee Indian Mound is a well-preserved example of flat-topped Native American ceremonial 

mounds that were once located throughout the southeastern United States. This particular mound 

was a gathering place, serving much of the central Coastal Plain of South Carolina. It served as a 

platform on which a temple could be built. The temple was constructed of upright posts through 

which small sticks were woven and then plastered with mud. The roof was thatched with straw. The 

mound probably served as a central distribution point for food and other supplies as well. These 

mounds have sometimes been mistakenly identified as burial mounds, but their shape and function 

were very different from those of burial mounds. 

Temple mounds first appeared in the Mississippi River Valley about 1000 A.D., and shortly thereafter 

became commonplace in the southeastern United States. Archaeologists theorize that the Santee 

Indian Mound was built sometime between 1200 and 1400 A.D., because it occurs along the 

easternmost extension of the region inhabited by the mound building culture. The spread of the 

mound culture coincided with the spread of large scale agriculture and trade among the Native 

American population. 

It is highly probable that the Santee Indian Mound site was once a part of the Province of 

Cofitachiqui, a Native American cultural region with its center near present-day Camden. Cofitachiqui 

was visited between 1540 and 1542 by the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto who wrote that the 

people he found around the mound site were generally healthy and taller than Europeans. The 

Province of Cofitachiqui was ruled at that time by a female priestess, a situation which was not 
32 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

uncommon in that culture. Nobody really knows why the mound builders died out over the next 

hundred years, but diseases introduced by Europeans, which are known to have killed thousands of 

Native Americans, may have played a significant role. 

During the Revolutionary War, General Francis Marion became a hero because of the unconventional 

tactics he used to win battles. One of the most famous stories about his exploits is the capture of Fort 

Watson, formerly the Santee Indian Mound, within what is now the Santee NWR. The British had 

established a fort on the mound by building a high wall around it, and this fort guarded one of the 

main roads from Charles Towne to Camden. They kept the fort closely guarded, and kept the bluff 

surrounding Fort Watson bare of trees. Marion and his brigade of southern patriots had recently 

been joined by General Light Horse Harry Lee and his Continental troops. After trying and failing to 

penetrate the wall by force, Lee requested a cannon from General Nathanael Greene, the 

commander of the Southern army in Camden. The cannon was Immediately dispatched, but 

Greene's troops lost their way and wandered around for days before finally returning to Camden 

without delivering the cannon. 

Prior to the battle, the water for Fort Watson had been taken from a nearby oxbow lake. When Marion 

and his troops arrived, their first objective was to cut off the British water supply. But while Marion and 

Lee were waiting for the cannon, they noticed that the British were digging a well at the base of the Indian 

mound. In the meantime, however, an epidemic of smallpox had broken out in Marion's camp, and many 

of the militiamen began to desert. Marion, realizing that they could not take the fort by storm, considered 

abandoning the siege. But Major Hezekiah Maham, a Continental officer, suggested building a tower 

higher than the fort. Immediately, Marion sent his horsemen to scour the neighboring plantations for axes 

so they could chop down pine saplings. Maham's tower was erected during the night. At daybreak on 

April 15, 1781, the best riflemen climbed into the crow's nest to fire on the British as they went to their well 

for water. The British immediately raised the white flag signifying surrender. Once again Francis Marion's 

ragged guerrilla troops had defeated the British in a clever, fox like manner. This episode added even 

more credence to Francis Marion's legendary nickname of "The Swamp Fox." His men, known for their 

ability to hide themselves in trees, make plates out of bark, and live for days on nothing but sweet 

potatoes and water, were greatly admired. 

SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 

In 1790, South Carolina’s total resident population numbered 249,073 people. According to data 

collected in 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of South Carolina to be 

4,147,152 people, a 3.4 percent increase from 2000. South Carolina saw a 15.1 percent population 

increase from 1990 to 2000. The average population density in this state is 133.2 people per square 

mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). 

Of the over 19 million acres of land in the state, seven percent (over 1.3 million acres) is publicly 

owned, while 93 percent (17,912,789 acres) is privately owned. The vast majority of the state is 

characterized as non-federal rural lands (non-federal referring to all lands in private, municipal, state 

or tribal ownership). Land use on non-federal lands in the state, which total 18,115,500 acres, is 

primarily forestland. South Carolina saw a twenty percent increase in developed lands between 1992 

and 1997 (USDA 2000) and continues to see similar rates of conversion in land use. 

As of 2002, there were approximately 4.85 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina 

(USDA 2003). In 1982, there were approximately 5.5 million acres in agricultural production, which 

amounts to a 12 percent drop in twenty years. The average farm in South Carolina was approximately 

197 acres in size in 2002; up two percent from an average of 193 acres in 1997 (USDA 2003). The 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

market value of agricultural products sold in 2003 totaled over $1.6 billion with top outputs in poultry, 

tobacco, and greenhouse/nursery production. Counties in South Carolina with the highest agricultural 

yields in 2002 were Lexington, Kershaw, York, Dillon and Orangeburg (USDA 2003). 

South Carolina is rich in non-fuel raw minerals with a total of over $506 million produced in 1997 (US 

Department of the Interior 1998). The most common minerals produced in South Carolina are: 

cement, clays, gemstones, peat, sand, gravel, and crushed stone. In 1997, South Carolina was the 

top producer of vermiculite, ranked fourth in masonry cement, sixth in common clays, third in kaolin, 

and fifth in crude mica. Portland cement and crushed stone were estimated at $193 and $155 million, 

respectively, for 1997. 

According to results of the USDA Forest Service Inventory Analysis (FIA) published in 2000, 12.3 

million acres of land in South Carolina is forested (Conner and Sheffield 2000). Non-industrial private 

owners, including individual and corporate timberland owners not associated with the forest product 

industry, own 74 percent of these lands. Timberland ownership under corporate control has 

increased in recent years to 19 percent or 2.0 million acres. The percentage of forests managed by 

the forest products industry has decreased 14 percent, from 2.3 million to 2.0 million acres over the 

FIA study period. Public land ownership increased to 1.2 million acres. Total softwood production 

increased 14 percent to 9.2 billion cubic feet, while hardwood production increased just over 4 

percent to 10.2 billion cubic feet. 

FISHING 

In 2001, 812,000 state residents and nonresidents, 16 years old and older, fished in South Carolina. Of 

this total, 571,000 anglers (70 percent) were state residents and 241,000 anglers (30 percent) were 

nonresidents. Anglers fished a total of 10.7 million days in South Carolina— an average of 13 days per 

angler. State residents fished 9.8 million days, 91 percent of all fishing days within South Carolina 

compared to nonresidents who fished 910,000 days—9 percent of all fishing days in the state. 

Anglers, 16 years old and older, spent $559 million on fishing expenses in South Carolina in 2001. 

Trip-related expenditures, including food and lodging, transportation, and other expenses, totaled 

$318 million—57 percent of all their fishing expenditures. They spent $127 million on food and 

lodging and $64 million on transportation. Other trip expenses, such as equipment rental, bait, and 

cooking fuel, totaled $127 million. Each angler spent an average of $400 on trip-related costs 

during 2001. Anglers spent $228 million on equipment in South Carolina in 2001, 41 percent of all 

fishing expenditures. Fishing equipment (e.g., rods, reels, and line) totaled $79 million—35 percent 

of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., tents and special fishing clothes) 

and special equipment expenditures (e.g., boats and pickups) amounted to $148 million, 65 percent 

of the equipment total. Special and auxiliary equipment items are items that were purchased for 

fishing, but could be used in activities other than fishing. The purchase of other items, such as 

magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, stamps, and land leasing and ownership, 

amounted to $13 million—2 percent of all fishing expenditures. 

HUNTING 

In 2001, there were 265,000 residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older who hunted in South 

Carolina. Resident hunters numbered 221,000 accounting for 83 percent of the hunters in South 

Carolina. There were 44,000 nonresidents who hunted in South Carolina—17 percent of the state's 

hunters. Residents and nonresidents hunted 4.7 million days in 2001, an average of 18 days per hunter. 

Residents hunted on 4.4 million days in South Carolina, or 94 percent of all hunting days, while 

nonresidents spent 307 thousand days hunting in South Carolina, 6 percent of all hunting days. 
34 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Hunters 16 years old and older spent $305 million in South Carolina in 2001. Trip related expenses, 

such as food and lodging, transportation, and other trip costs, totaled $96 million, 31 percent of their 

total expenditures. They spent nearly $36 million on food and lodging and $42 million on 

transportation. Other expenses, such as equipment rental, totaled $18 million for the year. The 

average trip-related expenditure per hunter was $361. Hunters spent $158 million on equipment—52 

percent of all hunting expenditures. Hunting equipment (e.g., guns and ammunition) totaled $108 

million and comprised 68 percent of all equipment costs. Hunters spent $50 million on auxiliary 

equipment (e.g., tents and special hunting clothes) and special equipment (e.g., boats and pickups), 

accounting for 32 percent of total equipment expenditures for hunting. Special and auxiliary 

equipment items are items that were purchased for hunting but could be used in activities other than 

hunting. The purchase of other items, such as magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, and 

land leasing and ownership, costs hunters $52 million—17 percent of all hunting expenditures. 

WILDLIFE WATCHING ACTIVITIES 

In 2001, 1.2 million U.S. residents, 16 years old and older, fed, observed, or photographed wildlife in 

South Carolina. Approximately 88 percent—1 million of the wildlife watchers—enjoyed their activities 

close to home and are called "residential" participants. Those persons who enjoyed wildlife at least 1 mile 

from home are called "nonresidential" participants. People participating in nonresidential activities in 

South Carolina in 2001 numbered 331,000—28 percent of all wildlife watchers in South Carolina. Of the 

331,000, 204,000 were state residents and 128,000 were nonresidents. 

South Carolinians, 16 years old and older, who enjoyed nonresidential wildlife watching within their 

state totaled 204,000. Of this group, 195,000 participants observed wildlife, 100,000 participants 

photographed wildlife, and 87,000 participants fed wildlife. Since some individuals engaged in more 

than one of the three nonresidential activities during the year, the sum of wildlife observers, feeders, 

and photographers exceeds the total number of nonresidential participants. 

Bird watching attracted many wildlife enthusiasts in South Carolina. In 2001, 742,000 people observed 

birds around the home and on trips. The majority, 78 percent (582,000), observed wild birds around the 

home while 39 percent (291,000) took trips away from home to watch birds. 

Participants, 16 years old and older, spent $256 million on wildlife-watching activities in South 

Carolina in 2001. Trip related expenditures, including food and lodging ($56 million); transportation 

($25 million); and other trip expenses, such as equipment rental ($8 million), amounted to $89 million. 

This summation comprised 35 percent of all wildlife watching expenditures by participants. The 

average trip-related expenditure for nonresidential participants was $269 per person in 2001. 

Wildlife-watching participants spent $149 million on equipment—58 percent of all their 

expenditures. Specifically, wildlife watching equipment (e.g., binoculars and special clothing) 

totaled $113 million, 76 percent of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., 

tents and backpacking equipment) and special equipment expenditures (campers and trucks) 

amounted to $36 million—24 percent of all equipment costs. Special and auxiliary equipment 

items are items that were purchased for wildlife-watching recreation but could be used in 

activities other than wildlife-watching activities. Other items purchased by wildlife watching 

participants, such as magazines, membership dues, and contributions; land leasing and 

ownership; and plantings totaled $18 million—7 percent of all wildlife-watching expenditures. 

Further information regarding fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching activities can be found in the following 

survey: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT 

LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION 

The increasing human population in the Clarendon County 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 lake shore and major 

rivers. Additional demands for housing, government services, and infrastructure will also be 

required, including increasing demand for recreational areas, and more extensive transportation 

systems. These demands, in turn, will exert greater pressures on the area’s natural environment. 

Human population, real estate development, and economic growth are contributing factors to the 

decline of wildlife and wildlife habitat, open space such as grassy fields and timber plantations, 

and traditional lifestyles within local communities (e.g., farming). These factors are affecting land 

use all around the refuge boundaries. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

Visitor use facilities on Santee NWR include: 

y 3,500+ square foot visitor center/office with interpretive panels and exhibits 

y one improved hiking/nature trail on the Bluff Unit (0.9 miles) with 600 linear feet of 

boardwalk and one viewing platform/observation tower 

y one dirt and gravel auto tour route 7 1/2 miles in length on the Cuddo Unit 

y one unimproved hiking trail (ca. 3/4-mile) on the Dingle Pond Unit 

y two unimproved hiking trails (total length 3 1/2 miles) on the Cuddo Unit 

y four miles of dirt and gravel roads on the Pine Island Unit suitable for hiking and/or 

bicycle riding 

In addition, the refuge is home to the Santee Indian Mound, the only such site in South Carolina open 

to the public. An interpretive sign and refuge literature, along with stairs leading up to an observation 

deck, are available to visitors to this site. The Indian Mound was also used as an outpost by the 

British during the Revolutionary War. Its capture by Francis Marion's troops in April 1781 was an 

important turning point for the war in South Carolina. 

The refuge staff leads special presentations, programs and environmental education activities for 

schools, civic organizations, and other special groups as requested when personnel are available. 

Potential for increasing visitation and outreach efforts is high (see enclosed suggestions for 

improvements to the primary visitor contact area – the Bluff Unit and the Visitor Center/Office 

complex - submitted by Cheryl Simpson, former Chief of Visitor Services in the Service’s Regional 

Office. With the transfer of a park ranger (public use) in January 2002, efforts began to improve 

visitor services and accomplish as many of these recommendations as possible. Progress is slowly 

being made to bring visitor services and facilities up to Service standards. 

Annual visitation for the refuge averages 160,000 visits per year (Table 2), with the majority of the 

non-consumptive visits recorded for activities related to wildlife observation and the use of refuge 

trails and the auto tour route on the Cuddo Unit. Fishing tops the list of consumptive activities, with 

hunting programs comprising less than three percent of the total. 
36 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Table 2. Three-year summary of primary public uses - Santee NWR 

Visitor Use Category 

Number of Visits 

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Average 

Total Number of Visits 160,000 163,500 164,700 162,733 

Talks/Tours 735 2,185 2,375 1,765 

Visitor Center/Contact Stations 21,800 29175 30,600 27,192 

Foot Trails 13,500 16,300 16,700 15,500 

Boat/Canoe 42,000 50,400 51,300 47,900 

Auto 26,000 33,400 35,000 31,466 

Teachers (Workshops, etc.) 0 0 0 0 

Students Taught (on-site) 700 675 765 713 

Students Taught (off-site) 450 530 230 403 

Non Staff Conducted (students-on andoff 

site) 

200 745 200 382 

Hunting (Migratory Birds – Mourning Dove) 1,300 575 600 825 

Hunting (Upland Game – Squirrel) 150 300 325 258 

Hunting (Big Game – Deer) 2,600 2,000 2,400 2,333 

Fishing (Freshwater) 40,000 52,300 54,200 48,833 

Recreational Boating 9,000 7,250 5,000 7,083 

Other (picnicking, camping, jogging, etc.) 700 500 600 600 

Group Presentations 200 630 415 415 

Exhibits 500 70,625 60,000 43,708 

News Releases 8 15 12 12 

Radio/TV Spots 4 0 1 

Special Events 10 8 9 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Outreach and Environmental Education 

A total of 1,418 participants were reached by sixteen outreach/environmental education events 

conducted on-site during FY 2004. Groups and activities varied from the 1,000 adults and children 

who enjoyed two days of Revolutionary War history and wildlife exhibits for the "Victory at Fort 

Watson" celebration held in October 2003, to the 35 individuals on hand for a bird walk, scavenger 

hunt, "natural" bird sculptures, and other activities celebrating Migratory Bird Day in May 2004. 

Off-site outreach efforts in FY 2004 included exhibits and demonstrations set up at numerous events 

(e.g., Palmetto Sportsmans Class, Southeastern Wildlife Exposition, and National Tourism Day at the 

South Carolina Welcome Center) along with special programs presented to retiree groups, civic groups, 

and schools. Refuge staff also assisted with Orangeburg Fish Hatchery's annual fishing day that attracted 

350-400 individuals. An estimated 70,000+ persons attended and/or viewed these events. 

Santee NWR is host to one of the most popular Audubon Christmas Bird Counts in the Carolinas. With 

recorded observations of 296 species, it is easy to understand why the refuge is considered one of the 

best inland birding areas in the state. The 2003 count was conducted on December 27, 2003, with thirtyseven participants logging 380 miles in 92 hours. Sightings of interest included grasshopper sparrow, 

red-breasted nuthatch, peregrine falcon, LeConte's sparrow, and seventeen bald eagles. 

Hunting and Fishing 

It is difficult to estimate the number of visits made for recreational fishing each year. The public is 

allowed to fish in refuge waters included within the boundaries of Lake Marion and from several 

impoundments located within the interior of refuge units. All water areas of the refuge are open to 

public fishing. An estimated 45,000 to 50,000 visits are made annually to fish these waters. 

Hunting activities allowed on the refuge include: 

y Raccoon and Opossum Hunt (10 days) 

y Mourning Dove Hunt (13 days) 

y Primitive Weapons Hunt for Deer (Pine Island Unit) (6 days) 

y Archery Hunt for Deer (Cuddo Unit) (6 days) 

y Primitive Weapons Hunt for Deer (Cuddo Unit) (6 days) 

Refuge Volunteers 

Ninety-one volunteers contributed a total of 4,364 hours of work during Fiscal Year 2004. The 

number and variety of individuals interested in helping Santee NWR conduct management and public 

use programs is indeed impressive. The potential for growing the volunteer program here is 

substantial. Existing volunteers are energetic and are especially interested in improving the refuge's 

public image and exposure. Volunteer activities range from assistance with special events to 

maintenance of equipment, buildings, roads, and facilities. 

Friends of Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

On January 17, 2002, the refuge hosted an organizational meeting to gauge local interest in establishing 

a refuge support group. After hearing pertinent details, the group of twenty individuals gathered for this 

meeting decided to pursue organizing and officially establishing the Friends of Santee National Wildlife 

Refuge. Their charter and articles of incorporation were approved in May 2002. 
38 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

In October 2004, the group signed a Cooperating Association Agreement with Santee NWR. Since 

its establishment, the group has been primarily involved in activities to improve visitor use facilities 

and promote the refuge to local and regional audiences. However, a number of the members of this 

group are active in refuge management activities (i.e., wood duck and winter waterfowl banding, 

wood duck box maintenance, casual wildlife surveys, and office assistance). Accomplishments 

include the highly successful annual "Victory at Fort Watson" events; partnering with Santee Cooper 

Public Service Authority for purchase and erection of mounted binoculars on the visitor center deck; 

encouraging the South Carolina Department of Transportation to erect three new signs directing 

visitors from I-95 to the visitor center, and seven new signs directing visitors from the visitor center to 

the Cuddo Unit; and allocation of a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to establish a 

visitor contact station at the Cuddo Unit entrance and make other improvements to the wildlife drive. 

PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE 

Most of the refuge uplands are owned in fee title, with the exception the water boundary of Lake 

Marion and the Dingle Pond Unit, which is leased from Santee Cooper. Maintaining a partnership 

with Santee Cooper is important to the refuge. Acquiring additional lands or leases in the future 

would benefit Santee NWR. The refuge extends for 18 miles along the northern shore of Lake 

Marion. It protects 15,095 acres in four distinct separate units. Unique natural and cultural resources 

found on the refuge include a Carolina Bay and the Santee Indian Mound (used as both a ceremonial 

and burial mound). British troops erected Fort Watson atop the mound during the Revolutionary War 

only to have it taken by Francis Marion’s colonial troops in April 1781. The refuge is located in the 

largely rural/agricultural part of Clarendon County where land interest and value are quickly 

increasing as the area becomes a resort area. 

 

The size and complexity of the refuge are depicted in the infrastructure required to support the 

refuge. The refuge has an inventory of over 33 miles of maintained roads, 4 miles of trails, and 6 

miles of dikes; a 7-mile auto wildlife drive; 6 buildings; 2 boat ramps; unimproved parking lots; and 6 

pumps. There are 13 pieces of heavy equipment; 9 motor vehicles, including 5 tractors, 3 bulldozers, 

1 backhoe, 1 tracked-excavator, 1 dump truck, 1 tractor trailer, and 1 rollback transport truck. There 

are 3 all-terrain vehicles; 3 boats; and 15 farm implements, such as disc, plows, planters, and rotary 

cutters needed to manage refuge habitat and facilities. 

The refuge currently has 8 permanent staff members: one staff member is being transferred (refuge 

officer) to the Refuge Complex headquarters and another position is targeted for abolishment (office 

assistant) under Service’s regional work force plan. The remaining 5 positions are directed toward 

the administration, biological, public use, and maintenance programs. Figure 10 outlines the current 

staffing chart. Historically, the refuge supported as many as 16 seasonal and permanent staff 

members. There are 6 regular volunteers who annually contribute 2,500 hours to the refuge. 

Another 90 volunteers only work occasionally and can contribute an additional 2,200 hours. All staff 

members have office space in the refuge visitor center except for the equipment operators, who use 

the maintenance shop office, and the refuge officer, whose office is located at Waccamaw NWR. The 

refuge uses the District Fire Management and Wildland Urban Interface staff members who are 

headquartered at the Savannah NWR Complex. The district fire management staff serves refuges at 

both the Lowcountry and Savannah NWR Complexes. All units of the refuge are currently open to 

public access with a 7-mile auto wildlife drive located at the Cuddo Unit. Annual visitation to the 

refuge averages 130,000 to 160,000 visits per year, with the majority of the non-consumptive visits 

recorded for activities related to wildlife observation and the use of refuge trails, and the auto tour 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

route on the Cuddo Unit. Fishing tops the list of consumptive activities, with hunting programs 

comprising less than three percent of the total. Special use permits govern research and other 

access into these refuges. 

Primary refuge facilities and equipment are located on the Bluff Unit. The refuge shop consists of a 

3-bay enclosed equipment/vehicle shop and one attached open bay; a wood working shop; a fire 

cache; a small equipment storage shed; a chemical storage shed with one open (i.e., outside) 

equipment bay attached; a fuel depot; a grain bin; and a fenced compound. There is an additional 

open equipment storage shed, and a 1-bay metal storage building on the western Bluff unit. There is 

one fenced compound storage area on the Pine Island Unit. 

There are 31 water control structures that facilitate water management and 6 permanent, diesel-operated 

pumping stations. The control system services 18 managed impounded wetlands on the refuge. 

This Draft CCP/EA recommends converting one park ranger position to one biological technician within 

five years of CCP approval, restoring one full-time law enforcement officer and one administrative 

assistant, and adding an additional biological technician and one temporary forester (Figure 11). 
40 Santee Na

Figure 10. Current organization chart for Santee NWR 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

Figure 11. Proposed organizational chart for Santee NWR 
42 Santee Na
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

III. Plan Development 

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 public scoping meetings, planning team meetings, 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 identified 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 MANAGEMENT 

y Ensure wintering needs (e.g., forage and sanctuary) of migratory Southern James Bay 

Canada Geese, with emphasis on high-caloric foods, green browse, improved agricultural 

crops, and reduction of impact of deer/resident geese on available foods. This is to include a 

partnership with the SCDNR to conduct a study of both migratory and resident geese to assist 

the state in determining the impact of hunting on migratory geese and determine if an 

expanded hunt on resident geese is feasible. 

y Encourage and promote management and monitoring activities to increase wood duck 

productivity. 

y Evaluate ways to increase wintering waterfowl numbers. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

y Ensure up-to-date maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the refuge’s water 

management and water delivery capabilities to meet migratory bird objectives (focus on 

waterfowl, waterbirds, and marsh birds) and to include a comprehensive understanding of the 

ecology of wetlands and enhanced health of the wetland vegetative communities for all 

migratory birds. Monitor the impact of captive-reared mallards on food resources produced for 

migratory waterfowl. 

y Continue perpetuation of early successional grassland, scrub/shrub communities on the 

abandoned agricultural fields, including emphasis on adapted management linked to ongoing 

(i.e., off-site) and former old-field research studies. To include an evaluation of the number 

and size of fields and determine the feasibility for reforestation of some fields in native, 

desirable forest communities (e.g., carbon sequestration programs) if possible. 

y Improve forest management to enhance under-story and mid-story vegetation densities for 

several key groups of non-game birds (need an updated Forest Management Plan). Partnership 

with the SCDNR to establish breeding bird surveys on the refuge; obtain technical assistance 

through an existing Memorandum of Understanding, and on recommendations for management of 

key species as identified in the CWCS and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative. 
44 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Control exotics and invasive non-desirable plant communities on upland and wetland sites. 

Develop partnerships with Santee-Cooper and other agencies for the control of exotic species. 

y Work with Santee-Cooper and State to explore possibility of encouraging native submerged 

aquatic plants into main reservoir backwaters and coves associated with the refuge and 

controlling grass carp impacts to native species. Work with SCDNR and others to establish 

desirable, native wetland plant communities for enhanced migratory bird management. 

y Update the existing Forest Management Plan. A critical need exists for a forester to update 

the plan and provide direction for forest resource management, including harvesting and 

mechanical thinning. 

y Continue present work to evaluate the Wetland Management Plan on all units and develop an 

updated, formal plan to include reconstruction and repair of dikes on the Cuddo Unit, to 

replace and install additional water pumps to maintain adequate water flow capabilities on all 

refuge units, and to evaluate the dike systems and water control structure locations on all 

units for enhanced water management capability. 

y Update the 2001 Fire Management Plan. The plan was well-prepared; however, it needs to 

be updated to include current resource management objectives. The Biological Review Team 

was concerned with the direction towards managing mixed hardwoods through mostly 

dormant season burns. However, there was a split opinion on the frequency, season, and use 

of fire in the mixed hardwood community. The present burn plan needs to have targeted 

resource conservation objectives that are linked to state and national plans, such as, the 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, and SAMBI, such that the 

resulting forest treatments will be providing habitat to identified key migratory bird species. 

The practice of burning and/or mechanical manipulation needs to be clearly addressed 

relative to habitat types, safe fuel reduction, migratory birds, and other native species. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

y Pursue acquisition of additional property around Dingle Pond and other units to provide a clearly 

defined boundary and buffer from increasing local land development. Include working with 

SCDNR and Santee-Cooper to promote environmental stewardship efforts and an understanding 

of how future landscape changes (i.e., development) will impact adjacent refuge habitats. 

Encourage Santee-Cooper to look at the potential of buffers zones that could be created by 

reestablishing former refuge boundary lines. For example, a request has been made to SanteeCooper to reestablish the former water boundary line at the Dingle Pond, Polly-Cantey Bay area. 

Additional buffers have also been requested along the Bluff Unit and Cantey Bay area. 

y Develop an understanding of local demographic changes with respect to how increased human 

population growth will impact user demand and also impact refuge programs and resources. 

y Restore the hydrology of Dingle Pond so that it actually functions like a Carolina bay. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

y Develop a regional coalition of “outreach” partnerships that could link nearby conservation 

areas and programs, assist with educational and interpretive programs, and enhance 

local/regional awareness of the refuge. Include a coordinated effort to determine the 

feasibility of developing a birding festival at Santee NWR that would bring together local and 

regional partners. 

y Determine the condition of existing public use trails and other facilities; determine needed 

maintenance and improvements for safe, compatible, and appropriate uses. 

y Maintain quality hunting and fishing opportunities. 

y Maintain quality wildlife observation and wildlife photography opportunities. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

 

y Develop the refuge volunteer program to include volunteers to assist with the biological 

program, including bird monitoring, water quality monitoring, and/or other activities that 

volunteers could do, depending on their levels of expertise. 

Wilderness Review 

Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation 

planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land 

that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human 

habitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

y generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of 

man’s work substantially unnoticeable; 

y has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

y has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; 

y does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive 

development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored 

through appropriate management, at the time of review; and 

y may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, education, scenic, or historic 

value. 

SUMMARY OF REFUGE WILDERNESS REVIEW 

A proposal for wilderness designation of 163 acres of island habitat at Santee NWR was finalized on 

March 25, 1975, and submitted for congressional approval. No official action was taken by Congress 

at the time to include the islands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In 1993, 

and again in 1999, official requests from Congress for information regarding the Santee NWR 

wilderness proposal were made, thus indicating that the proposal was still viable for consideration. 

However, no official legislative action has yet been taken by Congress. 

The proposed Santee NWR Wilderness Area consists of 13 islands in Lake Marion. These islands 

comprise 163 acres and are split between two of the four refuge management units. The Cuddo Unit 

includes the Plantation Islands, and the Pine Island Unit includes Pine Island. The islands range in 

size from the 22-acre Pine Island to less than one acre in the Plantation Islands. 

Historically, the timber in the area was actively harvested and agricultural land was actively farmed 

prior to the creation of Lake Marion when the hydroelectric dam was built. Natural regeneration had 

restored much of the wilderness character of the islands in 1975, and presently the islands exhibit 

even greater wilderness character because of nearly 70 years of forest growth. The islands contain a 

mix of pine and hardwood forests. 

The Wilderness Act specifies that proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as wilderness 

pending congressional approval. The proposed Santee NWR Wilderness Area has been managed 

as wilderness since 1975, and will continue to be treated as wildness in perpetuity. 

The Service analyzed other refuge lands within the planning area and found no additional areas that 

meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. 
46 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

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 Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological health, diversity, 

and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and compatible with wildlife 

and habitat conservation. The 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 CCP for managing the refuge over the next 15 years. This 

proposed management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to 

achieve the refuge vision. 

Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: 

ALTERNATIVE A – CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION) 

 ALTERNATIVE B – TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRIMARILY FOR WATERFOWL 

 ALTERNATIVE C – WILDLFE AND HABITAT DIVERSITY (PROPOSED) 

Each of these alternatives is described in the EA. The Service chose Alternative C as the proposed 

management direction. 

Implementing the proposed alternative would result in a greater amount of effort to manage the 

refuge to increase overall wildlife and habitat diversity. Waterfowl would remain a focus of 

management. However, wetland habitat manipulations would also consider the needs of multiple 

species, such as marsh and wading birds. Management of upland forests and fields for neotropical 

migratory birds would be more actively managed, and landscape level consideration of habitat 

management would include a diversity of open fields, upland and wetland forests, and additional 

managed wetlands. Multiple species consideration would include species and habitats identified by 

the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative and the CWCS. 

The proposed alternative would expand monitoring efforts to provide additional, active efforts to 

monitor migratory neotropical and breeding songbirds, and other resident species. Monitoring 

efforts would be increased with the assistance of additional staff, trained volunteers, and 

academic research. Greater effort would be made to recruit academic researchers to the 

refuge to study and monitor resources. 

Wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge would continue. Hunting and fishing would continue to be 

allowed. However, hunting would be managed with a greater focus to achieve biological needs of the 

refuge, such as deer population management. Education and interpretation would be the same as 

Alternative A but with additional education and outreach efforts aimed at the importance of landscape 

and diversity. A much broader effort would be made with outreach to nearby developing urban 

communities and a growing human population. 
48 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of biological technicians to carry out 

the increased habitat management and monitoring needs. Greater emphasis would be placed on 

recruiting and training volunteers. Refuge biological programs would actively seek funding and 

researchers to study primarily management-oriented research needs. Refuge staff would place 

greater emphasis on developing and maintaining active partnerships, including seeking grants to 

assist the refuge in reaching primary objectives. 

VISION 

Through a motivated, experienced, and well-trained staff and volunteers and with active participation 

of partners, Santee NWR will strive to maintain its unique ecological landscape features. Through 

team development, the refuge will strive to be a model of excellence in natural resource management 

and celebrate achievements with the public and our partners. The management of wildlife and 

habitat on the refuge will be an adaptive, science-based, comprehensive endeavor that links 

biological needs with resource management. The refuge will actively seek partnerships to further 

conservation stewardship and protection of natural resources. We will actively seek research to 

support the informational needs of the refuge, being able to adapt and being responsive to change. 

We will seek and develop appropriate and compatible public use opportunities and enhance 

awareness and appreciation of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge will 

work in partnership with the State, local agencies, non-governmental organizations and others to 

coordinate and enhance resource management, visitor services, and protection. Neighboring 

communities will support and understand the refuge and appreciate how it enhances the quality of 

their lives. Through outreach and public participation, the community will share in the values of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System to ensure a fish and wildlife heritage for all Americans. 

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES 

The goals, objectives, and strategies presented are the Service’s response to the issues, concerns, 

and needs expressed by the planning team, the refuge staff and partners, and the public, and are 

presented in hierarchical format. Chapter V, Plan Implementation, identifies the projects associated 

with the various strategies. 

These goals, objectives, and strategies reflect the Service’s commitment to achieve the mandates of 

the Improvement Act, the mission of the Refuge System, and the purposes and vision of Santee 

NWR. The Service intends to accomplish these goals, objectives, and strategies within 15 years 

following approval of the Final CCP. 

WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1. Threatened and Endangered Species

Conserve, protect, and enhance populations of rare, threatened, and endangered species of plants 

and animals at existing or increased levels on the refuge and conserve, protect, manage, and restore 

native South Carolina coastal plain habitats occurring on the refuge to contribute to recovery goals. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Objective 1.1. Provide and protect foraging habitat to support wood stork recovery efforts. 

Discussion: Wood storks are federally listed as an endangered species (USFWS 1997). Wood 

storks are listed as rare on the most recent refuge bird list; however, they have been observed more 

frequently utilizing the refuge wetlands. The highest number recorded on the refuge was 41 birds (B. 

Good, personal observation 1999), but they typically feed in small groups consisting of 10 birds or 

less. However, in 2007, over 100 were observed in Monkey Bay (contiguous to Cantey Bay) in one 

feeding group (M. Epstein, personal observation). Typically attracted to shallow ponds, the refuge 

can provide habitat with seasonally fluctuating wetlands, where they generally are observed feeding 

along with other wading and diving birds. To date, no wood stork nesting activities have been 

recorded on the refuge or elsewhere in Clarendon County (E. Daly, personal communication). Some 

storks may be adapting to residing year-round as evidenced by winter sightings of storks on the 

refuge and numerous verbal reports of wood storks being sighted approximately 12 miles northwest 

of the refuge at a commercial crawfish farm. 

Strategies: 

y Provide ample foraging habitat on the refuge with preferred water depths and quality habitat. 

y Coordinate with local birding groups and individuals to census off refuge wood storks on a 

year-round basis to determine if additional habitat requirements are needed. 

y Reevaluate the status of the wood stork on the refuge and make necessary changes to the 

bird list. 

Objective 1.2. Annually maintain, monitor, and protect a minimum of two bald eagle nesting sites 

and appropriate roosting areas. 

Discussion: The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is present year-round on the refuge with the 

majority of observations occurring during migration periods. There are two bald eagle nests on the 

Pine Island and Cuddo units. The bald eagle was officially taken off the endangered species list in 

June 2007, but it will remain in a protected status under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

and the Migratory Bird treaty Act. The refuge staff continues to provide secure nesting and roosting 

sites; however, immediately off the refuge boundary there has been at least one recent incident 

where an eagle was shot. Management of eagles on the refuge include occasional nest checking 

from the ground, conducting midwinter bald eagle surveys, and obtaining aerial nesting results from 

the SCDNR as they become available. 

Bald eagle habitat encompasses not only nesting substrate, but also foraging areas, perch trees, and 

areas devoid of disturbance. The impoundments and marshes on the refuge, along with the SanteeCooper lake system both on and adjacent to the refuge provide ample foraging habitat. While these 

areas are not specifically managed for eagle foraging, activities aimed at maintaining populations of 

migratory waterfowl provide abundant prey for the eagles. Fishery resources in the refuge and lake 

system also provide an important food source. 
50 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Monitor existing eagle nest sites and conduct a nest tree site characterization to determine if 

other suitable sites exist on the refuge. Sites will be recorded using GPS and mapped using 

GIS analysis. This information will be shared with other agencies and the fire management 

team for management and protection of the sites. 

y Nesting trees will be protected during prescribed fires and proper smoke management will be 

employed when eaglets are present. Reduction of vegetation under the nest tree immediately 

prior to the ignition of a prescribed fire can prevent harm to nest trees. 

y Coordinate with state and federal law enforcement agencies for the protection of eagles on or 

near the refuge. 

y Send any dead eagles found on or adjacent to the refuge to the National Eagle Repository per 

Service policy for the collection, storage, and distribution of dead bald eagles and their parts, 

or to a cooperative wildlife disease unit for determination of cause of death. 

y Evaluate forest habitats to identify and protect suitable bald eagle nest trees to provide 

additional and future nest sites. 

Goal 2: Migratory Birds

Maintain and actively manage refuge wetlands and uplands primarily to contribute to migratory bird 

priorities of the refuge and South Carolina coastal plain physiographic area, while providing 

consistency with state, regional, and national goals. 

Objective 2.1. Waterfowl

Upon CCP approval, maintain a minimum of 685 acres of managed wetlands, including 55 acres of 

planted corn (or other quality grain crop); 350 acres of moist-soil/submerged aquatic vegetation; and 

400 acres in managed greentree reservoirs to support a minimum wintering population of 

approximately 15,000 ducks (Bernie Good, personal observation) from November through February 

(120 days). 

Discussion: Currently, Santee NWR provides wintering habitat to support peak numbers of 

approximately 15,000 -18,000 ducks in recent years (Bernie Good and Larry Woodward, personal 

observation). This figure includes waterfowl utilizing wetland habitats in both optimum and poor 

management conditions (approximately 50 percent of the refuge’s wetland habitats are in relatively 

poor management condition). However, Santee NWR is committed to upgrading the wetland 

management program. Plans for wetland management improvements have been implemented over 

the past few years and additional improvements are presently underway. 

Objective 2.2. Waterfowl

Upon CCP approval, annually evaluate and increase the acreage of wetland habitats in good to 

excellent condition to accommodate any increases in wintering waterfowl populations. This would 

include maintaining 685 acres in good condition while improving 700 acres in relatively poor 

management condition. 

Objective 2.3. Waterfowl 

Within two years of CCP approval, conduct a GIS analysis of refuge wetlands to evaluate current and 

potential wetland management opportunities based on hydric soil overlays. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Discussion: The Santee Cooper focus area, at one time, was nationally known as a mecca for 

wintering waterfowl, consisting primarily of mallards (personal observation, Larry Woodward). The 

establishment of the Santee NWR was instrumental in attracting these waterfowl to this focus area. 

Historically, peak waterfowl numbers using refuge managed wetlands and lake margins were over 

170,000 ducks in the late 1970s. However, there have been significant changes in the size of the 

Santee NWR since establishment in 1941. When established, the refuge consisted of around 

125,000 acres, which included most of the open, deep water habitat of Lakes Marion and Moultrie. In 

an agreement with Santee-Cooper, the refuge size was reduced to 70,000 acres because managers 

did not feel they could effectively manage the large open water habitats. The refuge boundary was 

further reduced to 15,000 acres in 1975. Additionally, there have been significant declines in overall 

waterfowl habitat suitability within the Santee Lakes drainage system that once supported vast 

natural wetlands prior to the creation of the lakes, which may have adversely affected wintering 

waterfowl in the region (B. Baker, personnel communication). 

Waterfowl numbers remained on an upward trend until 1978, which suggest some of the most 

important waterfowl areas still remain within the existing boundary. The most dramatic declines in 

waterfowl numbers began throughout the 1980s and continued in the 1990s. Waterfowl habitat 

conditions within public water portions of Lake Marion have undergone many changes since the 

1980s due to management objectives of the Santee-Cooper (e.g., grass carp, exotic aquatic 

vegetation, herbicides, and water level management). The most obvious examples of habitat change 

that could have adversely influenced waterfowl within the lake portion of the refuge is the loss of 

massive button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) flats and the invasion of large cut grass 

(Zizaniopsis miliacea) fields occupying the most valuable waterfowl use areas (Harold Furze, 

personal communication). Many variables attributed to the decline in wintering waterfowl numbers in 

the Santee Cooper Focus Area. Continental waterfowl numbers and duck hunting opportunities also 

started declining in the mid 1980s across the country (Division of Migratory Bird Management 2003). 

Factors such as short stopping in northern latitudes have added to declines at Santee NWR. As duck 

numbers started declining on the refuge, there was an apparent decrease in management operations 

for ducks in the 1990s. Some changes that affected refuge operations included a reduction in staff 

and a change in management direction. Since 2000, with a renewed focus on migratory waterfowl, 

wintering numbers have consistently increased every year, peaking at approximately 18,000 birds 

counted during recent winters (Larry Woodward, personal observation). During the 2006-2007 state 

mid-winter waterfowl survey, Santee NWR ranked the second most important public area in South 

Carolina for non-coastal ducks (SCDNR Midwinter Waterfowl Survey 2006-007). However, a recent 

review of waterfowl counts showed high annual and monthly variation in duck numbers on the refuge. 

The future of waterfowl populations on Santee NWR is one of the highest priorities and greatest 

challenges for Santee NWR, which is linked directly to the purpose and establishment of the refuge. 

Managed habitats differ in their ability to provide food and cover and can depend on many 

environmental variables that influence vegetative production and quality (Stader and Stinson 2005). 

Variability in annual environmental conditions can influence habitat productivity (e.g., drought, 

flooding, stress, insects, and depredation) causing a decrease in food production. Providing a 

wetland complex with diversity among habitats is important and enhances the refuge’s ability to 

provide optimum wintering habitats. Primary habitats at Santee NWR include agriculture, moist 

soil/submerged aquatic vegetation, and greentree reservoir. 
52 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Migratory waterfowl feeding ecology is a complex of interactions of their nutritional demands, habitat 

availability and quality, and waterfowl behavior (Heitmeyer 1985). How waterfowl use wetlands is further 

influenced by various external factors such as, landscape development and levels of disturbance. 

Feeding habits reflect the energy demands from low temperatures, dispersal over wintering habitats, 

preparing for reproduction (pair bonding and egg production), and molting from “winter” plumage to 

breeding plumage. Waterfowl breeding success has been linked to the quality of wintering areas and the 

condition of the birds when they return to the breeding ground. Therefore, waterfowl that reach a high 

nutritional plain on the wintering grounds have better chances of returning and nesting. 

Agricultural crops have become especially important to waterfowl as a quick energy source to 

increase their lipid stores during migration. Agricultural crops or grains that have a high caloric value 

are also known as “hotfoods.” Wintering waterfowl are attracted to and use agricultural crops as an 

easily obtainable energy source; however, natural vegetation and invertebrates are required to 

supplement their protein and nutritional requirements. Waterfowl diets will change during the winter 

from hotfoods (lipid stores during energy demanding activities like dispersal and migration) to the 

need for natural foods (e.g., native vegetation and invertebrates for protein and nutrition) to 

supplement their needs for egg and feather production. The switch in diet will reflect the seasonal 

shift in waterfowl activities (e.g., wintering to molting and breeding). The seasonal shift in diets also 

corresponds to seasonal changes in water depth, wetland conditions, warmer temperatures, and 

increased availability and production of invertebrates and other natural foods. 

Reinecke and Kaminski (2007) estimated the carrying capacity of various foraging habitats for the Lower 

Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Working Group. This carrying capacity was based on duck energy days 

(DED), which equates to the average number of ducks that can obtain daily energy requirements from 

one acre of habitat for one day. Based on the most accurate data available, they estimated that most-soil 

plants provided 1,868 DED/acre, bottomland hardwoods (with approximately 40 percent red oak) provided 

156 DED/acre, and one bushel of planted, un-harvested corn provided 357.4 DEDs. 

Refuge staff calculated that corn production is approximately 50 bushels per acre (bu/acre). 

Therefore, the refuge can provide 17,870 DED/acre (50 bu/acre x 357.4 DED). With a minimum of 55 

acres of corn, this can be extrapolated to 982,850 DEDs for the refuge (50bu/acre x 55 acres x 357.4 

DED). Based on these calculations, the present agricultural program at the refuge can support 8,190 

ducks per day over a 120-day period. With approximately 350 acres of moist-soil and submerged 

aquatic plants, it is estimated that an additional 5,448 ducks per day could be supported over a 120-

day period. With about 400 acres of greentree reservoir, the refuge can support an additional 520 

ducks per day over a 120-day period. Based on the best available research (Reinecke and Kaminski 

2007), the refuge can currently support an estimated 14,158 ducks per day over a 120-day period. 

All total, the refuge can provide 1,698,960 DEDs over the 120-day period (14,158 x 120). 

The waterfowl migration pattern at Santee NWR begins in early November and peaks in mid-winter. 

Thus, actual waterfowl numbers are generally much lower than the potential peak of approximately 

18,000 ducks for most of the 120-day period. Based on 164 surveys between 2000 and 2006, the 

average monthly duck numbers for the Bluff, Pine Island and Cuddo units were 1,000 in November, 

2,427 in December, 3,166 in January, and 2,690 in February (Note: these are average numbers of 

ducks over a 7-year period and are not peak numbers). Based on these averages, there are 275,537 

DEDs actually used during the 120-day period from November through February. Therefore, the 

refuge currently provides a surplus of available food resources that is approximately six times greater 

than the amount currently required for waterfowl wintering at the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

Waterfowl surveys conducted between 2000 and 2006 were used because these surveys represent a 

time when many improvements began at Santee NWR, and the number of surveys was sufficient to 

characterize waterfowl use on the refuge. There was considerable variation in monthly counts from 

year-to-year, which is typical of migratory duck counts. Waterfowl numbers generally peak in 

January, but peaks did occur in December and February in some years. 

Corn or small grains produced on the refuge do not benefit from typical private landowner 

protection methods, such as electric fences and pesticide use that keep depredation to a 

minimum. As such, corn or small grain crops on the refuge are affected by insects and animals 

such as deer and turkey. However, the effects of this depredation are at a low level and do not 

adversely affect food availability for waterfowl. 

With increased focus on waterfowl management in recent years, the refuge has been very 

successful planting a Round-Up ready variety of corn in floodable impoundments on the Bluff and 

Cuddo units. Additionally, the refuge has been successful in production of beneficial moist-soil 

plants within the flooded corn fields, providing an added food source for waterfowl. Evaluating 

the potential of expanding the floodable acreage planted in agriculture crops (e.g., primarily corn) 

on all units should be a high priority. 

One of the most important factors influencing how ducks use the Santee NWR is how the landscape 

and land use are changing around the Santee NWR. Historically, lands and waters surrounding the 

refuge were considered remote, rural, and largely agricultural. Since 2000, there has been a 

dramatic increase in construction of “duck hunting ponds” and consistent, possibly growing hunting 

pressure in public portions of Lake Marion. Creation of “flooded agricultural” crops and expanded 

release of “captive-reared” mallards for hunting on adjacent and nearby private lands may be a 

significant influence on waterfowl use on and around the refuge (Division of Migratory Bird 

Management 2003). In previous years, more than 17,000 mallards have been released within close 

proximity to the refuge, with well over 60,000 mallards released statewide. Free-flight, captive-reared 

mallards are presently using the refuge in greater numbers and this use will be monitored. 

The full effect that the increasing numbers of privately owned cultivated duck ponds (e.g. duck farms) 

surrounding the refuge will have on waterfowl use of the refuge is presently unknown. Duck farming 

and the subsequent rise in non-migratory duck numbers have greatly increased the importance of 

Santee NWR as a regional waterfowl sanctuary. Priorities include maintaining site fidelity and 

maintaining migration imprinting of migratory waterfowl using Santee NWR. However, these efforts 

may be greatly impacted by future landscape changes and private lands’ management surrounding 

the refuge. Rapid urban development and increasing property values will further reduce land 

available to waterfowl and will likely increase the importance of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain or improve wetland units by utilizing adaptive management practices to improve 

habitat conditions and provide for a healthy wintering waterfowl population. 

y Evaluate the need for providing additional protection and management to improved and 

expanded sanctuary areas (e.g., Pine Island Savannah Branch; Bluff Unit Line Island; and 

Cuddo Unit Plantation Islands no-motor zone). 

y Monitor wintering waterfowl populations by conducting bi-monthly ground waterfowl surveys 

(Oct. – Mar.) for all managed wetland complexes on the refuge. 
54 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Continue post-season waterfowl banding operations to assist SCDNR with specific state 

objectives, as a refuge outreach program, and to monitor a dramatic increase in captivereared mallards using the refuge. 

y Investigate feasibility of creating additional moist soil/agriculture impoundments and 

agricultural fields on Cuddo Unit (Q1-10) and Bluff Unit (fields 9, 12, and 13) based on soil 

surveys and water management options. 

y Develop a feasibility plan for increasing crop acreage to accommodate any increase in 

wintering waterfowl numbers beyond the excess food capacity currently available. 

y Monitor effects of captive-reared mallards on refuge resources. Encourage research on the 

impact of captive-reared mallards to migratory waterfowl use on the refuge and banding 

programs. 

y Develop monitoring programs to evaluate the effects on potential increases of refuge 

recreational uses on migratory waterfowl. 

Objective 2.4. Southern James Bay Canada Geese 

Continue to work with primary partners, including the SCDNR, USGS, and others, to formally investigate 

the ecology, home range, and migration pathways of migratory Canada geese using the refuge. 

Objective 2.5. Southern James Bay Canada Geese

Throughout the life of the CCP, annually maintain current agricultural practices (i.e., 55 acres of corn 

and 65 acres of green browse) to provide high-quality food sources for approximately 1,200 migratory 

Canada geese. 

Objective 2.6. Southern James Bay Canada Geese

Throughout the life of the CCP, annually evaluate and expand current agricultural practices and protection 

on the refuge to enhance and accommodate any increases in wintering migratory Canada geese. 

Discussion: Southern James Bay Canada geese are a sub-population of Canada Geese that have 

historically wintered at Santee NWR. These Canada geese nests along the southwestern shore of 

James Bay in Ontario and on Akimiski Island in James Bay, a portion of the Northwest Territories. 

Banding reports also suggest geese from the northeastern Hudson Bay area may be using the 

Santee NWR. Spring surveys on the breeding grounds indicate the breeding population has 

fluctuated on the breeding grounds with no evident trend. On Akimiski Island, banding data suggest 

pre-migration mortality in young geese may be high and that nesting habitats might be adversely 

impacted by expanding populations of snow geese (USFWS 2007). 

Wintering as many as 39,000 Canada geese between 1960 and 1970, the population sharply 

declined by the late 1980s, probably due to short stopping in northern states. Since the late 1980s, 

the wintering migratory geese numbers have averaged 1,000 to 1,200 birds annually. Located at the 

southern range of the Southern James Bay Canada goose migration, the Santee NWR maintains the 

highest wintering population in South Carolina, and management for this species remains a high 

priority for the refuge. 

Current acres planted on the Bluff Unit, approximately 55 acres of corn and 65 acres of winter wheat, 

are rotated among upland fields. This effort has been an annual minimum target to support the 

current wintering population of 1,000 to 1,200 geese along with other wintering waterfowl. 

Additionally, in 2006, approximately 40 acres of winter wheat were planted on the Cuddo Unit. An 

additional effort was made to clear openings between fields and Lake Marion to enhance habitat 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

conditions for goose use. Force account farming on the Cuddo Unit should be supplemented by 

encouraging cooperative farming that will benefit Canada geese as well as other migratory birds. 

Agricultural acres should be gradually increased to accommodate any possible population increases. 

Strategies: 

y Monitor wintering goose populations by conducting bi-monthly surveys (Oct. – Mar.). 

y Provide adequate habitat, inviolate sanctuary, and maintain site fidelity for wintering migratory 

populations. 

y Maintain grassy fields adjacent to lake and pond margins wherever possible. 

y Maintain current agricultural practices by rotating corn and wheat (or other suitable green 

winter graze). Increase planted acres to provide an adequate food source for an expanding 

wintering goose population. 

y Work with partners to conduct research and monitor migratory goose populations wintering on 

Santee NWR, as well as observe interactions of migratory and resident Canada geese. Assist 

the SCDNR in better understanding the distribution and conservation needs of the migratory 

geese in relation to potential expanded hunting off refuge in Clarendon County for resident 

geese. 

y Conduct research to better understand the migratory pathways of refuge geese, including the 

relationship of the breeding grounds to the primary wintering/staging areas, using satellite 

telemetry, isotope analysis, and genetic analysis. 

Objective 2.7. Wood Ducks

Throughout the life of the CCP, the refuge should put forth efforts to meet or exceed the annual quota 

for banding pre-season wood ducks. 

Discussion: Santee NWR is one of the most, if not the most, successful wood duck banding sites 

with the highest annual quota and birds banded in the United States. More than 22,000 wood ducks 

have been banded at Santee NWR, utilizing a very successful rocket net program. However, the 

proliferation of a captive-reared mallard release program on wetlands surrounding the refuge appears 

to have significantly impacted the wood duck banding program. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to maintain Santee NWR wood duck banding program as one of the most successful 

in the country. 

y Provide adequate control methods for an increasing population of captive-reared mallards 

using the refuge. 

y Monitor the captive-reared mallard program on and around the refuge to evaluate the impacts 

on the pre-season wood duck banding program. 

y Manage water levels and control vegetation at band sites to attract wood ducks to these 

areas. 

y Investigate the possibility of creating another suitable wood duck banding site on the refuge 

that will provide enough birds to meet banding quotas. 

y Use the banding program as a valuable public outreach tool to demonstrate the value of the 

Refuge System. 
56 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 2.8. Wood Ducks 

Within five years of CCP approval, initiate an artificial wood duck nest box program based on the 

results of an evaluation of box placement and location. This is to supplement wood duck production 

achieved from natural nesting cavities and to optimize production based on adaptive management of 

available artificial nest locations and available brood habitat. 

Objective 2.9. Wood Ducks 

Biological staff will record wood duck box production data annually and evaluate the program using 

long-term data, and determine which boxes and/or locations contribute little towards the wood duck 

production program. 

Objective 2.10. Wood Ducks 

Within two years of CCP approval, evaluate the condition of all nest boxes and make appropriate 

repairs to boxes, predator guards, and support poles. 

Objective 2.11. Wood Ducks 

Within three years of CCP approval, complete a Wood Duck Box Nesting Management Plan that is 

designed to outline the nest box program, box location, and monitoring and maintenance actions. 

Discussion: The refuge has one of the most productive and intensively managed artificial wood 

duck box programs in the Atlantic Flyway. Santee NWR has had a wood duck program since 1969, 

with many fluctuations in the number of boxes, box placement, types of boxes, frequency of box 

checks, and box maintenance protocols. The highest number of boxes was 321 in 1984; however, 

this number was reduced in 1985, when it was obvious that a large percentage of boxes had not 

been serviced in several years. Approximately two-thirds of the boxes had deteriorated beyond 

repair due to staff time constraints, as well as the fact that over half of them had to be checked by 

boat, which compounded the situation. 

Presently, the refuge maintains 140 cypress boxes of which approximately one-third are at least 15 

years or older. These boxes have been maintained in a relatively good condition over the last 10 

years. The boxes require periodic replacing of cypress tops, sides, and bottoms, as well as hinges, 

latches, supporting poles, and predator shields as needed. Since 1985, one volunteer has checked 

and cleaned all refuge boxes from March to July of each year, recording data and cleaning out the 

boxes after each use or attempted use. Predation and dump nesting are the biggest problems. Nest 

box location and density can influence dump nesting (Semel et al., 1988) and the refuge’s long-term 

data will be evaluated to provide recommendations on number and location of boxes based on the 

best information available. A literature search and additional information will have to be gathered to 

better understand and implement means to reduce predation by other birds and mammals. 

Nest production checks are conducted based on the estimated chick hatching dates or incubation 

period. An average of 2,042 ducklings per year was produced over the 5-year period of 2002 through 

2006. This translates into an average of 16 hatchlings each year per box for each of the 140 boxes 

being maintained (Lauren Billodeaux, unpublished data). It should be noted that reproduction 

successes in the individual boxes varied from year-to-year with results ranging from no production to 

two or more successful nests produced in the same box during the nesting period. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Strategies: 

y Develop Wood Duck Box Nesting Management step-down plan. 

y Update and evaluate wood duck production data annually by November or December to 

determine the proper number and location of nest boxes that should be maintained or 

relocated. 

y Locate boxes based on sound biological data and in areas easily accessible for high-quality 

maintenance. Nest box maintenance should be completed annually in January and February. 

y Maintain quality habitat adjacent to nesting boxes with special emphasis on not disturbing 

necessary tree and shrub cover. Quality wood duck habitat is generally considered to be 75 

percent cover and 25 percent water. 

Objective 2.12. Wading Birds 

Within one year of plan CCP approval, map and post all known refuge wading bird rookeries and 

monitor species composition and nest numbers in existing and new refuge rookeries. 

Objective 2.13. Wading Birds 

Within two years of CCP approval, develop a program to monitor wading bird use of refuge managed and 

unmanaged wetlands, and use adaptive management where appropriate to enhance wading bird use. 

Discussion: The refuge provides a complex of managed and natural habitats throughout the year 

that attracts thirteen different types of wading birds (see Santee NWR Bird List). Key wading bird 

species that inhabit the refuge and are of special conservation interest (SAMBI 2005, SCDNR CWCS 

2005) in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain include: yellow-crowned night heron, black-crowned night 

heron, tricolored heron, little blue heron, white ibis and wood stork. Additional wading birds, such as 

great blue heron, great egret, glossy ibis, snowy egret and green heron, are also present. Rookery 

sites for the great blue heron appear to be expanding on the refuge. Green heron also nest along 

canals; however, the refuge is not presently monitoring wading bird nesting. Additional data will be 

needed to determine if wading bird use can be enhanced through wetland management, protection 

and enhancement of rookery sites, and lower disturbances to wading birds by the visiting public. An 

Anhinga rookery has been observed within the Polly-Cantey Bay of the Dingle Pond Unit (Mark 

Percell, personal communication). Anhinga nests in other wetlands on the refuge along with osprey 

and great blue herons. 

Wading birds, such as the great egret and great blue heron are commonly observed year-round 

feeding on the refuge. Wading bird use of wetlands managed for waterfowl can be high due to 

seasonally fluctuating water depths, which concentrate prey (e.g., small fish, amphibians, and 

invertebrates) in small pools. Gradual lowering of water depths from winter into spring for waterfowl 

will also enhance prey availability for many waterbird species (Epstein et al., 1989). Generally, on 

private lands near refuge boundaries, waterfowl ponds are drained quickly at the end of the waterfowl 

hunting season. Therefore, the refuge wetland management program is meeting the needs of 

multiple species under the present waterfowl management program. Wading birds are also 

commonly seen feeding in small pools during summer the as they naturally become drier. 
58 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Locate and monitor all rookeries on the refuge. Ensure that all wading bird and diving bird 

rookeries are protected and clearly posted to prevent disturbance and public intrusion during 

the nesting season. 

y Determine if additional water level management from March through September at selected 

sites (e.g., main banding pond on the Bluff Unit, Pump Pond on the Pine Island Unit, and the 

Cattle Guard wetlands on the Cuddo Unit) can enhance wading bird use. 

y Selectively identify sites that could be enhanced for rookeries through habitat manipulation or 

establishment of suitable nest tress, such as willow marshes. 

y Minimize disturbance from any public uses. 

Objective 2.14. Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

Within one year of CCP approval, identify the key species of migratory and breeding songbirds using 

the refuge that are identified in South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) and the CWCS to 

determine the species of special management concern for Santee NWR. 

Objective 2.15. Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

Within five years of CCP approval, develop a volunteer bird monitoring program (e.g., breeding bird 

survey) to document species composition and habitat use patterns of select neotropical and migratory 

songbirds to identify critical habitat components and the influence of management practices. 

Objective 2.16. Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

Within three years of CCP approval, expand existing monitoring programs to better understand the 

seasonal use patterns of key neotropical and migratory songbirds during the non-breeding period. 

Objective 2.17. Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

Within three years of CCP approval, identify critical habitat components of migratory and breeding 

songbirds and provide recommendations on how to better manage for key (i.e., state and regional) 

species of concern. 

Discussion: Santee NWR supports a great diversity of habitats, making this refuge one of the top 

birding areas in South Carolina. Large stands of mature upland and lowland hardwoods are 

intermixed by mixed pine/hardwoods, scrub/shrub, grassland, and wetland habitats. The habitat 

diversity attracts many species utilizing the refuge during all seasons of the year and many are listed 

by SAMBI as birds of special concern because of recent declines in populations. High-priority 

species include black-throated green warbler (Dendroica virens), Cerulean warbler (Dendroica

virens), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), Henslow’s sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii), and 

painted bunting (Passirina ciris). The refuge will support SAMBI in the furtherance of its goals to 

"provide a secure future for songbird, waterfowl, shorebird, and other vulnerable bird populations via 

an integrated federal, state and private lands approach to protect, restore, and manage avian coastal 

plain habitats from southeastern Virginia to Florida." SAMBI emphasizes year-round management of 

wetlands to include moist-soil, fresh and bottomland forested wetlands, and other important habitats 

for waterfowl, rails, shorebirds, long-legged waders, sparrows, and wrens. Other priority birds are 

mallards, pintails, wood ducks, painted buntings, Henslow’s sparrow, American woodcock, yellow rail, 

snipe, short-eared owl, northern bobwhite, grasshopper sparrow, barn owl, loggerhead shrike, sedge 

wren, and LeConte’s sparrow, king and sora rails, least bittern, purple gallinule, wood stork, little blue 

heron, tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned night heron and white ibis. 

Foraging wood storks and nesting bald eagles occur on and near the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Strategies: 

y Expand the newly established breeding bird survey to identify key species relative to breeding 

occurrence, abundance, and habitat utilization. 

y Increase knowledge of species status by conducting annual surveys and collecting baseline 

data. 

y Identify key songbird species utilizing the refuge and determine priority habitats needed to 

support these species. 

y Using GIS technology, evaluate upland habitats and provide recommendations on the 

expansion or reconfiguration of old field and forest habitats to enhance suitability for key 

species. 

y Maintain 500 to 900 acres of open field habitat, rotating between grasslands and pioneer 

shrubs, through mechanical strip mowing and/or controlled burning in accordance with the 

1988 Cropland and Non-forested Upland Plan (Bond 1988). 

y Update the 1988 Cropland and Non-forested Uplands Plan. 

y Update the existing Forest Management Plan to facilitate biologically sound forest habitat 

management and enhancement practices for breeding, feeding, and wintering habitat for 

migratory birds. 

y Manage mature forest stands with prescribed fire or mechanical thinning to increase the 

understory and midstory component to accommodate key species identified from region and 

state plans. 

y Acquire mechanical equipment capable of thinning and removing young tree species (4- to10-

inch dbh) to return older scrub/shrub habitat to year one grassland condition. 

y Work with the fire management program to ensure fire applications are meeting the needed 

resource goals and objectives. 

Goal 3. Herpetological Species 

Within five years of the plan write an abbreviated summary listing for any known amphibian or reptile 

and/or habitats that warrants an additional measure of protection on the refuge. 

Objective 3.1. 

Within ten years of CCP approval, conduct a formal inventory of reptiles and amphibians. 

Discussion: 

More than 89 species of reptiles and amphibians are likely to occur on the refuge (Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1983). As with many refuges, little is known concerning the amphibian and reptile 

community. What is known is that the diversity of habitat on the refuge supports a wide variety of 

amphibians and reptiles. This habitat diversity includes mixed hardwoods, mixed pine/hardwoods, 

pine plantations, marsh, croplands, old fields, ponds, wetland impoundments, and open waters. The 

list of 35 amphibian species and 54 reptile species is based on information from a variety of sources 

described by the Service (1983; Amphibians and Reptiles of the Santee NWR). 

Although all units of the refuge would benefit from a herpetological study, the Dingle Pond unit should 

be one of the first to be studied as it is a Carolina Bay and has special geological features. Also the 

land adjacent to the Dingle Pond unit is being developed at a rapid pace, which may have long-term 

implications for dispersal and recruitment of herpetological species. The Carolina Bay was designed 

to be a semi-closed system with natural variations of water by way of a man-made water control 

structure with leaky stop logs. This stop-log structure has been maintained for many years, and it 

appears to have worked efficiently. Over the last three years, water has been held artificially high, 

often to the paved road edge, due to lack of resources to maintain the structure. Beavers compound 
60 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

the problem by frequently clogging the structure. An inventory of herpetological species would be 

recommended to characterize species composition of this Carolina Bay ecosystem. 

Strategies: 

y Encourage community characterization studies for amphibians and reptiles and determine 

their management priority status. 

y Encourage research that would assist in documenting ecological features relative to habitat 

and species.

y Develop a monitoring program to record herpetological observations on the refuge. 

y Purchase and maintain suitable books, field guides, and other technical information for the 

refuge library. 

y Seek funding sources for a detailed herpetological study on all units of the refuge. 

y Increase signage and interpretation for the American alligator consistent with conservation 

needs and public safety. 

Goal 4: Wildlife and Habitat Diversity

Protect, manage, and enhance the natural diversity of fish, wildlife, and habitats and the important 

landscapes of the refuge’s coastal plain habitats to ensure that fish and wildlife populations remain 

naturally self-sustaining. 

Discussion: The intrinsic landscape at the refuge is very diverse and ecologically supports 

many native and migratory species of plants and animals that are both aquatic and upland in 

nature. The diversity of habitats includes: freshwater marshes and swamps, flooded cypress, 

open water lake, moist-soil, farm fields, grassland/scrub fields, bottomland hardwoods, pinelands, 

mixed hardwood/pine, and hardwoods. Maintaining the natural integrity and biodiversity of the 

refuge includes having a professional staff with the knowledge and background of the ecology to 

manage these systems (e.g., fire and wetland ecology, fisheries, forest, and wetland 

management). As adjacent landscapes and habitats become more stressed from increased 

fragmentation and development, the refuge would become more important to species that are 

displaced, as a sanctuary area from disturbance, and simply as an area that could support native 

habitats and fish and wildlife populations. The refuge is presently working with local communities 

and developers, building a support base to enhance public awareness as to the purpose of the 

refuge, management needs/issues, exotic species, fish and wildlife, and the added value of 

having a national wildlife refuge in their community. 

Objective 4.1. Managed Wetlands 

Within one year of CCP approval, organize a formal wetlands review team to include local, state, and 

national expert wetland biologists to meet, evaluate, and provide specific recommendations on the 

Santee NWR wetlands management program. 

Objective 4.2. Managed Wetlands 

Annually maintain wetland infrastructure (if feasible) and protect the 1,400 acres of managed 

wetlands to include moist soil, permanent, greentree, and agricultural impoundments. 

Objective 4.3. Managed Wetlands 

Within one year of CCP approval, develop a formal wetlands monitoring program that integrates 

vegetative and migratory bird responses to the water level management program on the 1,400 acres 

of managed wetlands on Santee NWR. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

Objective 4.4. Managed Wetlands 

Within two years of CCP approval, evaluate agricultural crop rotation on managed wetlands and 

develop an adaptive management plan for moist-soil and agricultural applications. 

Objective 4.5. Managed Wetlands 

Within three years of CCP approval, evaluate refuge landscape potential and soil suitability for 

potential expansion of a managed wetland and agricultural applications for migratory waterfowl. 

Objective 4.6. Managed Wetlands 

Within four years of CCP approval, evaluate all wetland infrastructures (e.g., dikes, water control 

structures, ditches, and pumping stations) and provide recommendations for restoration of a 

functional, managed wetland complex. 

Objective 4.7. Managed Wetlands 

Within one year of CCP approval, develop a standardized riser size design for all water control 

structures to be installed in refuge impoundments, as replacement or installation is necessary. 

Discussion: The refuge needs the ability to fully control water within and among the impoundments. 

Improved water control structures would enhance management by providing the means to stop, 

manage, or allow water flow within and among impoundments based on the stated goals of the 

impoundment. Over time, different sized riser structures were used, which has become troublesome 

for biologists trying to replace boards among structures with different sizes. Therefore, a standard 

size-riser width will be used to replace old structures and to add new ones. 

Strategies: 

y Develop a standard water control structure design and flashboard riser sizes for all water 

control structures to be installed in refuge impoundments. Use an inside width of 47 3/8 

inches for large structures and develop a standard width for the smaller structures. 

y Install water control structures that would allow total control over water management and that 

would maximize the capability to correctly manage wetland habitats. Continue to evaluate 

new water control structures to determine the best ones for the refuge. 

y Use and maintain dikes and appropriate water control structures to conduct water 

management options as necessary to achieve desired wetland community types. 

Objective 4.8. Managed Wetlands 

Within five years of CCP approval, restore open water/emergent wetlands on three units 

including;150 acres on Cuddo; 60 acres on the Pine Island; and 30 acres on the Bluff. Restoration 

activities will consist of herbicide, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatments. 

Objective 4.9. Managed Welands 

Within four years of CCP approval, develop a strategic management and monitoring plan for the 

Dingle Pond Unit to guide the future of this valuable unit. 

Discussion: Management of wetlands is critical to the mission and purposes of Santee NWR. In 2003, a 

wildlife and habitat management review was conducted for the refuge that provided abundant information 

and recommendations on biological resource management. Proper water control and delivery systems 

are a basic need for wetland management (Stader and Stinson 2005). For Santee NWR, a focus on sitespecific restoration and cleaning of approximately 1,000 feet of canals to improve water movement is 
62 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

needed. In cooperation with partners (e.g., Santee-Cooper, Ducks Unlimited), the refuge will restore 

proper water management on all refuge units. The Dingle Pond Unit consists of a 228-acre Carolina Bay 

dominated by emergent wetlands, but also includes forested wetland habitats. 

The dike and ditch systems on some managed wetlands are below operational condition. The 90-acre 

Timber Island Fields waterfowl impoundment complex on the Cuddo Unit will require a complete dike 

restoration, including the removal of trees and the rebuilding of the dike and ditch systems so the 

impoundments can be managed independently. This may require strategically restoring or moving interior 

dikes to improve water management. Greentree reservoirs on both the Cuddo and Pine Island units need 

selective thinning of non-target trees to encourage desirable mast-producing trees. Additional pumping 

stations will be evaluated for both the Bluff and Cuddo units to correctly facilitate the flooding of highquality waterfowl impoundments. A formal wetlands habitat management plan will need to be developed 

to properly facilitate ecologically sound application of seasonally manipulated moist-soil and greentree 

reservoir impoundments. The present wetland management system does not fully allow independent 

management of wetland impoundments on some units. A dedicated maintenance program will have to be 

implemented to keep water control structures and ditches operational. 

Presently, approximately 175 acres of floodable, impounded fields are available to plant corn or other 

agricultural crops on the Cuddo, Bluff, and Pine Island units. The refuge proposes to evaluate the 

wetlands management program to increase the number of acres for moist-soil and/or agricultural crops 

to accommodate any increases in numbers of wintering migratory ducks and geese. 

Waterfowl management (i.e., featured species approach) provides habitat and resources for multiple 

species, including key migratory birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Fredrickson and Taylor 1982). 

Although waterfowl is the focus species of management on refuge wetlands, the diversity among refuge 

wetlands is beneficial to a suite target wildlife species. Wetlands that have moist-soil and bottomland 

hardwood forests will be managed under “best management practices” to include proper ecological 

application of wetland and bottomland forest management practices (Fredrickson, King, and Kaminski 

1999). Most wetlands are in critical need of restoration, including ditch cleaning, dike clearing and 

reconstruction, and chemical/mechanical/fire prescriptions. Wetland impoundment creation and 

management will include impact considerations on all priority species (e.g., waterfowl, pied-billed 

grebes, American and least bitterns, rails, sandhill cranes, and a large variety of neotropical songbirds) 

utilizing Santee NWR. However, the primary focus of managed wetlands is for waterfowl use. 

Strategies: 

y Implement a formal wetlands monitoring program to facilitate best management practices and 

ecologically sound strategies. 

y Evaluate and implement wetland restoration (i.e., reconstruction) activities on all management 

units. These activities will include mechanical, chemical, and fire prescriptions that will focus 

on water level manipulation, encourage desirable plant growth, and discourage invasive 

plants. 

y Identify and treat selected areas of wetlands for exotic and nuisance vegetation; degrading 

prime waterfowl areas is a priority. Work with Santee-Cooper, Ducks Unlimited, and other 

partners on cooperative efforts. 

y Monitor wildlife use (i.e., migratory birds other than waterfowl) within wetland units during 

spring, summer, and early fall seasons to better understand their needs. 

y Determine the need and potential for creating or expanding impounded wetlands on each unit, 

using soil surveys and GIS technology to delineate the hydric soil distribution. 

y Investigate strategies to rotate greentree reservoir flooding schedules to allow a prescribed 

alternation of drying once every three years during the dormant season. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

y Seek partnerships with Ducks Unlimited, Santee-Cooper, SCDNR, and with other groups to 

assist in wetlands management plan development, funding, and implementation. 

y Work with partners to evaluate the wetlands management program to provide 

recommendations for water control structures and pumps needed for independent 

management. 

y Annually collect soil samples to determine soil fertility in selected managed fields to 

adequately maintain optimum growing conditions for desired native vegetation and agricultural 

crops. 

Objective 4.10. Grassland, Scrub/Shrub 

Discussion: Grassland habitat makes up about 18 percent of the refuge. This habitat is composed 

of a grassland/scrub/shrub cover types. The lack of fire or other disturbance, such as agricultural 

operations, over the refuge uplands has contributed to the encroachment of woody vegetation. This 

habitat type is dispersed throughout the refuge, occupying abandoned agricultural fields. Historically, 

up to 800 acres of these fields were farmed as part of a cooperative farming program, which ceased 

to exist in 2000 due to a lack of interest by farmers, deer depredation, and restrictions on pesticides.

These areas are critical for many priority species, including Henslow’s sparrow; eastern kingbird; 

eastern meadowlark; loggerhead shrike; painted bunting; northern bobwhite; American woodcock; 

and black, yellow and sora rails found in fields bordering wetlands. Recommended prescribed fire 

rotations in grassland fields should be planned at 3 to 4 year intervals. Fields in succession after 3 to 

4 years may require special equipment (e.g., dozer and roller-chopping) for maintaining early 

successional growth. The biological review clearly defines the importance of grassland/scrub/shrub 

habitats on Santee NWR as being a critical factor for maintaining populations of priority grassland bird 

species. Larger fields are found to be the most productive and should contain a feathered or gradual 

edge along forest borders. The importance of these habitats will increase as the surrounding 

privately owned landscape continues to develop thus reducing these habitat types (Biological Review, 

Santee NWR, USFWS 2004, 88 pp.). 

Objective 4.11. Grassland, Scrub/Shrub 

Continue to manage approximately 1,200 acres of grassland and scrub/shrub habitats on the refuge, 

utilizing mechanical equipment and prescribed burning to maintain communities in early succession 

warm season grasses with mixed scrub/shrub vegetation. 

Objective 4.12. Grassland, Scrub/Shrub 

Evaluate the configuration of size and location of existing fields to determine if some smaller fields 

can be combined into larger fields. 

Objective 4.13. Grassland, Scrub/Shrub 

Develop habitat monitoring to enhance grassland field management based on timing of manipulation 

(i.e., fire and/or mechanical). 

Strategies: 

y Monitor vegetation response caused by the effects of fire and mechanical disturbance within 

these communities. Maintain habitats in a 3-year rotation. 

y Integrate existing bird monitoring programs to include grassland habitats. 

y Acquire mechanical equipment capable of thinning and removing young tree species (4- to10-

inch dbh) to return older scrub/shrub habitat to year one grassland condition. 

y Work closely with the fire management staff from nearby refuges to conduct prescribed burns. 
64 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Develop partnerships with the SCDNR for recommendations on management. 

y Evaluate the grassland community cover on the refuge and provide recommendations on field 

size and location. Determine if restoring additional old farm fields will assist in meeting the 

needs of key species compared to having old farm fields revert to mature forest. 

y Determine the advantages of introducing soft-edged ecotones for transitional communities 

between forest and field types. 

Goal 5. Forest Management 

Discussion: A Forest Management Plan was produced for Santee NWR in 1975. This now 

outdated plan does not meet present-day landscape goals and objectives or the habitat types of the 

refuge. The primary objectives of this plan were to manage forest habitats in an even-aged 

management system “on the premise of growing, harvesting, and reproducing timber” which 

“safeguards a sustained yield of forest products with the additional feature of providing wildlife with a 

diversified habitat.” This document does contain some relevant information and is an invaluable 

historical document for the refuge. 

Forest habitat types on Santee NWR are dominated primarily by a mature hardwood component with 

mixed pines and bottomland hardwood forested wetlands. A forest habitat and cover type analysis is 

needed to determine site density and to provide recommendations for thinning and forest 

management. Most of these mature stands consist of a closed canopy that limits: (1) growth of 

understory and midstory vegetation and primary habitat conditions; and (2) bird abundance and 

diversity. The remaining forest habitats are mostly composed of pioneer tree species that have 

succeeded from farm fields that were abandoned approximately 15 to 20 years ago. A forest habitat 

evaluation and management plan will provide recommendations for: the need to replant these old 

fields with native forest species (e.g., using Go Zero program); thinning treatments and harvest rates; 

allowing vegetation to improve naturally with age; and for reclaiming these fields in a grass/scrub 

management program. A more aggressive management approach (fire and/or mechanical) will be 

needed to manage forests for key, priority species. A determination on forest management 

treatments through an updated forest management plan is recommended to emphasize improving 

hardwood stands and/or pine. 

The diversity of refuge forest habitat types benefits a wide variety of wildlife including migratory birds 

and resident wildlife such as non-migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. More than 2,300 

acres of forest habitat exist on the four units of the refuge, with nearly 70 percent of the total forested 

area on the Cuddo Unit. The natural pine stands are predominantly loblolly, with some longleaf and 

shortleaf pine throughout the four units. Some small plantations of slash pine have been planted on the 

refuge; however, they have never received management considerations beyond the planting stage. 

The mixed hardwood stands are comprised primarily of sweet gum, willow oak, black gum, white oak, 

red maple, water oak, post oak, southern red oak, swamp chestnut oak, hickory, and blackjack oak, 

with a mixture of small understory trees, shrubs, and vines. Some mature trees, both pines and 

hardwoods, are over 100 years old; however, the majority of trees are less than 60 years in age. 

Upland forest on the refuge has received very little management attention. Staff hours and 

equipment needed to properly thin timber and curtail unwanted pioneer growth species of pines and 

hardwood never materialized leaving the forest to natural succession. The 1975 Forest Plan was 

never implemented and was goal-oriented towards timber harvest and not forest and wildlife diversity. 

In 1989, Hurricane Hugo caused major damage to the forest, snapping off an estimated 50 percent of 

mature trees at the 40-foot level. It also damaged smaller trees, causing huge piles of debris that 

remained over a 15-year-period following the hurricane. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

The present forest on the Cuddo Unit has recovered and is nearing a sub-climax forest type with 

some crown closure dominated by large pines and oaks. However, there are still many distinct 

openings and areas of pioneer growth that consist mostly of sweet gums and mature wax myrtles. 

Mechanical treatments of dense scrub areas may improve some herbaceous plant growth favorable 

to migratory birds and other species of wildlife. A plan to maintain areas previously farmed as grassy, 

grass/shrub, or scrub/shrub fields by alternate strip mowing to favor migratory songbirds was limited 

due to funding and staffing constraints (Bond 1983). 

Additional forest types include greentree reservoirs, pine woodlands, pure gum stands, and cypress 

bogs, of which most are also in need of management recommendations. An updated forest 

management plan will provided needed recommendations on thinning, controlled burns, and/or 

mechanical treatments to meet primary resource objectives. 

Objective 5.1. Forest Management 

Focus forest management (i.e., prescribed fire and/or mechanical manipulation) on improving 

midstory and understory vegetation by opening forest canopy by 30 to 40 percent to provide 

improved habitat conditions for many key bird species. 

Objective 5.2. Forest Management 

Within five years of CCP approval, conduct an upland habitat cover type analysis to coincide with and 

include other refuge vegetative community typing. 

Objective 5.3. Forest Management 

Within seven years of CCP approval, evaluate all forest and upland habitats to develop an integrated 

landscape habitat management plan. 

Objective 5.4. Forest Management 

Within seven years of CCP approval, manage stands of pioneer tree species that have overtaken 

abandoned agriculture fields on the Cuddo Unit and determine the need to restore/convert these 

fields either to grass/shrub or allow them to remain forested for habitat dispersion and songbird use.

Strategies: 

y Update the Forest Management Plan to reflect current and future forest management needs. 

The updated plan will determine the optimal ratio of hardwood to pine forests. 

y Evaluate forest habitats and other landscape features for integrated migratory bird and other 

wildlife management objectives, including the priorities identified in SAMBI (2005) and the 

SCDNR CWCS (2005). 

y Work closely with the District fire management staff to implement a consistent prescribed fire 

management program for the refuge. 

y Monitor the effects of fire on forest habitats and bird species. 

Objective 5.5. Prescribed Fire 

Continue to conduct annual prescribed burns in 400 to 1,000 acres of upland and wetland habitats 

based on resource, habitat and fuel management objectives with highest priority to grassland fields, 

scrub/shrub, and wetland units. 

Discussion: A Fire Management Plan was developed in 2001 to help enhance and maintain 

vegetative communities that are dependent upon or positively influenced by fire. The plan would 

benefit wildlife, promote nutrient cycling, and reduce an unnatural buildup of fuels that could otherwise 
66 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

create hazardous, high-intensity, catastrophic wildfires. Prescribed fire is the most efficient means to 

maintain a desirable vegetation response in early successional habitats that include grassland fields, 

scrub/shrub, and wetland units. Prescribed fire also plays key and cost-effective roles in restoring 

critical habitats that have declined in productivity. These areas will be identified and efforts directed 

toward achieving these goals. Burning will also be prescribed in forest habitats to open a predetermined amount of canopy layer to encourage development of understory and midstory vegetation, 

providing snags for birds as nesting and foraging sites. All burning operations would be coordinated to 

meet specific resource objectives and to control nuisance and exotic vegetation. 

The use of prescribed burns is largely a misunderstood management practice by the general public 

and an increased emphasis should be placed on interpreting this important management tool. 

Prescribed fire and wildlife information is presently placed in some of our public information boxes in 

coordination with the state and county fire management teams. 

 

Strategies: 

y Update Fire Management Plan to include new Service polices on risk assessment and smoke 

management. 

y Monitor effects of vegetation responses to burning within these communities. 

y Update Fire Management Plan to include and emphasize resource management needs. 

y Work closely with the Fire District Management staff to conduct prescribed burns on refuge 

lands. 

y Reintroduce fire into forest habitats that have not seen prescribed burning for more than 20 

years, while, at the same time, maintaining the old-growth hardwood component of these 

forests. 

y Prescribed fire could be useful in both altering vegetative structure and encouraging native 

plants, while discouraging exotic plants. 

y Increase emphasis on including additional interpretation as part of the public use program, 

such as working with neighboring homeowners’ associations and developers to include 

language in their by-laws to increase awareness of the refuge’s fire management program. 

y Continue to maintain a system of fire breaks to protect the forest from potential wildfires. 

Objective 5.6. Prescribed Fire 

Continue to suppress all unwanted wildfires occurring on the refuge to protect refuge resources and 

facilities and to provide for health and safety of staff and visitors. 

Discussion: Three members of the refuge staff are red-carded and are available for initial attack on 

wildfires occurring on refuge property. Heavy equipment, a type 6 engine, and tools are maintained 

in good condition for wildfire operations. Service fire crews from within the Fire District will be 

dispatched if additional resources are needed. Refuge staff will command operations until relieved by 

additional Service resources. The South Carolina Forestry Commission and local fire departments 

are available to assist refuge staff if needed. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

Strategies: 

y Continue to work with Fire District Management staff for coordination of fire management and 

wildlife. 

y Develop strong partnerships with local fire teams to assist refuge and district staff on wildfires. 

y Utilize prescribed fire and mechanical operations to reduce fuel buildup (e.g., leaf litter, pine 

straw, limbs, and other dead vegetation) in large continuous acreages to minimize 

catastrophic wildfires. 

y Maintain existing fire breaks, both within the refuge boundary and the wildland urban interface 

by mowing and disking in order to reduce fuel buidup. 

Objective 5.7. Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) 

Maintain adequate safety buffers between refuge and private lands. 

Discussion: WUI firebreaks are cleared firelines strategically placed to reduce the risk of wildfires 

that may occur on refuge property from spreading to neighboring properties. These breaks can also 

reduce the potential for wildfires spreading from adjoining property onto refuge property. With the 

surrounding landscape adjacent to the refuge continuing to develop with single and multiple family 

structures, the creation and management of WUI firebreaks are critical. 

In 2004, the Fire District contracted with a private contractor to create 10 miles (or comparable 

clearing) of WUI fire lines. A 32-foot wide fireline was created along the western boundary of the 

Dingle Pond Unit, as well as a 16-foot wide fireline along the northern end of the Bluff Unit off of 

Nelson Ferry Road, connecting this road and Cantey Bay. The remainder of clearing occurred just 

north of the shop on the Bluff Unit between Fort Watson Road and Cantey Bay. This area consisted 

of clearing approximately seven acres of dense underbrush and small trees. Fuel was removed from 

this stand to reduce the fire and smoke hazard of the area. All of these areas were picked due to 

their close proximity to Interstate 95, as well as populated areas and crowded campgrounds. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to identify development projects near refuge property to evaluate current and future 

WUI projects in order to mitigate threats from wildfire. Meet with developers and landowners 

whenever possible, educating them about the WUI project and any concerns they might have 

about the refuge. 

y Maintain all WUI projects adequately to reduce the potential threat of wildfire. 

y Work with local and state fire programs to inform them of the WUI project, as well as the 

location of these firebreaks. 

Goal 6: Exotic, Invasive, and Nuisance Species 

Control and eliminate, where feasible, exotic, invasive, and nuisance species on the refuge to maintain 

and enhance the biological integrity of the refuge’s native South Carolina coastal plain habitats. 

Discussion: The occurrence and spread of exotic, invasive, and nuisance plant and animal 

species have been identified by Service staff and intergovernmental partners as one of the 

priority management issues facing Santee NWR (Biological Review, Santee NWR, USFWS 

2004). Exotic species have invaded all refuge wetland and upland habitats, as well as disturbed 

sites. Invasive species can have negative impacts on natural plant diversity and on wildlife 

habitat. Invasive species can also have negative economic and public health and safety impacts. 

No comprehensive survey of exotic plants has been conducted on the refuge. Most efforts are 
68 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

focused on reduction of invasive seed sources throughout the refuge, and on Chinese tallow 

control for 256 acres of floodable bottomland hardwoods on the Cuddo Unit. The refuge has 

received limited resources for invasive plant control for these projects. 

Objective 6.1. Exotic Plants 

Within three years of CCP approval, identify all exotic plant species and produce appropriate 

mapping, using GIS technology to track infestations. 

Discussion: Exotic plant control would be enhanced by partnering with other agencies (e.g., 

Santee-Cooper and SCDNR) to seek funding for matching grants in order to purchase chemicals and 

the services of contractors to conduct exotic plant control and surveys, and by continuing to seek 

funding or partnerships for additional support in GIS mapping and control efforts. 

Strategies: 

y Complete an exotic plant database, including a GIS component, of all refuge units. This 

database should identify the number of exotic/invasive plant species present on the refuge 

and the coverage and stocking level for each species. 

y Each year refuge lands should be surveyed to identify any infestations of exotic plants and to 

determine the coverage and stocking level for all exotic plant species, including the resprouting of any previously treated areas. This would assess the effectiveness of control 

efforts and re-direct ongoing control efforts as needed. 

Objective 6.2. Exotic Plants

Within five years of CCP approval, eliminate and/or control, to a high degree, all known infestations of 

Chinese tallow trees on the refuge. 

Discussion: The levels of infestation and biology of certain exotic plant species make it difficult to 

eliminate these species from the refuge unless very aggressive programs are set in place. The exotic 

species identified would be considered eliminated when all known new plants and all re-growth from 

previous infestations could be killed each year. It is anticipated that this level of control could be 

attained within five years after plan approval. The key to elimination of these exotic species is annual 

surveys and control efforts. 

Objective 6.3. Exotic Plants

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, eliminate and or control 80 percent of all invasive plant species 

with particular emphasis on preventing any new infestations of Chinese tallow trees and any new 

state and/or federal identified Class 1 exotic species. 

Discussion: Exotic plants occur on an estimated 560 acres of the refuge land and present a major 

management concern as they quickly outgrow and/or compete with desirable native vegetation. 

Among the “Top Six Biological Priorities” listed for Santee NWR (USFWS 2003) is the 

recommendation to control invasive and non-desirable plant communities on upland and wetland 

sites. Exotic plants known to exist on the refuge include: Chinese tallow, autumn olive, Chinaberry, 

wisteria, and privet. Of particular concern is Chinese tallow, which has invaded wetlands on the 

Cuddo Unit and has the potential to destroy 256 acres of bottomland hardwood stands utilized by 

migratory waterfowl. Progress has been made in control of Chinese tallow within the bottomland 

hardwood division on the Cuddo Unit, using funding from the Service’s Invasive Strike Team and 

limited refuge resources. Other funding proposals for invasive plant control are pending. Control 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69

methods for exotic plant removal have included the hand pulling of seedlings, stump cut chemical 

treatment, and foliage spraying. Controlled burning has been avoided in areas with high 

concentrations of exotics to avoid soil disturbance favorable to exotic plant propagation. 

Strategies: 

y Seek additional funding to contract for exotic plant control. 

y Continue routine spraying of invasive plants on outer edges of identified concentrations for 

containment purposes. 

y Work closely with the Service’s Invasive Strike Team for funding and technical support. 

y Maintain a minimum of two staff members with a South Carolina Pesticide Applicator’s 

License. 

y Attend South Carolina EPPC meetings to gain knowledge on invasive plant management and 

possible funding sources. 

y Closely monitor all controlled burn sites and areas where mechanical disturbances have 

occurred for new infestations of invasive plants. 

Objective 6.4. Exotic Animals 

Discussion: Invasive animals can also cause negative natural resource impacts through direct 

mortality to native wildlife and by competition with native wildlife for food resources. Two invasive 

animal species are known to occur on the refuge: feral dogs and feral house cats. However, feral 

hogs are an invasive species presently found in areas north of the refuge boundary (Hickery Top 

WMA, H. Fures, personal communication). Feral hogs are expected to invade the refuge in the 

next few years. Hogs cause extensive habitat damage and the Service believes that they also 

negatively impact wildlife by direct mortality and through competition for food. They cause 

economic damage through vehicle collisions and through destruction of landscaped areas and 

road shoulders by rooting. The number of feral dogs and house cats occurring on the refuge is 

small and is usually associated with nearby residential areas. However, it is assumed that some 

feral dogs and house cats occurring on the refuge are released by the public. 

The infestation of invasive plants and feral hogs may increase on the refuge with increasing 

human population and urban expansion. The refuge is presently working with potential 

developers to help educate new landowners on the adverse impacts of exotic species. Without 

control efforts, the level of hog infestation is anticipated to continue, resulting in even greater 

impacts to refuge habitats and wildlife populations. 

Objective 6.5. Feral hogs 

Upon CCP approval and annually thereafter, continue to monitor and aggressively remove feral hogs 

from refuge lands. 

Strategy: 

y Consider all known sources of removal of feral hogs to help prevent infestation of this species 

on refuge lands. 

Objective 6.6. Captive-reared Mallards 

Upon CCP approval and annually thereafter, continue to monitor and aggressively remove all known 

captive-reared mallards from refuge lands. 
70 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: Captive-reared mallards began occurring in significant numbers on Santee NWR in 2001. 

These mallards were not in conflict with the pre-season wood duck banding program until the spring of 

2005. Although in relatively small numbers in 2005 and 2006, captive-reared mallards began 

congregating at the bait site until overwhelmed by wood ducks in July. In 2006, a neighboring 

landowner constructed an 80-acre waterfowl impoundment and 1,500 captive-reared mallards were 

released in August 2006. In 2007, 1,500 captive-reared mallards were released within 600 feet of the 

refuge, with at least another 17,000 released in the local area. Landowners and organizations involved 

in the Mallard Restoration and Research Program (SCWFA 2007) release 60,000 captive-reared 

mallards annually in an effort to restore wintering mallard populations in South Carolina; this does not 

take into account privately purchased birds released on private property. It is unknown what impact 

these birds are having on natural and agricultural waterfowl foods produced within refuge boundaries. 

In 2007, the ability of refuge staff to attract wood ducks to the band site was significantly 

compromised by an abundance of captive-reared mallards congregating at the banding site. As 

many as 250 of these captive-reared non-migratory mallards were flying in daily and consuming all 

bait used to attract wood ducks. Typically, approximately 100 wood ducks were visiting the band site 

during the first weeks of June. In 2007, no more than 15 wood ducks were seen at the site before 

measures were taken to remove the captive-reared mallards. Captive-reared mallards have been 

observed aggressively chasing wood ducks from the band site. Over 300 captive-reared mallards 

were observed using the banding site in July 2007. 

In consultation with the Service’s Law Enforcement Division, the refuge was informed that properly 

marked captive-reared mallards are not protected and can be transported from refuge property (50 

CFR 21.13). Refuge employees made four attempts to rocket-net and remove the captive-reared 

mallards from the banding site. All captured mallards (150) were inspected for proper markings (i.e., 

toe clipped). All captured under the net were identified as captive-reared birds and were relocated to 

a site off refuge. 

Captive-reared mallards also impact refuge operations during winter months when migratory waterfowl 

are arriving in peak numbers. Captive-reared mallards have steadily increased within refuge boundaries 

every year since 2000. The only accurate way population monitoring can occur is during post-season 

banding efforts that begin in February of each year. Both in 2002 and 2003, 15 percent of the mallards 

captured were local, captive-reared birds, while in 2006 and 2007, captive-reared mallards increased to 

30 percent and 47 percent, respectively. This dramatic increase in captive-reared mallards using refuge 

impoundments is due to increased mallard release sites within close proximity of the refuge. 

The staff is concerned that increased captive-reared mallard use of the refuge can severely impact 

the its ability to maintain migratory waterfowl in optimum condition, with respect to competition for a 

limited food source during stressful conditions (e.g., energy demands of egg production, courting, 

molting, and severe winter weather). The other impacts that remain unknown for South Carolina are 

the interbreeding with wild migratory birds (i.e., genetic dilution) and the consequence of disease from 

captive-reared mallards (USFWS 2003). 

Known costs from the loss of grain (i.e., bait) and labor (i.e., personnel time) associated with captivereared mallards affecting wood duck banding operations exceeded $3,000 in 2007. 

Strategy: 

y Consider all available sources of removal of captive-reared mallards to help prevent 

infestation of this species on refuge lands. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Objective 6.7. Feral House Cats and Dogs

Upon CCP approval, minimize the threat to native wildlife, especially migratory birds, by controlling 

feral cats and dogs. 

Strategy: 

y Develop outreach programs aimed at nearby residential areas to assist in educating the 

general public on the damage that feral animals cause on wildlife. Work with new developers 

in increasing awareness and appreciation of the Refuge System and the value of these lands 

in their community. Assist developers by working with new homeowners’ associations in 

developing by-laws to help homeowners understand the importance of conservation buffers 

and control of exotic species. 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

Goal 7: Land Acquisition

Acquire or obtain management authority for the coastal plain natural resources found within the 

existing refuge acquisition boundary. 

Discussion: The refuge will continue to acquire parcels of land from willing sellers within the 

acquisition boundary as funding allows. 

Objective 7.1. Land Acquisition 

Within one year of CCP approval, determine and verify the official refuge acquisition boundary based 

on the original refuge configuration and establishment. 

Strategy: 

y Coordinate with the Service’s Realty Division to evaluate the historical changes in the refuge 

boundary since establishment and determine the correct acquisition boundary based on the 

original refuge size. 

Objective 7.2. Land Acquisition 

Throughout the life of the CCP, work with the State of South Carolina, Clarendon County, SanteeCooper and other partners to complete acquisition of recognized inholdings within the refuge 

boundary. 

Strategies: 

y Determine critically important inholdings within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary 

and develop multi-partner efforts to protect these lands in perpetuity. 

y Work with existing private landowners, conservation organizations, and local or state agencies 

to acquire these lands as funding is available. 

y Prioritize and purchase key inholdings. 

y Increase and actively seek partnership opportunities that will provide strategic habitats and 

buffer zones for the refuge through long-term lease agreements, fee title, and conservation 

easements. 
72 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 7.3. Land Acquisition 

Work with Santee-Cooper to obtain management authority or fee title ownership to the properties 

strategically identified to serve the purpose of the refuge, such as lands/leases contiguous to Cantey 

Bay, the Polly-Cantey Bay Cove, Dingle Pond, Pine Island, and the Cuddo Unit. 

Discussion: Much of the original leased lands and waters previously managed as part of the refuge 

were returned to Santee-Cooper for various reasons. Many of these original leased areas could be 

easily added back into various refuge management units with specific habitat management and 

protection objectives. The refuge continues to seek additional purchases and/or leases of SanteeCooper lands on Cantey Bay in order to attempt to strategically create needed buffers and provide 

protection for existing refuge lease areas. 

Strategy: 

y Actively pursue land leases or purchases from Santee-Cooper. 

Objective 7.4. Land Acquisition

Evaluate the existing refuge management boundary to reflect current agreements with SanteeCooper and adjacent private lands. 

Discussion: As part of the refuge, the Service currently manages four units that make up the refuge. 

These units are separated by lands and waters that are outside of the refuge’s management 

boundary but may be within the approved acquisition boundary. The nature of this objective is to 

recognize parcels of land that may be strategic to the future management of the refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Work with Santee-Cooper to discuss proactive ways to protect the intrinsic values of the 

refuge and lake resources for the future. 

y Incorporate the knowledge of proposed and pre-proposed commercial and/or urban 

development of the landscape surrounding the refuge, and the understanding of what impacts 

this might have on refuge resources. 

y Work with developers to protect the refuge lands, waters, and natural resources, with the 

understanding that this would maintain and add value to any development that may occur 

around the refuge in the future.

y Work with Santee-Cooper to create a buffer zone around the refuge and/or perhaps restore 

some of the historic boundaries that would assist in this endeavor. 

Goal 8: Cultural Resources 

Maintain and preserve in perpetuity the archaeological and historical resources of the refuge that 

exemplify the natural and cultural history of the South Carolina, dating from the archaic period to the 

present. 

 

Discussion: With the enactment of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Federal Government recognized 

the importance of cultural resources to the national identity and sought to protect archaeological sites 

and historic structures on those lands owned, managed, or controlled by the United States. Federal 

agencies have a responsibility to (1) consider the impacts to cultural resources during the agency's 

management activities and seek to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts; and (2) protect cultural 

resources from looting and vandalism using a combination of informed management, law 

enforcement efforts, and public education. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

The Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson site, located near the refuge visitor center, is historically 

significant due to its documented history of use by the Santee Indians over 3,000 years ago as both a 

ceremonial and burial site. The site has added cultural importance because of its use by the British 

as an outpost during the Revolutionary War and its subsequent capture by American colonial troops 

led by General Francis Marion in 1781. As such, it receives a high level of attention from both casual 

refuge visitors and those with a keen interest in either Native American culture and/or American 

Revolutionary War history. Limited interpretation of the site has been accomplished with an 

interpretive sign and a two-page brochure. Refuge staff and volunteers routinely incorporate the 

important cultural aspects of this site into standard wildlife interpretive programs. The objectives and 

strategies below outline the Service's plan to achieve its mandated historic preservation 

responsibilities and to improve interpretation of this culturally significant site. 

Objective 8.1. Cultural Resources

Within six years of CCP approval, the refuge will integrate cultural resource preservation into refuge 

programs, operations, and management plans to protect cultural resources in perpetuity. 

Strategies: 

y Beginning immediately, prior to any non-emergency, ground-disturbing activity, the refuge will 

complete a Request for Cultural Review Compliance form and forward it to the Regional 

Archaeologist for review. Refuge staff will conduct grounds and facilities maintenance in 

known areas with cultural resources in a manner that will not disturb those resources. Tree 

stumps will be left in the ground so the root mass and any associated cultural resources in 

the immediate area will not be disturbed. 

y Beginning immediately, the refuge will evaluate the effects of fire management activities on 

cultural resources in the vicinity of those activities and agree to use strategies that will not 

disturb cultural resources. A section on fire's impacts on cultural resources and an 

Unanticipated Site Discovery Plan will be incorporated in the Fire Management Plan within 6 

years of CCP approval. As the refuge prepares annual burn plans, this cultural resource 

protocol will be included. Heavy equipment will not be used in areas with identified cultural 

resources. If new cultural resources are discovered during fire management activities, then 

the use of heavy equipment will be stopped at that location. 

y When step-down plans (e.g., fire management, road maintenance, safety, and emergency 

response) are written or rewritten for all refuge programs, a section addressing cultural 

resource management will be included. 

Objective 8.2. Cultural Resources

Within five years of CCP approval, the refuge will develop and implement law enforcement procedures to 

protect the Santee Indian Mound/Ft. Watson site and to diminish site destruction due to looting and 

vandalism, resulting in less than three violations detected per year for destruction or looting of the site. 

Strategies: 

y Immediately implement a regular system of patrolling and monitoring of the site by law 

enforcement personnel and other refuge staff. 

y Law enforcement officers will participate in cultural resource protection training at annual law 

enforcement refresher courses. 
74 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 8.3. Cultural Resources

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, one interpretive display and program and/or special event will be 

developed to educate visitors about the significance of the Santee Indian Mound, focusing attention 

on the protection of cultural resources. Additionally, one to two brochures and/or tear sheets will 

convey similar interpretation of the site. 

Strategies: 

y With the assistance of the Regional Archaeologist, develop partnerships with local and state 

historic societies, universities, and volunteers to assist with the location and validation of 

available historical information on the site. 

y Utilizing validated information, develop interpretive and outreach programs, signs, and 

literature that incorporate an environmental stewardship message while conveying the 

importance of the site to our cultural history. 

y Redesign existing signage at the site to prominently display regulations prohibiting searching 

for and/or removal of objects of antiquity as included in the Antiquities Act of 1906 alongside 

existing panel interpreting use of the site by the Santee Indians and later as the site of an 

important Revolutionary War battle. 

y Develop outreach strategies utilizing periodic news releases, interpretive programs (i.e., 

archaeologists and Native American and Revolutionary War subject matter experts), and 

special events to emphasize the importance of protecting cultural and natural resources. 

Goal 9: Wilderness

Preserve the wilderness character within the existing proposed Santee NWR wilderness area. 

 

Discussion: A proposal for wilderness designation of 163 acres of island habitat at Santee NWR 

was finalized on March 25, 1975, and submitted for congressional approval. No official action was 

taken by Congress at the time to include the islands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation 

System. In 1993, and again in 1999, official requests from Congress for information regarding the 

Santee NWR wilderness proposal were made, thus indicating that the proposal was still viable for 

consideration. However, no official legislative action has yet been taken by Congress. 

The proposed Santee Wilderness Area consists of 13 islands in Lake Marion in Clarendon County, 

South Carolina. These islands comprise 163 acres and are split between two of the four refuge 

management units. The Cuddo Unit includes the Plantation Islands and the Pine Island Unit includes 

Pine Island. The islands range in size from the 22-acre Pine Island to less than one acre in the 

Plantation Islands. 

Historically, the timber in the area was actively harvested and agricultural land was actively farmed 

prior to the creation of Lake Marion, when the hydroelectric dam was built. Natural regeneration had 

restored much of the wilderness character of the islands in 1975, and presently the islands exhibit 

even greater wilderness character because of nearly 70 years of forest growth. The islands contain a 

mix of pine and hardwood forests. 

The Wilderness Act specifies that proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as wilderness 

pending congressional approval. The proposed Santee NWR wilderness area has been managed as 

Wilderness since 1975, and will continue to be treated as Wilderness in perpetuity. 

 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75

Objective 9.1. Wilderness

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, the refuge shall continue to pursue the special designation of the 

Plantation Islands as a Wilderness Area in order to preserve the unique wilderness character of this area. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain an open dialog regarding the Plantation Islands’ proposal status as Wilderness with 

the wilderness system contacts in both the Service’s Regional and Washington offices. 

y Develop a Wilderness Management Step-down Plan. 

y Incorporate wilderness themes into refuge interpretation and education materials. 

y Develop a Plantation Islands’ Wilderness fact sheet and newspaper article template. 

Goal 10. Welcome and Orient Visitors

Visitors will feel welcome and find accurate, timely, and appropriate orientation materials and 

information on visitor facilities, programs, and management activities. 

Discussion: The refuge’s 15,095 acres are contained within four distinct units stretching for 

eighteen miles along the northern shore of the 110,000-acre Lake Marion, which was created in the 

1940s as part of a hydro-electric dam project. Each of these units offers a variety of outdoor 

recreation activities for refuge visitors and the visitor center located on the Bluff Unit includes several 

natural history exhibits and information panels. 

Two of the four units (e.g., Bluff and Dingle Pond) are within one mile of Interstate 95 (I-95). 

However, the other two units (e.g., Pine Island and Cuddo) are located 5+ and 8+ miles from I-95 and 

as much as 15 miles from the refuge visitor center. 

 

Objective 10.1. Welcome and Orient Visitors

Within four years of CCP approval, sampling of adult refuge visitors will indicate that at least 70 

percent were able to easily find the refuge visitor center and/or all refuge units. Additionally, at least 

70 percent will report that they found appropriate and sufficient information to guide themselves to 

refuge facilities as determined by regular sampling. 

Discussion: Adequate directional signs from Interstate 95 and primary highways to the visitor center 

on the Bluff Unit and to the Cuddo Unit are in place. Appropriately placed directional signs are 

needed to guide visitors to the Dingle Pond and Pine Island units. Directional signs are also needed 

at several decision points to assist visitors in easily finding and accessing hiking trails, wildlife 

observation areas, exit points, and other visitor use facilities on all four units. 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate with the South Carolina Department of Transportation to produce and erect 

additional directional signs at the intersection of the I-95 exit road and Road 400, directing 

visitors to both the Dingle Pond and Pine Island units. 

y Purchase and erect directional signs providing additional guidance at appropriate decision 

points along the 1-mile and 5-mile routes to Dingle Pond and Pine Island units, respectively, to 

include both arrows and approximate distances to each location. 

y Purchase and erect directional signs within each of the four refuge units at appropriate 

decision points for hiking trails, wildlife observation areas, exit points, and other visitor use 

facilities. 
76 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 10.2. Welcome and Orient Visitors

Within two years of CCP approval, the landowner of the access road to the Pine Island Unit will report 

no more than five instances annually of non-compliance to private property postings clearly 

identifiable to refuge visitors. 

Discussion: Visitors must utilize a sand and dirt road that is in private ownership to gain access to 

the Pine Island Unit of the refuge. The current landowner has expressed concern about visitors 

unwittingly trespassing on his property because they may not understand that the access road is on 

private property. He has experienced problems with unauthorized off-road vehicle entry onto his 

property. However, this type of trespass is likely associated with local residents rather than refuge 

visitors. The aim of the signage would be to make it clear that the access road is on private land. 

Strategies: 

y Work with landowner to develop appropriate signage. 

y The signage will inform refuge visitors that they will be crossing private property for a distance 

of 1-1/2 miles before entering the Pine Island Unit. 

y Erect signage at the point where Road 400 ends and a private dirt road begins. 

Objective 10.3. Welcome and Orient Visitors

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, regulatory signs; visitor information and interpretive materials, 

including brochures and electronic media; interpretive and information panels; kiosks; and exhibits 

will be updated to comply with Service standards. All text will be written interpretively; illustrations 

and text on panels will highlight refuge resources and management goals and activities. Placement 

and dissemination of these materials will be sufficient to meet visitors' needs, as attested to by a 75 

percent satisfaction rate from sampled adult visitors. 

Discussion: The refuge visitor center located on the Bluff Unit includes a visitor reception and 

exhibit area of approximately 1,000 square feet, which houses exhibits designed and installed in 

1981. Renovations to the entire visitor center, including the staff's offices, exhibit area, conference 

room, and outside decking were scheduled for completion in late 2007. These renovations included 

improvements to the flooring, wall covering, and lighting systems, as well as replacement of heating 

and air conditioning units and upgrading of restroom facilities to meet ADA standards. Additional 

upgrades are needed to provide interpretive exhibits and panels that adequately highlight featured 

species and habitat; and convey appropriate conservation messages and refuge management goals. 

Three panels with interpretive messages about "wetlands," "managing water for wildlife," and "wildlife 

you may see" are also displayed on the outside wall of the visitor center on the deck/porch area. 

Visitor contact stations on all four refuge units were upgraded in 2006 and 2007 to provide an 

introduction to Santee NWR, along with information on permitted/prohibited activities in a format that 

meets Service standards. Exhibit panels at each of these contact stations include a unit map with 

roads, hiking trails, and other visitor use facilities highlighted, along with a "full refuge" map to 

delineate the unit's proximity to other units. Several visitor use facility contact points (e.g., trailheads 

and observation points) need both standard permitted/prohibited activities signs, and additional 

interpretive panels and signs are needed on various hiking/nature trails to provide information and 

orient visitors to refuge wildlife, habitat, management goals, and cultural assets. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

Strategies: 

y Update Refuge Sign Plan. 

y Provide a person, either staff or volunteer, at the visitor center reception booth to provide the 

public with any needed information. 

y Develop numbered stops along the Cuddo Wildlife Drive and nature trails that will be linked to 

brochure maps and interpretive information. 

y Work with the Service’s Regional Office staff to assume responsibility for and improve/expand 

the refuge's existing website, with updated texts and photographs. Assume responsibility for 

maintenance and future development of website. 

y Update existing and develop new interpretive materials, including brochures, interpretive 

panels, kiosks, and exhibits, that highlight refuge resources. Expand wildlife diversity 

messages to include threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and habitat 

management. Panels will be written and illustrated interpretively. 

y Incorporate interactive technology when updating visitor center exhibits so that visitors are 

more fully engaged, creating a better understanding and appreciation for the refuge's diverse 

habitats and wildlife. 

y Work with the Service and/or contractors to produce a 10- to 20-minute video highlighting the 

refuge's habitat and wildlife diversity; important management programs; cultural significance; 

and visitor use activities, such as wildlife observation. 

y Install kiosks at parking/trailhead areas (on all four refuge units) that convey trail length and 

conditions, estimated strolling time, and permitted and prohibited activities. 

y Develop wayside panels that interpret refuge wildlife, focusing on endangered species, 

waterfowl, water birds, neotropical migratory birds, and associated management activities, 

such as prescribed burns. 

Objective 10.4. Welcome and Orient Visitors 

Within two years of CCP approval, develop a random sampling protocol, targeting adult visitors to the 

refuge, and ascertain whether the majority of those targeted felt welcomed by the staff, enjoyed their 

visit, and could identify that they were on a national wildlife refuge. 

Strategies: 

y Develop basic visitor satisfaction survey and protocol for randomly selecting adults who may 

have a reasonable expectation to visit the Santee Lakes area or who live in reasonable 

proximity to refuge visitor use facilities. 

y Coordinate with local tourism agencies, chambers of commerce, and other organizations to 

disseminate visitor satisfaction surveys to their adult clients. 

y Develop schedule for collection of surveys, and compilation and analysis of survey data. 

Goal 11. Hunting

Hunters will enjoy quality hunting experiences that lead to support for refuge management. 

Discussion: As identified in the Improvement Act, hunting is one of the six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses. Hunting must be appropriate and compatible with the refuge’s purposes. To ensure a 

quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience, while achieving a wildlife first mandate, the number 

of individuals participating in the activity and conflicts among users may be limited by (1) establishing 

special regulations; (2) zoning and separating different uses; (3) permitting uses at certain times of the 

year; and (4) establishing quotas. Other situations exist where future refuge closures or restrictions 
78 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

may be warranted. Examples of these situations include, but are not limited to, protection of 

endangered species, establishment of sanctuary areas for waterfowl, closure of a hunt due to 

population declines, and safety of other visitors. 

Objective 11.1. Hunting

Provide safe, quality recreational deer hunting opportunities that help refuge management 

maintain a healthy deer herd by preventing overpopulation and associated habitat and/or 

agricultural crop degradation. 

Discussion: Hunting is a necessary deer population management tool for the refuge. Ongoing 

habitat loss surrounding the refuge due to development pushes deer and other wildlife onto 

refuge lands. Refuge habitat available to deer and other species is limited, and management of 

deer population levels is critical to meeting other refuge goals. Traditional predators of deer, 

such as wolves, no longer occur in the area, and hunting must be used to fill that void. Hunting 

provides several benefits not only for the refuge but also for the deer population. 

Overpopulation degrades the health of the entire refuge deer population due to severe stresses, 

such as increased competition for food, increased incidence of disease, and increased levels of 

harmful parasites. High population numbers will cause habitat degradation (i.e., deer consume 

most available food sources and understory vegetation) that directly affects the well-being of 

literally hundreds of other species, including migratory birds, resident birds, various mammals, 

and reptiles. Over-browsing will also adversely impact the refuge’s agricultural crop program 

for migratory bird management. Deer hunting was established on the refuge in the 1960s when 

the refuge determined that hunting was needed to maintain appropriate deer levels. The fact 

that population management needs can be achieved by allowing public hunts is an excellent 

example of how hunters can be provided excellent hunting opportunities while the refuge 

accomplishes critical management needs at a minimal cost to the public. 

Strategies: 

y Maintain current levels of deer hunting opportunity on the refuge. 

y Make an assessment of current hunting programs to assure the programs provide both quality 

hunting opportunities and meet management needs, incorporate changes needed to improve 

appropriate aspects of the program. 

y Seek partnerships with SCDNR and other conservation groups to help determine optimal 

population levels for deer on the refuge. 

y Update Hunt Plan as necessary. 

Objective 11.2. Youth Hunt 

Provide a special refuge deer hunt for young hunters (youths) that is a safe, controlled, quality, and 

educational deer hunting experience on the Bluff Unit of Santee NWR. 

Discussion: This refuge special deer hunt is for youths that are at least 10 years and no more than 

17 years of age. The special deer hunt, occurring on the Bluff Unit, not only provides an excellent 

hunting opportunity, but more importantly, provides a means for the refuge to biologically manage an 

overpopulated deer herd, which causes agricultural crop depredation. Youths are drawn by a lottery 

type drawing that allows them to participate in this hunt. 

The white-tailed deer herd on the Bluff Unit increased in population until serious depredation impacts 

were observed on native and agricultural vegetation. Approximately 80 percent of the agricultural 

crops planted for migratory waterfowl were destroyed due to deer depredation in 2000 and 2001. A 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

draw hunt was implemented in 2002, and succeeded in controlling this heard. In 2003, the refuge 

introduced the opportunity to allow only youth hunters to be eligible for this special hunt. This hunt 

was successful in not only controlling deer numbers and crop depredation, but also provided an 

outstanding recreational opportunity and memorable experience for youths. Refuge staff pre-position 

ladder stands capable of holding two adults in safe and productive locations. Hunters randomly draw 

for stands and are taken to and picked up from hunting locations. The positive feedback from youth, 

as well as adults, confirms the success of this recreational opportunity. 

 

Strategies: 

y Continue to provide and expand if possible, quality hunting opportunities for youth hunters and 

their adult companions. 

y Continue to seek assistance from outside sources to support and volunteer during these 

hunts. 

y Explore possibility of holding a special youth turkey hunt and deer hunts on other units of 

Santee NWR. 

Objective 11.3. Hunting Opportunities 

Santee NWR will continue to support and provide quality hunting opportunities, while at the same 

time use these opportunities to manage specific biological resource objectives. 

Discussion: Hunting opportunities on Santee NWR have been available for more than 40 years. 

The refuge will continue to provide quality hunting opportunities within the existing hunt program, but 

should evaluate harvest results and hunter participation to set future hunting objectives. A decline in 

refuge resources will also need to be addressed when considering all aspects of the hunting 

programs, including length of hunts, times of day for hunts, regulations pertaining to each hunt, and 

expenditures of resources needed to provide quality hunts (e.g., farming, administration, law 

enforcement, closures to non-hunters, staffing, biological objectives, and monitoring). 

Strategies: 

y Continue to provide safe and quality hunting opportunities for participants. 

y Continue to seek assistance from outside sources as volunteers to provide support during 

these hunts. 

y Explore possibility of opening a special youth turkey hunt on Santee NWR. 

y Hire a fulltime law enforcement officer at Santee NWR, or minimally, an additional fulltime law 

enforcement officer for the Complex. Provide a dual-function officer on Santee NWR to 

provide the additional support needed. 

y Continue to collect data from hunts to analyze and document harvest and hunter data. 

y Consider other types of hunts that meet special needs, such as a hunting program for the 

mobility impaired or for women only, which will assist the refuge in meeting biological 

objectives. 

Objective 11.4. Hunting Opportunities

During designated hunting periods on refuge units, minimize disturbance to non-targeted species, 

provide for safety of non-hunting public, and ensure that alternative sites and/or activities are 

available to provide quality wildlife-dependent experiences for all refuge visitors. 
80 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: During the periods that hunting for white-tailed deer is permitted on the Cuddo and Pine 

Island units, and when the Bluff Unit is open for quota youth deer hunts, the non-hunting public could be 

subjected to hazardous conditions if its access is not restricted. The potential for injuries or fatalities 

from accidental weapons discharge, vehicle collisions, or vehicle/pedestrian encounters is markedly 

increased during open hunt periods. Additionally, hunters are subject to the same hazardous 

conditions as the non-hunting public. Annually published hunting regulations provide every means 

possible to ensure a quality hunting experience and to minimize the potential for accidents and other 

incidents for both the hunting and non-hunting public. A safe hunt is indicated when no hunting-related 

safety incidents occur. Non-hunted species should be monitored by refuge staff to assure that 

migratory bird behavior patterns (e.g., foraging, roosting, and resting) remain consistent with non-hunt 

periods and that flight and movement patterns are not due to disturbance or stress by hunt programs. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to maintain the Bluff Unit as a non-hunting unit except for youth or other special deer 

hunts and maintain the Dingle Pond Unit as a non-hunting unit entirely. 

y Continue to require hunters to obtain a no-charge hunt permit that provides applicable safety 

and regulatory requirements, increases national wildlife refuge awareness, and requires 

hunter signature to attest that each has read and understands refuge regulations that govern 

hunting on the refuge. 

y Continue to require personal, daily check-in and check-out at designated hunter check 

stations. 

y Continue to require completion of hunter safety education for hunters under age 16. 

y Continue prohibitions listed in annually published regulations against the transporting of 

loaded firearms; hunting in close proximity to roads, buildings, and hunter check stations; 

possessing of alcoholic beverages; using dogs (except for mourning dove and 

raccoon/opossum hunts), and man-driving and stalk hunting. These regulations also restrict 

vehicular travel and require the wearing of 500 square inches of solid fluorescent orange 

visible from 360 degrees during firearm seasons.

y Continue to close refuge units to general public access during designated deer hunts and 

determine the need for additional closure for other hunts as needed for safety reasons. 

Goal 12. Fishing

Members of the fishing public will enjoy their fishing experiences, display ethical behavior, and 

support refuge management. 

Discussion: The public is allowed to fish in refuge waters included within the boundaries of Lake 

Marion and from several impoundments located within the interior of refuge units. Except in 

seasonally designated waterfowl areas, all water areas of the refuge are open to public fishing. An 

estimated 45,000 to 50,000 visits are made annually to fish these waters. 

Objective 12.1. Fishing

Provide quality sport fishing opportunities to the public as determined when 75 percent of sampled 

adult fishing visitors indicate satisfaction with their experience. The level of fishing activities will be 

compatible with wildlife and resource objectives. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

Discussion: Currently, the Bluff Unit along the Lake Marion shoreline draws 75,000 to 80,000 

visitors annually for fishing and wildlife observation. The majority of fishing occurs from 

motorized boats on Lake Marion. There are no improved facilities for shoreline or bank fishing; 

however, the old State Highway 301, adjacent to the refuge, serves as public access for fishing, 

viewing, and other opportunities. 

Strategies: 

y Within one year of CCP approval, educate anglers about refuge regulations governing sport 

fishing by developing and publishing a refuge fishing brochure in compliance with Service 

standards that will also serve as a free, self-issuing fishing permit. 

y Within five years of CCP approval, write a Fisheries Management Plan and Fishing Plan. 

y Within six years of CCP approval, educate anglers and all visitors about fishery resources, 

water quality, and other issues, using printed or electronic media, news releases, signs, 

exhibit kiosks, or via interpretive programs and environmental education activities. 

y Improve maps and information available to the public; evaluate signage and the use and 

placement of education kiosks. Evaluate parking and access to the interior levees for fishing. 

Objective 12.2. Fishing 

Within five years of CCP approval, decrease the amount of littering from fisherman and other visitors 

on all areas open for sport fishing that are adjacent to or within land units (especially in the Scotts 

Lake area - along Ft. Watson Road between the Visitor Center and the Santee Indian Mound). 

Within ten years of CCP approval, decrease littering in those areas by 75 percent. 

Discussion: Currently, Scotts Lake (Ft. Watson Road) is open for sport fishing 24 hours a day as 

long as individuals are actively fishing. However, the refuge is not staffed at night, which contributes 

to the constant littering and other law enforcement problems. The improper disposal of monofilament 

fishing line and other plastic products creates hazards for numerous wildlife species. Littering along 

roadsides in South Carolina in general, and Clarendon County, specifically, is a major problem. 

Strategies: 

y Within one year of CCP approval, conduct a volunteer "beach sweep" in the Scotts Lake area 

to clean up the littered shoreline. Ensure press coverage and prepare news releases, 

including before and after photographs to focus attention on the littering problem, and 

potential impacts to refuge programs. 

y Within one year of CCP approval, develop an outreach plan targeted at fishermen and other 

refuge visitors to educate them about the threats to wildlife and loss of aesthetic appeal from 

littering. Encourage them to "leave no trace" and help keep the refuge and other natural 

areas free of litter. 

y If the two aforementioned strategies do not produce the targeted 50 percent reduction in litter 

within five years of CCP approval, close the area to fishing and post signs stating why area 

was closed. 

y Within five years of CCP approval, coordinate with SCDNR and other partners (e.g., Bass Pro 

and monofilament fishing line manufacturers) to initiate a monofilament recycling program on 

the refuge and designate at least one recycling bin on each refuge unit for this purpose. 

y Within two years of CCP approval, require permits for night fishing access in the Scotts Lake 

area and provide walk-in only access from a point east of Ft. Watson. 
82 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 12.3. Fishing

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, provide staff support for one on-site and one off-site special event, 

focusing on fisheries resources and management. 

Discussion: Although Santee NWR encompasses a wealth of wetland and open water habitat, there 

is no suitable area for conducting fishing rodeos or similar events aimed at engaging youth, seniors, or 

special needs clients in sport fishing activities to promote an awareness of fish species and their habitat 

and management needs. Much of the water habitats do not lend themselves to the "put and take" 

stocking necessary to make these events both successful and enjoyable for participants.

Strategies: 

y Continue to partner wth Orangeburg National Fish Hatchery (e.g., annual Youth Fishing event) 

and other facilities within the state; seek to locate and improve an area that meets desired 

criterion for hosting of fishing rodeo type events (i.e., with water area small enough to feasibly 

stock catchable sized fish species and shorelines areas that can be safely accessed by youth 

and other clients). 

y Consider timely stocking of fish and with assistance from refuge partners (e.g., Friends of 

Santee NWR, sport fishing organizations, and corporations) host fishing events targeted to 

special groups (e.g., youth, seniors, and special needs). 

y Develop interpretive and environmental education activities with fisheries and fishing related 

themes (e.g., casting contests and fish prints) at all refuge sponsored special events. 

Goal 13: Wildlife Observation and Photography

Wildlife observers and photographers of all abilities will enjoy and value the diversity of refuge wildlife 

and will support efforts to maintain high-quality wildlife habitat. 

Discussion: Wildlife observers and photographers of all abilities will enjoy and value the 

diversity of refuge wildlife and will support efforts to maintain high-quality wildlife habitat. Visitor 

use facilities are available on all four refuge units, enhancing opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. Facilities on the Bluff Unit include two hiking trails with one elevated 

observation platform (a second non-elevated platform is scheduled for construction), numerous 

unimproved observation points along Lake Marion, and approximately four miles of sand dirt 

roads open to foot and/or bicycle traffic on a seasonal basis. 

The Dingle Pond Unit currently only has a one-mile woods road that is available for foot traffic. 

Access is presently limited to a small driveway off Dingle Pond Road that stops at a locked gate 

(visitors must back into the public roadway to exit). On the Pine Island Unit, visitors may park in a 

designated parking area and walk or bicycle approximately 3 -1/2 miles of established roads and 

dikes on a seasonal basis. During the spring and early summer, large alligators often sun themselves 

on these dikes, which create some apprehension for refuge visitors. The Cuddo Unit is the largest of 

the four units and also is the only site allowing access by motorized vehicles (a 7-1/2 mile wildlife 

drive). In addition, this unit has two hiking trails totaling nearly 3 -1/2 miles and an additional 7-1/2 

miles of woods roads open to foot and bicycle traffic on a seasonal basis. There are several 

observation points along and adjacent to the wildlife drive. 

Objective 13.1. Wildlife Observation and Photography

Within ten years of CCP approval, improve existing facilities and add new ones to provide for the 

safety of refuge visitors. Enhance opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography, as 

indicated by a 70 percent satisfaction rate among sampled adult visitors. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Discussion: Many of our visitors have an ingrained fear of wildlife they do not understand. A high 

percentage of adults >30 years old have been taught that "all snakes are bad" and the refuge 

receives numerous requests for assistance with "alligator" problems. Interpretive programs providing 

accurate information and dispelling myths, along with controlled exposure to non-venomous snakes, 

are excellent tools for dispelling many of these ingrained fears. Visitors to the Pine Island Unit must 

utilize existing roads and a dike system by foot or bicycle for wildlife observation and wildlife 

photography opportunities. During the early spring months, it is not uncommon for these visitors to 

encounter medium and large alligators sunning on dikes and roads near water. Adequately 

maintained (i.e., mowed) pathways and interpretive/information panels detailing safe behavior around 

alligators will provide an appropriate level of security for refuge visitors. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and install interpretive panels, highlighting wildlife species that are sometimes 

deemed dangerous or unappealing to refuge visitors. Incorporate these interpretive 

messages into refuge programs and environmental education activities. Provide annual 

programs during special events to educate visitors on snakes, alligators, insects, bats, etc., 

with a goal to develop an understanding of and appreciation for these creatures and arm them 

with tools to minimize unpleasant encounters between people and wildlife. 

y Develop quarterly schedule for mowing, herbicide application, and/or clearing of walking trails, 

woods roads, and dikes on the Pine Island, Dingle Pond, and Bluff units.

y Develop quarterly schedule for mowing, herbicide application, and/or clearing of roadsides 

and wildlife observation vistas along the Cuddo Unit wildlife drive to reduce vegetation that 

limits observation opportunities. 

y Replace existing one-level observation platform on the Wrights Bluff nature trail with a twolevel tower that includes an accessible lower level, ensuring that the new design is nonintrusive to minimize disturbance to waterfowl. Install at least one spotting scope and develop 

a grit pile near enough to the observation tower to increase the chance of observing fall and 

winter birds. Include interpretive panels, focusing on migratory bird species and management. 

y Construct at least one accessible photography blind with screening that provides 

photographers and other visitors with good opportunities for viewing and photographing 

waterfowl species in their natural habitat. Consider limiting access and develop and 

disseminate procedures for reserving the photography blind, if appropriate. 

y Rehabilitate and stabilize surface of an existing one-mile sand dirt road on the Dingle Pond 

Unit that currently serves as a hiking trail. Provide trail marking and install boardwalk sections 

in seasonally wet areas. Construct a short spur off of the existing trail to lead visitors to a two 

tiered observation tower that overlooks either Dingle Pond (a Carolina Bay) or hardwood 

swamp along Polly-Cantey Bay. Interpretive signs and/or wayside exhibits will be erected at 

appropriate locations and a small parking area will be provided with space adequate to 

accommodate 3-5 vehicles, and allow for safe entry and exit onto public roadways. Continue 

to nurture refuge relationships with adjacent residential developments to encourage 

participation in the development of safe and compatible public use facilities.

y Assess potential to manage moist-soil areas near visitor use roads and/or observation points 

to increase opportunities for observing shorebirds, waterfowl, and wading birds during nonsensitive times or areas. 
84 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 13.2. Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within five years of CCP approval, improve the refuge's recognition as one of South Carolina's 

premier birding and wildlife observation areas, such that 70 percent of sampled adult visitors to the 

Santee Lakes Focus area know about the refuge and are aware of available wildlife observation 

activities and visitor use facilities supporting these activities. 

Discussion: Santee NWR has long been considered the best inland bird watching destination in 

South Carolina. Birding enthusiasts flock to the area in search of the brilliantly colored painted 

bunting in early spring and eagerly anticipate the arrival of a plethora of migratory waterfowl in the fall 

and winter. Yet, many of the local residents and visitors from outside of the state remain unaware of 

the refuge's presence and its important contribution to the conservation of neotropical migratory birds 

and waterfowl populations. 

Strategies: 

y Develop outreach plan targeted to birdwatchers and other wildlife observation enthusiasts, 

focusing on seasonal abundance and migration trends, places to observe birds, and tips for 

ethical wildlife watching. Utilize press releases, refuge web site, and other electronic media 

(e.g., birding list serves), as well as birding journals, and promotions with local chambers of 

commerce and tourism bureaus to reach this audience.

y Continue to coordinate with refuge partners (e.g., Carolina Bird Club; South Carolina Audubon 

Society; Congaree National Park; Santee State Park; local, county, and state tourism bureaus; 

volunteers; and natural area support groups) to host an annual birding and nature festival 

headquartered in the area of Santee NWR.

Objective 13.3. Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within five years of CCP approval, develop additional facilities and/or activities to increase overall 

refuge visitation by 10 percent and visits from clients within a 50-mile radius of the refuge visitor 

center by 15 percent, as determined by random sampling of adult visitors. 

Discussion: As is the case with many national wildlife refuges, Santee NWR suffers from a lack of 

notoriety and name recognition from potential visitors and local residents. Many visitors mistake the 

refuge for a national or state park and a substantial percentage are unaware of available visitor use 

opportunities. Fifteen percent of Clarendon County residents are over 65 and 24 percent of all 

residents declare some sort of disability (U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts based on 2006 population 

estimates - URL - http://quickfacts.census.gov). 

With approximately 9,000 of the refuge's 15,095 acres comprised of “wet” habitats, one of the most 

effective means of wildlife observation is via non-motorized watercraft. Such conveyances are 

generally quiet and unobtrusive, giving users enhanced opportunities to see and observe wildlife in 

natural settings for longer periods, and most often with low levels of disturbance to wildlife. 

Strategies: 

y Develop and provide programs and/or activities (e.g., naturalist led bird and nature walks) to 

local residents that provide easier accessibility for seniors and mobility impaired visitors. 

Examples include conveying participants by wagons or trailers, allowing electric carts (e.g., 

golf carts) for special birding events, and providing audiovisual presentations highlighting 

significant refuge wildlife resources and management.

y Establish and maintain a minimum of three non-motorized boat trails on the refuge. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

Objective 13.4. Wildlife Observation and Photography 

Within ten years of CCP approval, assess the demand for use of the refuge by various user groups 

and evaluate the public access program to meet increasing user demands. 

Strategies: 

y Research available information on similar activities on other national wildlife refuges to assist 

with assessment of suitability of activities.

y Where appropriate, initiate compatibility determination procedures to assure appropriateness 

of activities.

y Ensure minimal wildlife disturbance from proposed activities by using restrictions on seasonal 

access, maintaining sanctuary areas, developing guidelines to ensure the welfare of wildlife, 

and maintaining the goal of “wildlife first” on the refuge.

Goal 14: Environmental Education and Interpretation

Provide quality, appropriate, and compatible wildlife-dependent environmental education 

opportunities to promote understanding and awareness of the refuge, its natural resources, and its 

human influences on ecosystems. 

Discussion: Santee NWR does not currently offer a structured environmental education program 

that includes written curriculum and periodically scheduled teacher workshops. However, trained 

refuge staff members provide interpretive tours and programs, utilizing environmental education 

techniques and activities in response to requests from area teachers. These school field trips (in 

keeping with South Carolina Department of Education policy) are designed to meet specific written 

goals and objectives of the state's approved curricula. Approximately twenty such school field trips 

are hosted each year. Because of the presence of the Santee Indian Mound/Ft. Watson site near the 

refuge visitor center, the refuge receives many requests for programs and tours related to this site. 

The staff makes every effort to emphasize the importance of the refuge to natural resource 

conservation as a means to redirect some of its focus toward wildlife/refuge resources by providing 

hands-on, activity-based programs. 

Objective 14.1. Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Within one year of CCP approval, provide naturalist-led interpretive tours/field trips to 25 school 

groups annually. 

Discussion: The first step towards either maintaining or increasing the level of activity for staff- or 

volunteer-led tours and/or field trips is an assessment of our abilities to provide quality environmental 

education activities to requesting school groups. 

Strategies: 

y Research and document recent history of field trip requests to determine average annual 

number of requests, size of groups, and staff's ability to meet needs without unduly impacting 

other visitor use or management programs.

y Based on research, establish plan for limiting requests to be accommodated on a weekly or 

monthly basis (as needed).

y Seek and train volunteers so they can lead field trips and/or assist with larger groups.
86 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Develop activity kits, trunks, or other tools that teachers can utilize in their classrooms or in 

the field to convey global and refuge-specific conservation messages. Utilize South Carolina 

grade-based curriculum guides to guide content and partner with universities, 4-H programs, 

corporate partners, etc., to assist with development, production, and/or procurement of kit 

materials and supplies.

y Establish system for loan of existing videos and other materials available from Service production 

and publication libraries to interested schools as orientation and support for field trips. Available 

videos focus on such topics as wetlands, neotropical birds, waterfowl migration, endangered 

species, shorebirds, watersheds, wildlife habitats, and natural resource careers.

y Seek partnership opportunities with Clemson University (e.g., Camp Bob Cooper's 4-H camp), 

the South Carolina Waterfowl Association's Camp Woodie, and others for incorporating the 

Service, Refuge System, and Santee NWR’s conservation messages into their programs. 

y Develop core messages to be used in all refuge programs and environmental education 

activities that emphasize "wildlife first" and focus on importance of this refuge and the Refuge 

System for the protection and conservation of natural resources. As appropriate, link 

important cultural and historic values to related wildlife conservation values. 

Objective 14.2. Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, develop a minimum of four curriculum-based environmental 

education programs that focus on one or more topics related to wildlife conservation and the Refuge 

System’s role in that arena. 

Discussion: Curriculum contents will be developed to meet State of South Carolina curriculum 

standards. Topics to be considered include: freshwater marshes and the importance of wetlands, 

habitat management and wildlife diversity, prescribed burning as a management tool, role of water 

management in attracting and providing habitat for waterfowl, planting supplemental crops for wildlife, 

using regulated harvest activities to manage wildlife populations, careers in resource conservation, 

and role of the ordinary citizen in wildlife conservation (including focus on climate change). A 

teacher’s guide will be developed so that educators can utilize the guide in their classrooms to 

support related curriculums. They will also be designed to encourage teachers to use the refuge as 

an outdoor classroom. 

Strategies: 

y Develop teacher’s guide to Santee NWR that provides an introduction to the refuge and the 

Service, focuses on the diversity of habitats and wildlife found on the refuge, management 

programs, and history of the area. The guide will include activities and reproducible materials 

to illustrate and enhance students' understanding of the ecological concepts presented within 

the guide. 

y Conduct a minimum of two educator workshops annually to demonstrate activities and 

techniques for developing and using environmental education to support related curriculums 

as a means to create and encourage environmental stewardship. Utilize existing 

environmental education tools, such as Project Wild, Project Learning Tree, and The Wonder 

of Wetlands, and develop site-specific activities and materials as appropriate. 

y Develop refuge-specific messages, with associated classroom materials and/or environmental 

education activity guidance, to be used by volunteers and educators during refuge field trips or 

in classroom settings. Focus will be on wetlands habitat and associated species, habitat and 

species diversity, and opportunities for citizens to make a difference on environmental issues 

(e.g., recycling, water conservation, and strategies for reducing impacts of climate change). 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

y Partner with the South Carolina Waterfowl Association (e.g., Camp Woodie), South Carolina 

Ducks, or other partners to develop a wood duck activity kit that could be used for instruction 

in the classroom or to supplement field environmental education activities. 

y Support nature discovery and children’s programs that link children to natural areas and 

wildlife and encourage educational programs that connect children to the natural world and its 

intricate relationships. 

Objective 14.3. Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, at least 25 percent of students in grades 4-6 in targeted school 

districts will participate in curriculum-based environmental education programs that focus on the 

importance of habitat diversity. 

Discussion: Targeted districts include Clarendon District 1, which includes Summerton, South 

Carolina schools, Clarendon District 2, which includes Manning, South Carolina schools, and 

Orangeburg District 3, which includes Elloree, Holly Hill, and Vance, South Carolina schools. 

These districts, within travel distances of 30 miles or less of the refuge, better facilitate field trips by 

students and off-site classroom visits by refuge staff and volunteers. 

Strategies: 

y Coordinate with Clarendon and Orangeburg Counties’ school districts to identify specific grade 

level(s) targeted for environmental education activities (recommended grades 4-6). 

y Update and disseminate the existing “Guide to Services and Materials Available to Educators 

at Santee National Wildlife Refuge." 

y Develop presentation for school district curriculum coordinators and/or targeted educators to 

encourage refuge field trips, classroom activities utilizing curriculum based environmental 

education programs, and stewardship projects to convey desired conservation messages. 

y Coordinate with area Boy and Girl Scout leaders for possible field trips, merit badge activities 

related to wildlife conservation, and possible stewardship projects on the refuge. 

y Identify designated outdoor classroom area(s) for use by educators to conduct environmental 

education activities in support of related class curricula. 

y Recruit, train, and utilize non-public use staff, interns, and volunteers to conduct and/or assist 

with environmental education programs. Within four years of CCP approval, recruit and train 

five volunteers for these programs. 

y Seek grant opportunities for funding per diem and/or lodging costs for student interns to assist 

with environmental education and interpretive programs. Use existing travel trailer and 

research other available, no-cost lodging for interns. 

y Coordinate with South Carolina Lowcountry NWR Complex visitor services’ staff and staff of 

its support group (e.g., SEWEE Association) for assistance with environmental education 

program requests beyond the capability of refuge staff and volunteers. 

y Request funding and volunteer assistance from the Friends of Santee National Wildlife Refuge as 

needed to support environmental education programs (e.g., student materials, activity supplies, 

materials for teacher kits, and assistance with school transportation costs for needy schools). 

Goal 15. Interpretation

Visitors of all abilities will enjoy their visits and increase their knowledge, understanding, and support 

for the refuge and the Refuge System. 
88 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The primary themes now interpreted on the refuge include the diversity of habitat and 

wildlife species found on the refuge, with focus on wetlands, waterfowl and endangered species, 

management actions supporting this diversity, and the role of national wildlife refuges and the Service 

in wildlife conservation. Although most tactile interpretation takes place within the visitor center, small 

contact stations are located at numerous visitor use areas on all four refuge units. The visitor center 

is wheelchair accessible but most other visitor use areas are minimally acceptable from an 

accessibility standpoint. 

Objective 15.1. Interpretation 

Within six years of CCP approval, at least 75 percent of adult visitors regularly sampled at the visitor 

center will be able to identify that they are visiting a national wildlife refuge where wildlife comes first. 

Strategies: 

y Interpretive panels at all visitor use areas will include Service, Refuge System, and refugespecific messages such as migratory waterfowl and neotropical birds, threatened and 

endangered species, habitat diversity and management, and wetlands conservation.

y Utilize "tag lines" and other media to market and identify the Refuge System on the products 

sold in the retail sales area. 

y Coordinate with the Friends of Santee National Wildlife Refuge to develop sales items that 

include the refuge name and feature prominent native wildlife species.

y Refuge staff and volunteers staffing the visitor center and/or encountering visitors in the field 

will emphasize ethical wildlife observation/photography methods and encourage visitors to 

observe wildlife from afar without interfering with the animal’s activities.

y Exhibit panels and literature will clearly state permitted/prohibited activities and include 

language that states the primary purpose of the refuge, which is to provide sanctuary and 

habitat needs for wildlife; visitor use activities are only allowed when they do not conflict with 

wildlife interests. 

Objective 15.2. Interpretation 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, provide an average of at least one interpretive program per month. 

Discussion: Refuge staff and volunteers provide an average of 6 to 10 interpretive programs 

annually. Current offerings range from naturalist-led bird walks, programs on the Santee Indians, the 

American Revolution, reptiles and amphibians, wildflower walks, public waterfowl banding events, 

and butterfly walks, to back roads tours of various units by wagon, foot, or bicycle. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to host special events in conjunction with existing Refuge System and other 

established celebrations or commemorations (e.g., National Wildlife Refuge Week, Earth Day, 

and International Migratory Bird Day). 

y Develop new programs for additional focus events (e.g., Wetlands Month, Public Lands Day, 

Hunting and Fishing Day celebrations, and Santee Birding and Nature Festival).

y Develop interpretive programs for ranger-led canoe and/or kayak field trips on refuge units as 

appropriate.

y Seek partners and use volunteers to host "speakers’ bureau" with subject matter experts on 

such topics as alligators, pollinators, wetlands plants, and Native American culture.

y Increase demonstration type and hands-on interpretive programs, such as waterfowl and 

migratory bird banding.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

y Partner with Santee State Park, University of South Carolina Department of Archaeology, 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and Regional Archaeologist to develop joint or stand-alone 

interpretive programs and/or guided tours of the Santee Indian Mound/Ft. Watson site for 

National Archaeology Month celebrations held annually in October.

y Coordinate with volunteers, community partners and/or the South Carolina Wildlife Federation 

to establish a native plants, wildflower, and butterfly garden at the refuge visitor center. 

Through interpretive signs and an accompanying guide, the area could become an outdoor 

classroom and serve as a demonstration area for “Backyard Wildlife Management" to 

encourage environmental stewardship. 

Objective 15.3. Interpretation

Within three years of CCP approval, a minimum of one refuge hiking trail will be classified as an 

interpretive trail. 

Discussion: None of the refuge's existing hiking trails is interpreted. Exhibit panels at trailheads 

describe the refuge habitat and wildlife and provide guidance and suggestions for successfully 

observing wildlife. 

Strategies: 

y Develop or purchase standard interpretive signs for erection at appropriate locations along the 

Wrights Bluff Nature Trail, with focus on identification and/or description of major habitat 

components, endangered species, waterfowl and related management, and wood duck box 

management.

y Install interpretive signs at both the Cantey Bay observation platform and the observation 

tower overlooking croplands, Lake Marion, and the banding pond. Focus for these panels will 

be on waterfowl, shorebirds, water birds, alligators and other reptiles, croplands 

management, water management, and refuge banding efforts.

Goal 16. Recreation

All public use activities will be appropriate and compatible and visitors will support priority public use 

activities that minimize wildlife and habitat disturbance. 

Discussion: The Improvement Act identifies six specific priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses. 

They are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. Fundamental to the provisions of these uses are viable and diverse fish and wildlife 

populations and the habitats upon which they depend. These priority uses, along with all other uses, 

must be appropriate and compatible with the refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System. 

To ensure a quality wildlife-dependent recreational experience, while achieving a wildlife first 

mandate, the number of refuge uses are limited and certain actions are taken to limit conflicts 

between users by: (1) zoning activities; (2) designating trails, dikes roads, structures, and sites for 

specific recreation activities; (3) establishing closed areas to provide wildlife sanctuaries; (4) 

establishing special regulations; (5) minimizing conflicts with other management or visitor programs; 

and (6) controlling or prohibiting certain recreational activities that disturb wildlife. Some current uses 

may be affected with the implementation of this CCP. 
90 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Although jogging activity on the refuge has not been documented to any extent, this activity does not 

meet the definition of a wildlife-dependent recreation activity and would be eliminated as an approved 

activity. Bicycle riding on refuge walking trails has never been permitted because of safety concern for 

other trail users. Bicycle riding would be restricted to roads designated on refuge maps. In general, 

activities that adversely affect fish and wildlife or their habitats will have to be evaluated to determine if 

they are appropriate and compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the Refuge System. 

Determinations will be based on field monitoring and published literature (e.g., Klein 1993; Gabrielson 

and Smith 1995; Morton 1995; Dobb 1998; Riffell et al., 1996; Burger 1981; Pease et al., 2005). 

Other uses will be studied and adaptive strategies developed to deal with activities that cause wildlife 

disturbance, such as activities or vehicles that generate loud noises and disturb wildlife. The area of 

greatest concern is along the Cuddo Wildlife Drive and some boating, where the potential for visitors 

versus wildlife conflicts is greatest. Strategies that may be implemented to reduce the potential for 

wildlife disturbance include: designation of seasonal access areas to provide sanctuary for sensitive 

threatened and endangered species and waterfowl, developing new signs which stress proper wildlife 

viewing etiquette, and establishing vegetative screens. These and other adaptive strategies may be 

used at other locations if wildlife conflicts arise. 

Objective 16.1. Recreation 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, information will be provided at the refuge visitor center, visitor 

contact areas, and via the refuge website and through printed materials (e.g., brochures) relating to 

appropriate and compatible recreational activities that will assist visitors in understanding the refuge 

boundary and the fact that their behavior can reduce wildlife disturbance. 

Strategies: 

y Wildlife viewing etiquette messages will be incorporated into brochures, exhibits, and 

electronic media. 

y All refuge brochures, signs, and exhibits will be updated to assure that the public is aware of 

potential wildlife disturbances and clearly understands permitted and prohibited activities for 

all refuge units. 

Objective 16.2. Recreation 

Upon CCP approval, assess and mitigate any adverse impacts on the 7 1/2-mile Cuddo Unit Wildlife 

Drive’s trust resources (e.g., namely waterfowl and alligators) by visitors using the drive. 

Discussion: The Cuddo Unit Wildlife Drive is open for public access 7 days per week except for the 

periods when the Cuddo Unit is open for deer hunting. Hours of access are from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m., 

from April 1 through September 30, and 8 a.m. until 5 p.m., October 1 through March 31, each year. 

Access to the wildlife drive is controlled by an automatic gate. 

Strategies: 

y Develop procedures for staff and/or visitor reporting and documenting of instances of wildlife 

disturbance (e.g., noting that wood ducks flush when vehicles pass by without soon returning 

to the site and instances of individuals throwing articles at alligators). Analyze findings to 

determine seasonal occurrences or patterns of problems. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

y As necessary, close that section of the wildlife drive past Otter Trail, routing traffic down Otter 

Trail to a point where visitors can access the north and south loops of the hiking trail, turning 

left and continuing to the intersection of Woods Road, making another left turn to take visitors 

back to the main (Center) road of the wildlife drive. This closure, whether seasonal or 

permanent, would provide additional measures to prevent disturbance to wildlife. 

y Continue to prohibit vehicular access to the west side of the Cuddo Unit year-round, with 

access only allowed via foot or bicycle. And, continue to prohibit public access of any type on 

the west side of this unit from November 1 through March 31, to minimize disturbance to 

wintering waterfowl. 

y Consider closing the wildlife drive to all public access on Mondays and Tuesdays, year-round 

(except during special hunts or other public use events) to provide wildlife with a respite from 

disturbance. 

Objective 16.3. Recreation 

Upon CCP approval, provide measures to monitor and mitigate wildlife disturbance and/or 

wildlife/visitor conflicts on all refuge units. 

Discussion: All four refuge units host sensitive threatened and endangered species (e.g., wood 

storks) and are home to bald eagles, wintering waterfowl and wood ducks, as well as alligators. 

Although the four units stretch for 18 miles along the shore of Lake Marion, each unit is actually a 

small refuge area separated by privately owned properties. All indications support increased 

development of the North Santee area in the vicinity of refuge units. As such, all four units are 

vulnerable to unauthorized access and incompatible activities, with these activities likely 

increasing in the future. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to prohibit vehicular access to Pine Island, Dingle Pond, and Bluff units. 

y Limit bicycle access to the Pine Island Unit and designated areas on the Bluff Unit, with 

seasonal limits on access for both areas (prohibited during the period November 1 through 

March 1). Consider a reconfiguration of public access on the Pine Island Unit to limit 

disturbance to wintering waterfowl. 

y Limit access on the Dingle Pond Unit to foot traffic on a designated hiking trail. 

y Before opening other access onto these areas (namely canoe and/or kayak trails), assess 

potential for wildlife disturbance and mitigate using closed areas and/or seasonal closure of 

these trails. Where necessary, expand the waterfowl sanctuary zones, such as Bluff Unit Line 

Island Savannah Branch and Cuddo Unit Plantation Islands. A “no-motor” zone around the 

Plantation Islands would add an additional safety measure for individuals using the canoe or 

kayak trails. 

y Develop outreach strategies and coordinate with local realtors, developers, and/or homeowner 

associations to educate and encourage them to employ practices to enhance the habitat value 

of their property during and after home construction. Consider developing posters for local 

distribution that identifies the refuge boundary and enhances awareness and understanding of 

the refuge. 

y Coordinate with partners mentioned in the preceding strategy to seek funding, volunteers and 

other assistance to enable the refuge to improve existing pubic use facilities and add new 

facilities to meet increased outdoor recreation demands. 
92 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Objective 16.4. Recreation 

Within four years of CCP approval, develop a comprehensive Visitor Services’ Plan and associated 

plans (e.g., fishing, outreach, and hunting) that include visitor services’ goals, objectives, and 

strategies required to meet current and future demands, while adhering to the Refuge System 

mission of "wildlife first." 

Discussion: A visitor services’ review of Santee NWR was conducted in May 2005, with the final 

report filed in April 2006. This review was conducted by a team from the Service’s Regional Office, 

along with field experts in visitor services’ management who spent several days meeting with refuge 

staff and visited all four refuge units to view ongoing visitor facilities, while receiving information from 

refuge staff on visitor uses provided, anticipated demands, and associated issues. The review team 

made a number of recommendations for improving the refuge’s visitor services’ program, including a 

primary recommendation to develop a Visitor Services’ Plan. 

Strategies: 

y Immediately upon CCP approval, develop a short-term Visitor Services’ Plan that includes 

important conservation messages, means for delivering those messages, analysis of 

demands/visitor uses to determine appropriate delivery methods, procedures for prioritizing 

visitor service activities, and outlining methods for increasing use of volunteers to accomplish 

visitor service priorities. 

y Develop a comprehensive Visitor Services’ step-down plan that will encompass priorities and 

plans for the six priority public uses of the Refuge System (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife 

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

measures to determine appropriateness of non-priority public uses, such as bicycling or 

activities that adversely disturb wildlife.

Goal 17. Friends Group

The Friends of Santee Refuge will be an advocate for the refuge, supporting all refuge goals and 

objectives and providing financial and in-kind support of refuge programs. 

Discussion: The Friends of Santee Refuge, established in 2002, has been incorporated as a 

501 (C) 3 federal non-profit group. It has executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the refuge. 

The group’s stated purposes are to support and promote programs and activities of the Santee 

NWR. Currently, the group has approximately seven active members and an inactive 

membership that does not regularly participate in friends or refuge activities and programs. 

One of the major efforts of the Friends group has been the coordination of six annual "Victory at Fort 

Watson" celebrations that bring an average of 450 visitors to the refuge for a combination of wildliferelated events and activities, and programs and activities commemorating the Revolutionary War in 

South Carolina, including colonial life demonstrations. Another very successful function of the 

Friends group has been its “behind-the-scenes” advocacy for the refuge and the community. Friends’ 

members manage a very small retail sales unit in the visitor center. 

The refuge’s volunteer program will also be addressed under this goal. Descriptive information on 

the volunteer program is included under objectives related to volunteers. 

Objective 17.1. Friends Group 

Within five years of CCP approval, assist the Friends group in growing from 7 members to greater 

than 100 members. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Strategies: 

y Continue existing policy of recognizing the benefits derived by the refuge from Friends of 

Santee Refuge in appropriate news releases, interpretive program announcements, and any 

other appropriate media.

y Develop presentations for use by Friends members and staff aimed at community groups and 

organizations to assist with recruiting efforts.

y Utilize special events such as the planned birding and nature festival to promote the merits of 

the Friends group and to recruit members.

y Provide links from the refuge web site to the Friends group website.

y On at least an annual basis, provide media releases promoting the Friends group, with 

particular emphasis on accomplishments and significant contributions to refuge programs.

y Coordinate with local realtors, developers, and landowners to encourage their clients to join 

the Friends group and actively participate in its activities.

Objective 17.2. Friends Group 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, the refuge will continue to maintain a close working relationship with the 

Friends of Santee Refuge, assisting in promoting the growth in membership and financial revenues, 

providing input on refuge needs, and working to maintain proper focusing of the group's activities in 

support of the refuge and in habitat and wildlife activities and contributions. 

Strategies: 

y Encourage attendance by the refuge manager and/or the park ranger at all member and board 

meetings. 

y Provide quarterly updates to the board regarding ongoing refuge management activities and 

projects, with particular emphasis on those needing involvement from volunteers and Friends 

members. 

y Limit the "Victory at Ft. Watson" commemorative event to one day with activities and 

programs originating from the Santee Indian Mound/Ft. Watson site only. 

y Request significant volunteer and coordination efforts from the Friends group for planned 

birding and nature festival. 

y Coordinate with Friends board to stock items in the retail sales area that promote wildlife 

related visitor experiences (e.g., species guide books, wildlife species postcards and note 

cards, refuge pins, Blue Goose passport, refuge T-shirt, tote bag, and caps featuring wildlife) 

and decrease emphasis on historically related sales items. 

y Update refuge volunteer/visitor center host orientation training and present on a semi-annual 

basis. Recruit Friends members to serve as visitor center hosts. 

y Invite Friends members to either planned educator workshops or develop specific 

orientation/training for them. Offer on a semi-annual basis. Recruit Friends members to 

assist with interpretive and environmental education programs. 

Objective 17.3. Volunteer Program 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, increase number of active volunteers by 20 percent over 2007 

numbers. Secure volunteers for at least 75 percent of needed volunteer positions or identified tasks. 

Description: Approximately ninety volunteers have signed agreements with the refuge; the level of 

volunteer activity ranges from those who only assist on one or two special projects annually to those 

who contribute on a weekly or daily basis. 
94 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Publicize volunteer program and refuge volunteer needs via every available avenue (e.g., 

media releases, community presentations, refuge and friends website, contacts and 

partnerships with local chambers of commerce, and educational institutions) to recruit for 

needed volunteers. 

y Use existing volunteer responsibility designations to create formal volunteer position 

descriptions for the major areas of responsibility (e.g., visitor center duties, building and 

facilities maintenance, public use facility duties, interpretive and environmental education, and 

administrative support) 

y Plan and conduct a minimum of two annual "Volunteer Work Days" with one of those also 

dedicated to recognition of volunteers with an awards ceremony. Recommend that Friends 

group provide financial assistance for awards and ceremony. 

y Post Santee NWR volunteer applications and skills assessment survey on the refuge and 

Friends group websites. 

y Establish recreational vehicle site with associated infrastructure to accommodate a 

work/camper program. 

Objective 17.4. Volunteer Program 

Within five years of CCP approval, surveys will indicate that 90 percent of volunteers are highly 

satisfied with their volunteer experiences. 

Strategies: 

y Conduct volunteer orientation for all volunteers and an annual refresher for active volunteers. 

y Develop and disseminate a volunteer handbook specific to Santee NWR. 

y From submitted volunteer applications and skills surveys, determine training needs for 

volunteers. Utilize local and area resources, on-the-job training, teacher workshops, and 

courses offered by the Service’s National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) in West 

Virginia to provide training needs. Seek available scholarships to NCTC or request assistance 

from the Friends group to fund training as needed. 

y Develop procedures for survey volunteers on a semi-annual basis to ascertain their levels of 

satisfaction with their volunteer experiences. Conduct exit interviews of all volunteers that 

leave the program. Assess ongoing volunteer program to make needed adjustments if 

indicated on volunteer surveys. 

y Seek opportunities for non-traditional rewards for volunteers (e.g., guided tours of other 

refuges within the state or complex). 

y Increase efforts to recognize and reward volunteers; seek regional and national recognition of 

outstanding volunteer contributions. 

y Designate active volunteer to serve as station volunteer coordinator to assist with recruitment, 

orientation, project assignments, volunteer recognition, and supervision. Provide needed 

orientation and/or training. 

y Hire a volunteer coordinator for the South Carolina Lowcountry NWR Complex to coordinate 

volunteer programs for ACE Basin, Cape Romain, Santee, and Waccamaw NWRs. 

Goal 18. Law Enforcement

The refuge will have sufficient law enforcement staff to protect the visiting public, refuge facilities, and 

wildlife resources and all officers will have adequate training and equipment to perform their duties. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Discussion: The refuge encompasses four separate units that stretch for eighteen miles along the 

northern shore of Lake Marion, a 110,000-acre lake extremely popular for sport fishing and waterfowl 

hunting. Each of the four units is separated by miles of private property inhabited by both permanent 

and part-time residents. Public use pressure on refuge holdings from outside sources is heavy. 

When wintering waterfowl are present on the refuge, our areas truly serve as havens for these 

species, since waterfowl hunting is permitted during designated seasons in most areas surrounding 

the refuge. The potential for all sorts of illegal activities occurring in the Scotts Lake/Santee Indian 

Mound area is significant. These activities range from littering and illegal campfires to removal of 

artifacts, along with drug trafficking and almost anything else in between. 

Currently, one collateral duty law enforcement officer and one fulltime law enforcement officer for the 

South Carolina Lowcountry NWR Complex are the only staff resources available to conduct law 

enforcement activities. 

Objective 18.1. Law Enforcement 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, sufficient resources will be provided to ensure that refuge 

buildings, visitor use facilities, and trust resources are not harmed and refuge visitors are not injured 

or killed. 

Strategies: 

y Develop or update existing Law Enforcement step-down plan. 

y Provide up-to-date training and equipment for collateral duty and fulltime duty officers 

(Complex staff). 

y Develop Memoranda of Understanding with state and/or county law enforcement agencies 

and the SCDNR to facilitate cooperation and assistance for law enforcement activities. 

y Collateral duty law enforcement officer will coordinate with complex officer and available 

SCDNR officers to respond to reported or detected violations. 

y Schedules and procedures for periodic and random law enforcement patrols will be 

established and will include protocol for designating emergency contacts to ensure safety of 

refuge law enforcement personnel. 

y Hire an additional fulltime law enforcement officer for the complex with a documented goal 

that a minimum of 50 percent of his time is devoted to Santee NWR. 

y Develop procedures for adequately informing refuge visitors of hazardous conditions or areas. 

y Collateral duty officer and complex law enforcement officer will coordinate with Santee NWR 

visitor services’ program manager to develop outreach strategies that will assist in attaining 

compliance with refuge regulations as needed (e.g., littering). 

Objective 18.2 Law Enforcement

Provide a safe and enriching environment for the visiting public engaged in authorized activities 

on Santee NWR. Allow staff to work in a safe and efficient manner without interference from any 

un-authorized activity. Protect all resources and property entrusted to the Federal Government 

by its citizens. Enforce all federal, state, or local laws within the boundaries of Santee NWR, and 

enforce any federal laws adjacent to the refuge that have the potential to impact the refuge’s 

stated objectives. 
96 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: Santee NWR plays a critical role in protecting the resources found in the Santee Cooper 

Focus Area. Residential development adjacent to and within close proximity of the refuge is growing 

rapidly and is expected to grow even faster in the near future. The growth in the residential population, as 

well as vacationers, will greatly impact the refuge. While these impacts will not all be negative, the 

refuge’s ability to manage them will be challenged. Approximately 9,000 acres of open lake water is 

located within the boundaries of Santee NWR and with the exception of the waterfowl season, is rarely 

patrolled by refuge officers. This lake is an extremely popular and heavy traffic area for pleasure boaters, 

personal watercraft, fishermen, and hunters. At present, one dual-function officer is onsite to manage 

these impacts that will grow exponentially in the near future. One fulltime officer is available to initiate or 

assist in law enforcement activities on Santee NWR, but this officer is also responsible for similar activities 

on three other refuges, all located more than 80 miles away. 

Strategies: 

y Create a fulltime law enforcement officer position at Santee NWR, or minimally, a fulltime law 

enforcement officer within the complex. Locate another dual-function officer at Santee NWR 

to provide the additional support needed. 

y Provide Santee NWR with an adequate law enforcement budget for permanently stationed law 

enforcement officers at the refuge (both fulltime and dual-function). This budget would be 

used to provide needed law enforcement equipment and overtime pay. 

y Create and implement strategies to discourage unauthorized activities on all units and to 

manage a significant increase in visitor use. 

y Provide an avenue to educate visitors and neighbors on refuge regulations and activities both 

authorized and unauthorized. 

y Identify illegal activities and resolve these issues before they become more complex. 

Goal 19. Refuge Management 

Provide sufficient resources to implement a comprehensive refuge management program to protect 

and mange the natural and cultural values of the refuge’s inland South Carolina coastal plain and 

Santee lakes system. 

Objective 19.1. Refuge Management

Within five years of CCP approval, site and develop an administrative office facility and expanded 

visitor center. 

Discussion: The refuge’s offices are clustered at the visitor center and at the maintenance 

compound. Offices in the visitor center include the management, administration, biological, public 

use, and law enforcement programs and no space allocation for the Friends of Santee NWR. The 

maintenance compound includes an office in the shop building for law enforcement and storage of 

law enforcement and fire equipment. The shop compound also houses chemicals and fuels and 

serves as a general warehouse facility, with equipment storage garage and gas pumps. A small 

travel-all trailer is housed within the compound that is used by interns, students, and visiting staff. 

The existing combination office/visitor center is deemed insufficient to handle the support structure of 

a cooperating association, volunteers, and annual visitors, while also supporting the refuge’s daily 

operational and administrative functions. The small conference room in the visitor center is used as 

an occasional meeting room for state and Service staff, training, fire briefings, and refuge visitors. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

The existing visitor center has served the program well within the limits of historic public uses and 

administrative needs. The building should be expanded to accommodate the needs of a growing 

public use program and a separate or adjoining administrative office facility should be built to 

accommodate the refuge’s administrative functions. These plans should include any engineering 

services to upgrade the refuge’s utility systems, including water, sewer, telephone, fax, and 

computer services. 

The refuge headquarters, visitor center, and shop compound are dependent upon a well and septic 

system that are part of the original structure. The refuge has two septic systems for its offices, one at 

the visitor center and another at the maintenance compound. The present utilities for telephone, fax, 

and computer communications need to be updated. Over the years, the refuge has utilized nearly all 

of the available communication capacity. An upgrade of the system is needed to keep up with the 

information and communication demands of today and for security purposes. 

Objective 19.2. Refuge Management

Within seven years of CCP approval, construct a dormitory facility and recreational vehicle pad 

facilities within the refuge headquarters compound for use by researchers, interns, students, 

volunteers, and temporary firefighters. This would replace the existing Bluff Shed storage facility. 

Discussion: A major asset to a refuge for research and fire management support is a crew quarters 

and dormitory facility, which can be used by the refuge to house fire management teams, 

researchers, and volunteers. The undisturbed landscape and migratory bird management potential 

make the refuge a highly desirable location for research. The availability of a dormitory facility for 

researchers offsets research costs considerably when compared to the cost of having to rent motel 

rooms and/or apartments. This type of facility offers researchers, students, and volunteers on-site 

housing during their courses of study. This is a valuable asset to provide in-kind support to attract 

needed researchers to conduct projects on the refuge. 

Beyond researchers, interns and volunteers can provide an essential component of the public use 

program for visitors on the refuge. This can include support of the visitor center operations, assist with 

interpretive and educational programs, and disseminate information. Interns are provided a small 

stipend, but free housing in a dormitory facility or providing recreational vehicle pads are key 

components to making this program successful. Located about one mile west of the refuge’s 

headquarters on the Bluff Unit, the Bluff Shed is approximately fifty years old and has been used for 

various purposes over the years. It historically was the site of Santee-Cooper mosquito control 

operations. The shed has been used for refuge materials and equipment storage over the years. The 

refuge is seeking a groundwater and soil contaminates survey to ensure the site is safe for human use 

and occupation. The long-term solution to the need for housing interns, volunteers, researchers, and 

temporary firefighters is to construct a dormitory within this compound. This facility would have to be 

connected to the support systems (e.g., water, electric, telephone, and septic) of the refuge 

headquarters. An additional feature would be the construction of recreational vehicle hookups and 

concrete pads. Some interns and volunteers would take advantage of the recreational vehicle pad 

option, especially those who are retired. 

Objective 19.3. Refuge Management 

Within four years of CCP approval, determine the feasibility of the refuge taking ownership and 

responsibility for all, or a portion, of the Fort Watson Road. 
98 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Discussion: The state-owned Fort Watson Road is the only access for staff and visitors to reach 

refuge headquarters and the Bluff Unit. The asphalt-covered road terminates as a cull de sac at the 

Indian Mound and Fort Watson and does not provide a throughway across the refuge. The road is in 

fair condition and can have numerous potholes and overhanging branches; it is not fully maintained by 

the South Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT). The road presents a management issue for 

the refuge from individuals accessing the area after hours, including special law enforcement issues 

such as drug dealing and use. The roadway is now showing signs of cracking and will have to be 

resurfaced to enable visitors to have a safe route to travel. The refuge wishes to take position and 

ownership of the road due to the special management problems (e.g., law enforcement and refuge 

access) and proper maintenance issues. Planning and completion of this effort may be a joint project 

and coordination between the Service, Federal Highway Administration, Clarendon County, South 

Carolina DOT, and the Friends of Santee NWR. 

Strategy: 

y Coordinate with Clarendon County, the South Carolina DOT, and/or legislative delegates to 

transfer ownership of portions of Fort Watson Road that fall within the existing Santee NWR 

boundary to the Service for the purpose of controlling access to the refuge. 

Objective 19.4. Refuge Management

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, provide a full complement of 13 permanent staff to protect and 

manage the natural and cultural resources of the refuge, while providing opportunities for appropriate 

and compatible public use. 

Discussion: To serve the purposes of the refuge and to accomplish the outlined goals and 

objectives of the CCP, additional staff and volunteers would be required. Along with additional staff, 

additional support equipment and facilities would be needed (e.g., office space, computers, and 

vehicles). See the staffing charts for each of the refuge program areas [i.e., Refuge Management 

(one staff); Office Administration (one staff); Biological Program (three staff); Law Enforcement 

Program (one staff); Public Use Program (two staff); Fire Program (two staff); and Maintenance 

Program (three staff)]. The refuge would emphasize recruiting and retaining staff and supporting 

applicable training and certification programs for maintaining primary job functions. Spanning several 

refuge programs (including management, biology, law enforcement, public use, maintenance, and 

fire), one desired skill set for refuge staff (probably in the biological staffing) would involve geographic 

information systems (GIS) and global positioning systems (GPS). 

Objective 19.5. Refuge Management

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, maintain an effective network of signs, meeting the Refuge 

System’s standards to notify the public of refuge boundaries, public use areas, and closed areas by 

annually re-posting, replacing, and/or maintaining 20 percent of the refuge signs. 

Discussion: Santee NWR maintains signs in accordance with Service standards. In addition, 

highway signs are administered in accordance with the Uniform Code of Traffic Standards. The 

network of signs informs the public of refuge boundaries, speed limits, closed areas, public 

facilities, sensitive wildlife areas, and rules and regulations designed to protect the public and the 

natural resources. 

Goal 20. Intergovernmental Coordination

Foster a strong and effective working relationship with existing partners and new partners for the 

purposes of accomplishing refuge management goals and protecting the natural and cultural 

resources of the refuge’s habitats. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Discussion: Government is required to reinvent itself based on the economic conditions, shifting 

national priorities, national defense, and recovery from natural disasters. The public has an 

expectation that more of the Service’s goals can be accomplished through partnerships and that 

government must become more efficient. The Director of the Service has stated that we must 

emphasize working cooperatively with others, develop a more integrated approach to problemsolving, and share resources to get the job done. We must make choices and find efficiencies in both 

resource and business management practices. This focus strengthens the refuge’s current 

intergovernmental coordination efforts. Numerous federal, state, and local agencies could be 

considered partners of the refuge. However, more could be done to inform and educate the partners 

of the value of the refuge and the refuge’s goals. In the same vein, the Service helps other agencies 

with issues, such as fire management, nuisance wildlife, exotic plant control, and specific wildlife 

conservation issues. Much of this coordination could be accomplished by regular meetings and by 

developing personal relationships with individuals within other agencies. 

Objective 20.1. Intergovernmental Coordination 

Improve refuge coordination with Santee-Cooper in order to make refuge goals and objectives an 

important component in the planning and implementation of Santee-Cooper Focus Area’s 

environmental and land management efforts. 

Discussion: Since much of the refuge is an overlay of the lands and waters of Santee-Cooper Focus 

Area, the most important relationship for the refuge is a positive interactive relationship with this agency. 

This relationship also includes the various departments within Santee-Cooper. As Santee-Cooper adapts 

to new land management goals, growing urban communities around the Santee Lake system and FERC 

re-licensing responsibilities, new and evolving relationships are critical to maintain good partnerships. 

Santee-Cooper needs to understand the role of the refuge and hopefully come to place a high value on 

the resources it protects. In addition, it should come to understand that it plays an integral role as a 

refuge partner in the protection and management of the resources. 

Strategies: 

y Brief Santee-Cooper director and senior staff annually on current and future refuge plans. 

y Meet regularly with Santee-Cooper environmental staff to better communicate on research, 

monitoring activities, potential new development projects, and opportunities to improve 

habitat. 

y Continue to respond appropriately to Santee-Cooper requests for technical support in dealing 

with wildlife issues or partnership efforts 

y Invite Santee-Cooper staff to periodic demonstrations and viewings of actual refuge 

operations. Include social events where appropriate. 

y Develop coordination meetings so staff can meet regularly to discuss issues, problems, and 

partnership opportunities. 

Objective 20.2. Intergovernmental Coordination

Continue effective refuge coordination with SCDNR as it applies to programs of mutual interest, 

including public use activities, research, law enforcement, wildlife, and habitat management. 
100 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Strategies: 

y Continue to have an annual meeting with the regional state coordinators to ensure 

consistency between programs and agencies and provide an open-door policy for visits from 

SCDNR staff. 

y Invite new SCDNR staff to visit the refuge for an orientation. 

y Invite SCDNR staff to social events where appropriate. 

y Participate in appropriate special events sponsored by the SCDNR. 

y Enhance opportunities to partner on projects 

Objective 20.3. Intergovernmental Coordination 

To further goals and objectives in programs of mutual interest, continue to work with local governmental 

partners, such as county and city governments (e.g., environmental programs, Parks and Recreation, 

County Commissioners, Sheriff’s Department, and County Tourist Development Councils). 

Strategies: 

y Continue to seek input and encourage these entities to be involved and informed of refuge 

activities and plans. 

y Maintain mutual aid agreements in the event of emergencies or disasters. 

y Work with local partners to support the development of environmental and educational 

programs. 

Objective 20.4. Intergovernmental Coordination

Continue to work with non-governmental partners, such as Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl Association, 

South Carolina Ducks, Audubon Society, The Conservation Fund, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, The 

Nature Conservancy, South Carolina Waterfowl Association, and other conservation groups to discover 

areas of mutual interest. 

Strategy: 

y Maintain a dialogue with these groups to keep them informed of refuge activities and seek 

opportunities for grants or other funding. 

Objective 20.5. Intergovernmental Coordination

Seek new partnerships, some of which may not be the conventional partners of the refuge, such as 

groups interested in cultural and historical resources. 

Strategies: 

y Identify and maintain a list of problems, issues, and opportunities with which the refuge could 

use partnership involvement. 

y Take advantage of networking to seek partners. 

y Augment and articulate the relationships between natural and cultural resources. 

Objective 20.6. Intergovernmental Coordination

Continue to develop cooperative farming operations to support refuge migratory bird management 

efforts with an emphasis on conservation practices. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Discussion: Agricultural crops play an important role in migratory bird management, as they provide 

a source of high energy carbohydrates needed during periods of cold weather. Typically, the refuge 

supplies ”hot food” crops that are either rotated with moist-soil units or produced on the higher 

elevations to ensure that Southern James Bay Canada Geese have a readily available food source. 

Santee NWR cropland operation could potentially occupy 1,100 acres (including approximately 200 

acres of floodable fields and 900 acres un-impounded) among the Bluff, Pine Island, and Cuddo 

units. The number of acres of crops may vary depending on the degree of cooperative farming and 

funding. Some crop fields that are planted for the refuge can be flooded for waterfowl utilization. Of 

the total agricultural lands available, 205 acres were farmed using force account in 2007. Historically, 

a much broader agricultural program existed with a greater work force and emphasis on farming. In 

2006, the refuge began exploring cooperative farming agreements and updated the Compatibility 

Determination. In the agreement, the refuge identifies its portion of the crops left to better suit 

migratory bird, waterfowl, and goose management objectives. This sets the stage for the refuge to 

make substantial contributions to the South Carolina and flyway migratory bird objectives. The refuge 

farming program will continue to work to address habitat issues that affect migratory bird populations, 

in keeping with refuge goals and establishing purposes. 

 

Goal 21. Climate Change

Provide opportunities to study climate change effects by encouraging associated research on the 

refuge. 

Objective 21.1. Climate Change

Within five years of CCP approval, develop partnerships with other wildlife management agencies to 

share climate change issues and possible solutions to those issues. 

Objective 21.2. Climate Change 

Throughout the 15-year life of the CCP, train all refuge staff and volunteers to look for and document 

any notable change in wildlife and/or wildlife habitat due to climate change. 

Discussion: South Carolina is home to an incredible diversity of wildlife species, including 313 birds, 

96 mammals, 120 fish, 72 reptiles, and 66 amphibians. Rising temperatures and sea level in the 

state will likely change the makeup of entire ecosystems, forcing wildlife to shift their ranges or adapt. 

At the rate temperatures are projected to increase, South Carolina’s forests are not expected to be 

able to adapt fast enough and could change dramatically within 30 to 80 years. 

No one can be certain exactly how climate change would affect refuge plants and animals; however 

there is little doubt that the effects would be quite noticeable when comparing biological notations 

over a span of 30 to 80 years. At best, wildlife and plant species would adapt to the changed 

environment, but in a worse case situation, the refuge could lose many species of plants and animals. 

Perhaps the first to adapt or be eradicated from the refuge would be reptiles, amphibians, and fish. 

Since there are no-clear cut answers to the total effects of climate change, perhaps it would be best 

to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. 

Strategies: 

y Continue to monitor refuge plants and animals. 

y Keep up-to-date on local and national issues involving climate change. 

y Keep long-term recorded data in the permanent refuge files.
102 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

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. 

To accomplish the purpose, vision, goals, and objectives contained in this Draft CCP/EA for Santee 

NWR, this section identifies projects, funding and personnel needs, volunteers, partnership 

opportunities, step-down management plans, 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. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT 

(1) Migratory Bird Migration Corridors with Partnerships, Land Acquisition, and Easements 

Description: Strategically adapt the proposed refuge acquisition boundary expansion to allow for 

future acquisition needs as they relate to migratory bird migration corridors, primary habitat types, and 

wetland protection. This priority is addressed in the migratory bird objective. 

HABITAT MANAGEMENT 

(2) Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Wetland Management and Restoration Plan 

Description: Develop and implement a comprehensive wetland management and restoration plan for 

the refuge to include primary recommendations identified in the wildlife and habitat management 

review and restoration of the Timber Island Field impoundment complex and greentree reservoir 

water management system. This priority is addressed in the wildlife and diversity objectives. 

(3) Develop a Comprehensive Forest Management Plan by Hiring a Temporary Forester 

Description: Develop a comprehensive upland forest management plan for the refuge to include 

recommendations for forest and field management for migratory birds. This priority is to include the 

resource application of fire and mechanical management and is addressed in the Wildlife and 

Diversity objectives. Priorities are to coincide with hiring a temporary forester. 
104 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

RESOURCE PROTECTION 

(4) Develop a Working Landscape Acquisition and Protection Plan through Partnerships with 

Governmental and Non-Governmental Agencies and Private Landowners 

Description: Work with Santee-Cooper, State of South Carolina, Clarendon County, conservation 

groups, and private landowners to obtain easements, leases, management authority, or fee title 

ownership to the properties strategically identified to serve the purpose of the refuge, such as 

lands/leases contiguous to Cantey Bay, Polly-Cantey Bay Cove, Dingle Pond, Pine Island, and 

Cuddo units. This priority is addressed in the Resource Protection objectives. 

VISITOR SERVICES 

(5) Update Existing and Develop New Interpretive Materials, including Brochures, Visitor 

Center Displays, and Interpretive Panels, Kiosks, and Exhibits that Highlight Refuge 

Resources 

Description: Expand wildlife diversity messages to include threatened and endangered species, 

migratory birds, and habitat management. Panels will be written and illustrated interpretively, rather 

than "information presenting." Incorporate interactive technology when updating visitor center 

exhibits so that visitors are more fully engaged, creating a better understanding of and appreciation 

for the refuge's diverse habitats and wildlife. Create a children's activity area utilizing hands-on 

activities (e.g., "build a bird," and wildlife etching) to include development and production of new 

exhibit panels, redesign of refuge literature, and production of children's activity elements. 

(6) Develop Hands-on and Demonstration Type Interpretive Programs and Expand Existing 

Programs that Allow Children and Adults to Become Intimately Involved with Wildlife and 

Their Habitats 

Description: Expand upon existing "public" waterfowl and migratory bird banding offerings and 

partner with SCDNR, South Carolina Waterfowl Association, South Carolina Audubon Society, 

and others to develop new programs. Continue to cooperate with Women in the Outdoors. Look 

at activities similar to the annual hunting and fishing day activities (e.g., kayaking, casting 

demonstrations, and fish preparation and cooking) sponsored by the South Carolina Wildlife 

Federation, SCDNR, and other partners. 

(7) Develop Signage and Outreach Strategy to Emphasize Importance of Protecting both 

Cultural and Natural Resources on the Refuge 

Description: Through partnerships with local and state historic societies, universities, and volunteers, 

secure and validate historical information on the Santee Indian Mound site and develop interpretive 

and outreach programs, signs, and literature. Develop interpretive kiosk with two to three panels, 

depicting Santee Indian Mound history and Native American culture along with the historical 

significance of the battle to capture Ft. Watson (located atop the mound) from the British during the 

Revolutionary War. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 105

REFUGE ADMINISTRATION 

(8) Expand the Refuge’s Visitor Center and Office Complex 

Description: Expand the recently rehabilitated visitors center to include office space for refuge 

staffing. The staff office spacing is presently shared by the Office Administrator, Biologist, and 2 Park 

Rangers. This priority is addressed in the Facilities Objective of the Refuge Administration Goal. 

(9) Hire Two Full-time Biological Technicians to complete the Biological Staffing

Description: Secure funding for and hire a GS-7 and a GS-5 full-time biological technicians positions 

to assist with the biological and habitat management program. These positions will also help with 

refuge habitat management and fire management programs. This priority is addressed in the 

Staffing Objective. 

(10) Hire Administrative Officer

Description: 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 3. Summary of projects 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

1 

Migratory Bird Migration 

Corridors with Partnerships, 

Land Acquisition and 

Easements

250,000 1.5 

2 

Develop and Implement a 

Comprehensive Wetland 

Management and Restoration 

Plan 

$30,000 

(Develop)

$750,000 

(Implement)

1.5 

3 

Develop a Comprehensive 

Forest Management Plan by 

Hiring a Temporary Forester $80,000 74,000

 (4-year term) 1 

4 

Develop a Working Landscape 

Acquisition and Protection 

Plan through Partnerships 

$5,000 1 
106 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

PROJECT 

NUMBER PROJECT TITLE FIRST YEAR COST 

RECURRING 

ANNUAL COST 

STAFF 

(FTE’S) 

5 

Update existing and develop 

new interpretive materials, 

including brochures; Visitor 

Center displays and 

interpretive panels, kiosks, 

and exhibits 

$75,000 1.5 

6 

Develop hands-on and 

demonstration type 

interpretive programs and 

expand existing programs that 

allow children and adults to 

become intimately involved 

with wildlife and their habitats.

25,000 1 

7 

Develop signage and outreach 

strategy to emphasize 

importance of protecting both 

cultural and natural resources 

on the refuge. 

30,000 1 

8 Expand the Refuge’s Visitor 

Center and Office Complex 300,000 1.5 

9 

Hire Two Full-time Biological 

Technicians to complete the 

Biological Staffing

$150,000 115,000 1 

10 Hire Administrative Officer 65,000 65,000 1 

 

PARTNERSHIP/ VOLUNTEERS OPPORTUNITIES 

A key element of this Draft CCP/EA 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 partnerships with local chapters of Delta Waterfowl, South 

Carolina Ducks, Ducks Unlimited, South Carolina Waterfowl Association, Chamber of Commerce, 

Clarendon County, Town of Santee, Santee State Park, and Refuge friends group. At regional and 

state levels, partnerships may be established or enhanced with organizations such as: The 

Conservation Fund, Audubon Society, South Carolina Wildlife Federation, Santee-Cooper, South 

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, or other 

interested state and federal agencies. 
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 107

STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS 

A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the direction of the refuge. A stepdown management plan provides specific guidance on activities, such as habitat, fire, and visitor 

services’ management. These plans (Table 4) are also developed in accordance with NEPA, which 

requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to 

their implementation. 

Table 4. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP 

Step-down Plan Completion/Revision 

Date

Cultural Resources Management Plan 2017 

Visitor Services’ Plan 2013 

Hunting Plan 1975 

Fishing Plan 1986 

Law Enforcement Plan 1988 

Safety Plan 1984/2006 

Aircraft Pre-Accident/Hazard 1992 

Habitat Management Plan 2017 

Forestry Management Plan 1975/2015 

Hurricane Plan 2007 (revise annually) 

Fire Management Plan 2001/2013 

Cropland Management Plan 1988 

Wetland Management Plan 1988/2017 

Fishery Management Plan 1986 

Sign Plan 1979 

Wildlife Inventory Plan 1988 

Wood Duck Box Nesting 1984 

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 CCP. 
108 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 CCP will be revised. Specific monitoring and evaluation activities will be described in the 

step-down management plans. 

PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION 

This CCP will be reviewed annually in development of the refuge’s annual work plans and budget. 

It will also be reviewed to determine the need for revision. A revision will occur if and when 

conditions change or significant information becomes available, such as a change in ecological 

conditions or a major refuge expansion. The final 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 109

SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

 

I. Background 

INTRODUCTION 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) for Santee 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). The 

Improvement Act requires the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) for all 

refuges. Following a public review and comment period on the Draft CCP, a final decision will be 

made by the Service that will guide Santee NWR management actions and decisions over the next 

15 years, provide understanding about the refuge and management activities, and incorporate 

information and suggestions from the public and refuge partners. 

The Draft CCP proposes a management direction, which is described in detail through a set of goals, 

objectives, and strategies. The Draft CCP addresses current management issues, provides long-term 

management direction and guidance for the refuge, and satisfies the legislative mandates of the 

Improvement Act. While the CCP provides general management direction, subsequent step-down plans 

will provide more detailed management actions. 

The EA determines and evaluates a range of reasonable management alternatives. The intent is to 

support informed decision-making regarding future management of the refuge. Each alternative 

presented in this EA was generated with the potential to be fully developed into a Final CCP. The 

predicted biological, physical, social, and economical impacts of implementing each alternative are 

analyzed in this EA. This analysis assists the Service in determining if the alternatives represent no 

significant impacts, thus requiring the preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or if the 

alternatives represent significant impacts, thus requiring more detailed analysis through an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) and a Record of Decision (ROD). Following public review and comment, the 

Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 

This CCP is needed to address current management issues, to provide long-term management 

direction for the refuge, and to satisfy the legislative mandates of the Improvement Act, which 

requires the preparation of a CCP for all national wildlife refuges. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

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

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 Service will select an alternative to be fully developed for this refuge. 
110 Santee National Wildlife 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 C as the proposed management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning 

team, Alternative C 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 Improvement Act requires that all national 

wildlife refuges have a CCP in place within 15 years. 

DECISION FRAMEWORK 

Based on the assessment described in this EA, the Service will select an alternative to implement 

the CCP for Santee NWR. The Final CCP will include a 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. 

PLANNING STUDY AREA 

Santee NWR was established in 1942, and is in Clarendon County, South Carolina. The 15,000-acre 

refuge lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and consists of mixed hardwoods, mixed pine/hardwoods, 

pine plantations, marsh, croplands, old fields, ponds, impoundments, and open water. This 

tremendous diversity of habitats supports many kinds of wildlife. 

A myriad of wildlife species inhabit the varied landscape of Santee NWR. During the winter months, 

the bald eagle, and occasionally the peregrine falcon, can be seen. From November through 

February, migrating waterfowl, such as mallards, pintails, teal, wood ducks, and Canada geese, are a 

major attraction. Throughout the year, red-tailed and red-shouldered hawks can be viewed soaring 

overhead, as can a variety of songbirds in the trees, and wild turkey. 

Birds are not the only residents of Santee NWR. The forest provides a home for white-tailed deer 

and other woodland creatures, such as raccoons, squirrels, and bobcats. The ponds and marshes 

provide a home for alligators, plus a number of other reptiles and amphibians. 

To support a large variety of wildlife species, intensive habitat management is a must. The habitat 

management programs at Santee NWR range from very basic to complex. One of the basic 

programs is the wood duck nest box program, where nesting boxes are provided in areas that are 

lacking in available tree cavities, thus “adding to” the natural habitat. The water and marsh 

management program is more complex. Water levels are adjusted to provide maximum benefits for 

wildlife. In the impoundments and marshes, different levels are used to help some types of 

vegetation to grow while controlling unwanted “pest plants”. Periodically flooded woodlands 

containing nut-producing hardwoods are food-rich and very beneficial to waterfowl. 
Environmental Assessment 111

The management of forests and croplands are also critical. Refuge staff and contracted private 

farmers plant corn, wheat, millet, and small grain crops. These crops attract many species of wildlife 

and provide an excellent source of high-energy foods for wintering waterfowl. Refuge forests are 

maintained with management techniques ranging from prescribed burning to selective thinning. 

Habitat management is a complicated process but well worth the effort since it provides an abundant 

amount of food, cover, and shelter for a wide-range of animals. 

Santee NWR also contains areas of cultural and local significance. The 420-acre Dingle Pond unit 

consists primarily of a Carolina Bay and is a designated Public Use Natural Area. A historic site on the 

refuge that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson 

area. The mound itself is over 3,000 years old and artifacts have been dated to 3,500 years ago. 

During the Revolutionary War, the British kept a garrison of about 100 soldiers at the mound. This gave 

them strategic control over the Santee River and a major road connecting Charleston to Camden. The 

garrison was eventually captured by American revolutionary forces under General Francis Marion. 

This EA 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 in compliance with the Improvement Act and Part 602 of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning). The actions described 

within this Draft CCP also meet the requirements of NEPA. The refuge staff achieved compliance 

with NEPA through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of this EA, with a description 

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

When fully implemented, the CCP will strive to achieve the vision and purposes of Santee NWR. 

The CCP’s overriding consideration is 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. 

COMPATIBILITY 

The Improvement Act, which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, 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, “wildlife-dependent recreational uses may 

be authorized on a refuge when they are compatible and not inconsistent with public safety.” 
112 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 Refuge System, as listed in 

the Improvement Act. 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 NEPA recommendations, public involvement has been a 

crucial factor throughout the development of the Draft CCP for Santee 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 these stakeholders and their ideas has 

been of great value in setting the management direction for Santee 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. 

A public scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2007, at the Summerton Cultural Arts 

Center in Summerton, South Carolina. Meeting notices were published in the local newspapers; 

meeting notices were posted at the refuge and at the Arts Center; and invitations were mailed to 

approximately 35 different groups and individuals. A total of 22 members of the public attended the 

meeting and contributed a diverse array of comments. 

 

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 our 

planning process, and have developed plans that attempt to balance the competing opinions 

regarding important issues. 

A complete summary of these issues and concerns is provided in Appendix D. 
Environmental Assessment 113

II. Affected Environment 

For a description of the affected environment, see Section A, Chapter II, Refuge Overview. 
114 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 115

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 Ecosystem Team; the goals of the Refuge System; and 

the mission on the Service. Alternatives are formulated to address the significant issues, concerns, and 

problems identified by the Service and the public during public scoping. 

The three 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 (Table 5). 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 administration. 

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 three 

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 three 

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

ALTERNATIVE A: (NO-ACTION) CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT 

This alternative represents no change from current management of the refuge and provides a 

baseline. Management emphasis would continue to focus on maintaining existing managed wetlands 

for wintering waterfowl. Primary management activities include managing wetland impoundments, 

basic species monitoring, wood duck banding, and planting corn for waterfowl. Alternative A 

represents the anticipated conditions of the refuge for the next 15 years assuming current funding, 

staffing, policies, programs, and activities continue. The other two alternatives are compared to this 

alternative in order to evaluate differences in future conditions compared to baseline management. 

This alternative reflects actions that include managing habitat for resident and wintering waterfowl, 

nesting bald eagles, maintaining upland and wetland forests, repairing wetland impoundment control 

structures, and providing opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation. Species monitoring would 

be limited due to staffing constraints, volunteer assistance, and limited research interest. Habitat 

management actions are intended to benefit waterfowl; however, there is limited active management 

of other species and habitats. 
116 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Management coordination would occur between the refuge and the state. Coordination would be 

limited because of staffing constraints and remain focused on waterfowl management, hunting, and 

fishing. Hunting and fishing are allowed on the refuge provided that state regulations are followed. 

Wildlife-dependent uses are allowed on the refuge with all areas opened to the public with some 

areas only seasonally opened. 

The refuge would remain staffed at current levels with periodic interns. Researchers would be 

accommodated when projects benefit the refuge. 

ALTERNATIVE B: TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRIMARILY FOR WATERFOWL 

This alternative expands on Alternative A with a greater amount of active habitat management on the 

refuge. The focus of this alternative is to enhance and expand suitable habitat under species-specific 

management, targeted to attract greater numbers of wintering waterfowl and breeding areas for 

resident wood ducks. The acreage of managed wetlands and agricultural fields would be increased to 

accommodate larger waterfowl numbers. Some open fields and scrub/shrub areas on the refuge would 

be converted to wetlands or crops. Management of habitats for neotropical migratory and breeding 

songbirds would be greater than under Alternative A, but limited to maintaining existing areas suitable 

for these migratory species. There would be increased efforts to control invasive exotic plants. 

This alternative proposes to increase monitoring efforts to focus primarily on waterfowl with less effort 

to address other species. Under Alternative A, monitoring is focused almost entirely on waterfowl but 

does include other species as funding and time permit. This alternative would provide extensive 

waterfowl monitoring with little additional effort for monitoring other species. Monitoring efforts would 

only occur based on available staffing, additional volunteers, and academic research. 

Wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge would continue. Hunting and fishing would continue to be 

allowed and environmental education and interpretation enhanced. Interpretive signage would be 

increased or added to existing nature trails. There would be restricted access to some areas of the 

refuge that have waterfowl and threatened or endangered species sensitive to disturbance. 

Interpretation efforts would focus mostly on the primary objective of waterfowl management. 

The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of one biological technician to carry out 

the increased habitat management and monitoring needs. Researchers would be accommodated 

when projects benefit the refuge and focus mostly towards waterfowl habitat and management. 

ALTERNATIVE C: WILDLFE AND HABITAT DIVERSITY (PROPOSED ACTION) 

This alternative expands on Alternative A with a greater amount of effort to manage the refuge to 

increase overall wildlife and habitat diversity. Although waterfowl would remain a focus of 

management, wetland habitat manipulations would also consider the needs of multiple species, such 

as marsh and wading birds. Management of upland forests and fields for neotropical migratory birds 

would be more actively managed than under Alternative B. Landscape level consideration of habitat 

management would include a diversity of open fields, upland and wetland forests, and additional 

managed wetlands. Multiple species consideration would include species and habitats identified by 

the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative and the state’s Strategic Conservation Plan. 
Environmental Assessment 117

This alternative would expand the monitoring efforts of Alternative A to provide additional, active 

efforts to monitor migratory neotropical and breeding songbirds, and other resident species. 

Monitoring efforts would be increased with the assistance of additional staff, trained volunteers, and 

academic research. Greater effort would be made to recruit academic researchers to the refuge to 

study and monitor refuge resources. 

Wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge would continue. Hunting and fishing would continue to be 

allowed. However, hunting would be managed with a greater focus to achieve biological needs of the 

refuge, such as deer population management. Education and interpretation would be the same as 

Alternative A, but with additional education and outreach efforts aimed at the importance of 

landscape and diversity. A much broader effort would be made with outreach to nearby developing 

urban communities and a growing human population. 

The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of two biological technicians to carry 

out the increased habitat management and monitoring needs. Greater emphasis would be placed on 

recruiting and training volunteers. Refuge biological programs would actively seek funding and 

researchers to study primarily management-oriented research needs. Refuge staff would place 

greater emphasis on developing and maintaining active partnerships, including seeking grants to 

assist the refuge in reaching primary objectives. 

FEATURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Although the alternatives differ in many ways, there are similarities among them as well. Common 

features are described in the alternatives and not repeated here to reduce length and redundancy of 

the individual alternative descriptions. Several elements of refuge management are common to all of 

the alternatives. All management activities that could impact natural resources, including subsurface 

mineral reservations, utility lines and easements, soil, water, air, contaminants, and archaeological 

and historical resources, would be managed to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies. Each alternative is subject to all applicable future permit requirements. Individual projects 

may require additional consultation with the Service’s Regional Archaeologist and the State of 

Florida’s Historic Preservation Office. Additional consultation, surveys, and clearances may be 

required where project development would be conducted on the refuge or when activities would affect 

properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 
118 Santee Na

COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES BY ISSUE Table 5. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Santee NWR 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Bald Eagle Conduct annual nest 

survey of 2 nesting pairs. Protect nest sites during prescribed fire. 

Expand Alternative A. Increase nesting from 2 to 3 nesting pairs. Conduct intensive forest management to increase eagle use. Conduct annual nest survey. Protect nest sites during prescribed fire. 

Expand AlternMaintain and mpairs. Actively create and copotential eagle Conduct annuProtect nest sprescribed firemanagement neotropical mi

Wood Stork No specific management 

other than recording use of impoundments by storks. 

Conduct wetland surveys. Manage wetlands to increase prey base. Manage 2 to 3 target impoundments for wood stork foraging by augmenting freshwater prey and using pumps to regulate water levels and prey availability. 

Manage impomultiple speciestorks under a approach for mConduct wetlamonitoring, anmanagement. 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Waterfowl Manage approximately 685 

existing acres of impounded wetlands actively with a waterfowl management focus for wintering ducks. No set target duck numbers. Conduct routine surveys. Designate waterfowl sanctuary areas. 

Increase Alternative A. Manage approximately 685 acres of impounded wetlands based on hydric soil determination, with a waterfowl management focus to potentially support historical levels of over 100,000 wintering migratory ducks. Conduct routine winter and monthly surveys. Maintain sanctuary status. 

Increase AlterManage a minof impounded waterfowl undspecies approducks and geespecies of maappropriate wiwetlands monmanagement. expand sanctuneeded to reshabitats for migeese. Incremnumber of acraccommodate wintering wate
120 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Southern James Bay Canada geese 

Manage approximately 132 acres of cropland to provide corn and winter browse for approximately 1,000 wintering geese. Provide a ratio of approximately 50:50 of corn/green browse. Continue conducting seasonal surveys. 

Increase Alternative A. Manage minimum of 60 acres of corn and 60 acres of green browse for wintering geese, and increase these acres to potentially support historical levels of over 30,000 migratory geese. Conduct annual winter surveys. 

Increase Alterminimum of 60 60 acres of grwintering geesCuddo units. agricultural proPine Island unand local concwinter geese phistoric conditannual winter resident CanaWork with SCmigratory geeefforts. Incremnumber of acraccommodate wintering wate

Wading Birds Management for wading 

birds is secondary to the featured waterfowl and geese restoration efforts. Protect all wading bird rookeries. 

Increase Alternative A. Refocus management efforts to manage 350 acres of impoundments for wading birds in the non-winter months. Monitor impoundment use by wading birds. Protect all wading bird rookeries. 

Expand AlternMaintain 350 awetlands to foin the non-winenhancing feeconditions. Comonitoring for species manaCoordinate wiregional wadinplans. Integrawading bird mEnhance proteencourage roo
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Wood ducks Maintain and replace 

existing 143 wood duck boxes when possible. Band wood ducks for Atlantic Flyway goals. No specific habitat management for wood ducks. 

Increase the number of wood duck boxes to 160 to provide more nesting opportunity. Ensure boxes are ready for peak summer nesting period. Monitor boxes during peak nesting period. Increase the amount of wood duck brood habitat in all units. Continue to band wood ducks for Atlantic Flyway goals. 

Evaluate and number of woobased on bioloprovide greateproductivity annests. Ensure peak summer Monitor boxes period. Increawood duck brospecifically in unit. Continue ducks for AtlanenvironmentaWood duck nemonitoring effodependent on positions on th

Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

No specific active management. 

Maintain approximately 2,000 acres of existing upland areas for neotropical migratory birds. Maintain existing mix of forest, grassland, and scrub/shrub. 

Focus approxiof existing foregrassland fieldand migratory species identifthe state ComConservation Coordinate wito determine hinitiate researcdetermine/adaforests, grasslscrub/shrub anenhancements
122 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Managed Wetlands Continue to manage 

impoundments and green tree wetlands under existing water management regime. 

Evaluate all managed wetlands, moist-soil, and greentree areas and maximize the acres managed based on soil surveys. Provide recommendations for new wetland control structures and maintenance of dikes. Focus primarily on waterfowl. 

Expand Alternformal managmonitoring prosites, providinmanipulations ecology and eof the wetlandand ditching sappropriate waand delivery, pmanage units a featured spemigratory watefocus species partnerships fomaintenance p

Forests No active forest 

management. Forest management plan outdated. 

Update and implement forest management plan. Maximize managed wetland acres based on soil surveys. 

Update and immanagement management story and undeforest areas foof non-game badaptive habit

Grassland, scrub/shrub Mow grassy fields to 

prevent forest tree growth. 

Mow and prescribe burn limited fields to prevent tree growth. Convert most abandoned fields and scrub areas into additional wetland impoundments or agricultural fields to target migratory waterfowl and other non-game bird species. 

Mow, roller chburn target fiesuccessional wcommunities. grassy field hahabitat evaluaspecies needs
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Prescribed fire Prescribed burns 

conducted at random intervals primarily based on fuel loads and wildfire potential. Burns conducted during dormant season. 

Prescribe burn upland and wetland habitats based on fuel loads and fire personnel availability. 

Conduct prescupland and webased on resoand habitat maCoordinate bucontrol preferrcanopy cover, control, such aundesirable anUpdate fire mainclude and emmanagement 

Control of Exotic Plants Intermittently treat canals, 

dikes, open fields and forest as time permits. 

Refocus management of exotic plants to managed wetlands serving waterfowl species. Conduct surveys, develop database, control on 20% of refuge, and eliminate target exotic plants in managed wetlands. 

Refocus manaplants to addreConduct survedatabase, conexotics on 50% eliminate 100% invasive plants 

Herpetological Species (e.g., frogs, toads, snakes, and lizards) 

No active management. Expand Alternative A. 

Increase target herpetological species and initiate monitoring programs. 

Expand AlternIncrease specdiversity throuenhancementprotection. Deand inventory selected refugdetermine basand monitor p
124 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Determine a valid acquisition boundary based on the original refuge configuration and establishment. 

Take no action at this time. Use the existing acquisition 

boundary. 

Coordinate wievaluate the hthe refuge bouestablishment correct acquisbased on the o

Acquire inholdings and critical acres on all units of the refuge. 

No active acquisitions. Expand Alternative A. 

Purchase from willing sellers as funding is available. Prioritize acquisition key inholdings. Increase partnership opportunities.

Expand AlternPurchase from funding is avaacquisition key Increase and apartnership opprovide strategbuffer zones folong-term leastitle, and cons

Santee Cooper Lease Agreement 

Use existing lease agreements without consideration of expansion opportunities. 

Use existing lease agreements and the 4 amendments. Seek ratification of the 5th amendment of 

the agreement. 

Expand Alternadditional purcCooper leases expand refuge strategically to buffers and prexisting refuge 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson 

Protect mound from destruction caused by artifact hunters. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand Altern

gated system to the mound Develop partnwith design anon Fort Watsointerpretive disexisting signagprominently focultural resour

Protection Respond as issues arise. 

Occasional law enforcement patrols. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand Altern

protection proregular patrol oversight. 

Providing Information to the Public 

Provide information at Visitor Center through volunteers, exhibits, and movie. Provide refuge brochures and maps. 

Expand Alternative A. Provide information at three refuge kiosk. Provide information at Visitor Center through volunteers, exhibits, and movie. Provide refuge brochures and maps. Expand Visitor Center. 

Expand AlternProvide informrefuge kiosks. refuge signs (finformation, aProvide informCenter througexhibits, and mrefuge brochuDevelop enhawith landowneNGOs, voluntethrough a Friesupport the prrefuge. Seek programs for o
126 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Youth hunt Conduct a single youth 

hunt each year to introduce and educate children about safe hunting practices. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand Altern

additional youopportunities, abilities to conmanaged hun

Hunting Opportunities Conduct deer and upland 

game hunts based on state seasons. 

Same as Alternative A plus prohibit alcoholic beverages during public hunts. 

Same as Alterdetermine the of hunting as a biological and management opportunities. compatibility oopportunities (accessible deeadult turkey huProhibit alcohoduring public h

Freshwater Fishing Opportunities 

Sport fishing is allowed in refuge impoundments and canals on all refuge units during times the refuge is open to the public. The public may fish along Fort Watson Road (between the visitor center and the Santee Indian Mound) day and night. 

Modify Alternative A to limit fishing along Fort Watson Road to daytime fishing only. 

Modify Alternato daytime fishWatson Roadself issuing fissystem and guassist augmenand appreciatgoals and obje
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Wildlife Viewing and Photography Opportunities 

Facilities include Visitor Center, Santee Indian Mound, Cuddo Wildlife Drive (7.8 miles), four hiking-only trails (5 miles), and two hiking/biking trails (11.4 miles). 

Decrease Alternative A. Maintain existing trails but eliminate wildlife viewing and photography in habitats with species sensitive to disturbance. 

Expand AlternFacilities incluSantee Indian Wildlife Drive hiking-only trahiking/biking trSeasonal accethreatened anspecies and mmanagement opportunities fenjoyment of prefuge by deveprograms that sensitive habitfrom disturbanhunting and noDevelop recreas deemed apcompatible witdemand. 
128 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Environmental Education Opportunities 

Historically, the refuge responded to requests for environmental education programs. Conduct one annual college program. Occasional teacher workshops. 

Expand Alternative A. Focus educational messages on migratory waterfowl. Develop an environmental education program, providing opportunities to surrounding counties. Grades 4-8 could annually participate in programs of the refuge. Recruit and train 5-10 volunteers to assist teachers with these programs. Develop curriculum-based environmental education programs based on habitats serving migratory waterfowl. Conduct at least two workshops per year. Develop brochures on climate change. 

Expand AlternCoordinate witarget specific (recommendeencourage fieclassroom actcurriculum-baseducation progactivities, and projects in the site (at the refcurriculum-basactivities/progrefuge habitattrust resourcetwo workshopbrochures on 

Visitor Center Visitation Opened in 1984, consists 

of 2,600 square feet. Serves >60,000 annual visitors. 

Focus visitor display on migratory waterfowl and public recreation. Develop a vicarious experience for refuge visitors to enhance understanding of the purpose of the refuge. Increase visitation by renovating the visitor center and upgrading the displays. Develop movies, interpretive presentations, and exhibits, including interactive exhibits. 

Expand AlternExpand wildlifmessages to iand endangermigratory birdmanagement. center to 5,20parking to 40 saccommodate Annually host, others, one to focusing on mthreatened anspecies, and wUpdate exhibiinteractive tec
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Interpretive Programs Annually conduct ~10 

interpretive programs, including 5 guided bird walks. 

Expand Alternative A. Refocus interpretive programs to migratory waterfowl. Most interpretive programs would occur at the visitor center. Focus birding tours on waterfowl. Incorporate climate change issues into programs. 

Expand AlternRegularly scheprograms are that include remonitoring, guspeakers, and focusing on wneotropical birresources (as messages), anencouraging estewardship. change issues 

Interpretive Trails No interpretive signs along 

trails. Kiosk provides information. 

Add interpretive signs and displays. 

Develop partninterpretive facdisplays, natuopportunities f

Santee Birding Festival No Action Same as Alternative A Work with par

comprehensivfestival that wienvironmentacommunity. 

Local Residents Occasional programs 

provided on request to local organizations. Partner for one local festival. 

Same as Alternative A. Expand Altern

Increase outreresidents such would recogniimportance of 
130 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Volunteers Approximately 15 active 

volunteers and 90 total volunteers. Average 4,500 annual hours of volunteer service. Conduct volunteer orientation, an annual refresher, and informal onthe-job training. 

Expand Alternative A. Increase the number of volunteers to serve the visitor center, monitor impacts, and conduct surveys. Focus messages on targeted habitat management. Conduct volunteer orientation, an annual refresher, and informal on-the-job training. Increase training for volunteers. Survey volunteers to determine satisfaction levels. Increase satisfaction such that over 75% of volunteers are highly satisfied. 

Expand AlternIncrease numbvolunteers. Fneeded voluntFocus messagdiversity. Conorientation, an and informal oIncrease trainSurvey voluntesatisfaction levsatisfaction suvolunteers are 

Friends of Santee NWR Continue to work with the 

Friends Group on mostly a historical interpretation of the refuge with wildlife programs reflected in refuge staff efforts. 

Continue to influence the Friends Group to have a primary focus of “Wildlife First” and to provide support to the refuge on all aspects, including natural and cultural history. 

Expand AlternFriends Group members to owithin 5 years Work with devcommunities tFriends Group trusting relatioand the refuge 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Control of Trash and Litter Use volunteers and staff to 

clean worst areas. Close some areas to use due to trash. Control of trash and litter is minimally effective. 

Use volunteers and staff to clean worst areas. Close some areas to use due to trash. Control of trash and litter is minimally effective. 

Expand AlternDecrease traswithin 5 years years from curvolunteers and areas. Close due to trash. outreach to edlitter problems 

Administrative Facilities and Signs 

Visitor contact and services are provided at the refuge office/visitor center and the temporary administrative trailer. Attempt is made to maintain boundary signs. Maintain visitor services signs. 

Offices located at visitor center and administrative trailer. Upgrade water, sewer, phone/fax, and computer utilities. Locate a facility for researchers, interns, and volunteers adjacent to the shop area, at the Bluff Storage area, or on the Pine Island compound area. Annually re-post or maintain boundary and visitor services signs on 20% of the refuge. Provide concerted effort to repost refuge water boundaries. Erect information signs (already on hand) at boat ramps and landings adjacent to refuge units that provide a detailed map of refuge along with importation regulatory information (hours/seasons of access, permitted and prohibited activities, etc.). 

Same as Alter
132 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – 

No Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

Alte

Wildlife and 

(Propos

Staff Existing 7 full-time and 

occasional term/temporary staff. 

Same as Alternative A plus addition of 3 biological technicians. 

Modify Alternastaffing appropand need for ffarming, fire, labiological, puband administrastaff. 

Relationship with South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Santee-Cooper 

Good coordination efforts are in place. 

Expand Alternative A. Increase coordination with an emphasis on targeted waterfowl habitat management. 

Expand AlternIncrease coordprograms of mwildlife and haEncourage coof the primary and SC, and edevelopment oWorking Groupartnerships foprograms and management agencies and Focus Area. 

Climate Change No Action. Solicit research related to potential 

climate change effects on wetlands managed for waterfowl. 

Develop a climresearch needresearch projeand other ageresearch projeenvironmentaglobal climate 
Environmental Assessment 133

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS 

The alternatives development process under NEPA and the Improvement Act is designed to allow 

consideration of the widest possible range of issues and potential management approaches. During 

the alternatives development process, many different solutions were considered. The following 

alternative components were considered but not selected for detailed study in this Draft CCP/EA for 

the reason(s) described. 

Managing the refuge solely to attract and retain historic waterfowl levels was rejected. This approach 

to management was raised during public scoping, but the planning team determined that it was not 

an appropriate approach. This approach would convert all open fields and scrub/shrub areas into 

managed wetlands or corn fields. This would provide the maximum number of managed waterfowl 

habitat acres possible. The main problem with this alternative is the negative effects it would have on 

neotropical migratory birds, resident birds, and other species. 
134 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Environmental Assessment 135

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 three 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.” 
136 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 

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 CCP 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 

As indicated in Appendix C, Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive Orders, the Service must 

comply with a number of federal laws, administrative orders, and policies in the development and 

implementation of its management actions and programs. Among these mandates are the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and compliance with 

Executive Orders 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and 11988 (Floodplain Management). The 

implementation of any of the three alternatives described in this EA would not lead to a violation of 

these or other mandates.

All management activities that could affect the refuge’s natural resources (e.g., 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 Santee 

National Wildlife Refuge 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 ongoing process that would occur during the planning stages of every project. 
Environmental Assessment 137

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 

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 Clarendon County 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 discusses the environmental consequences of adopting each refuge 

management alternative. Table 6 summarizes and addresses the likely outcomes for the specific 

issues, and is organized by broad issue categories. 

ALTERNATIVE A - (NO-ACTION) CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT 

Implementation of Alternative A is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net neutral to positive 

impacts on soils. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to hydrology and water quality. Minor restoration activities of impounded wetlands and interior 

freshwater wetlands are anticipated to positively impact hydrology and water quality. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative A are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 
138 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

ALTERNATIVE B – TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRIMARILY FOR WATERFOWL 

Implementation of Alternative B is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils. Restoring forest areas, managing habitats, and restoring impounded wetlands would 

positively impact soils and soil formation processes. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts to 

hydrology and water quality. Restoration activities of impounded wetlands and interior freshwater 

wetlands are anticipated to positively impact hydrology and water quality. Positive hydrology and water 

quality impacts would result from the acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative B are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting increased numbers of migratory birds and native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

ALTERNATIVE C – WILDLFE AND HABITAT DIVERSITY (PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE) 

Implementation of Alternative C is anticipated to result in net positive environmental benefits. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

on soils. Restoring forest areas, managing habitats, and restoring impounded wetlands would 

positively impact soils and soil formation processes. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C would help to improve air quality. Minor, shortterm negative air quality impacts could be experienced during controlled burns or wildfires. However, 

these impacts are offset by the positive impacts of the resultant higher quality native habitats. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts to 

hydrology and water quality. Restoration activities of impounded wetlands and interior freshwater 

wetlands are anticipated to positively impact hydrology and water quality. Positive hydrology and water 

quality impacts would result from the acquisition, protection, and management of additional lands. 

The management activities outlined under Alternative C are anticipated to have net positive impacts 

to biological resources. Habitat management activities would result in high-quality habitats 

supporting native wildlife and wildlife diversity. 

COMPARISON OF EFFECTS FROM IMPLEMENTING ALTERNATIVES 

While the three alternatives share similarities, the differences result in varying types and levels of 

impacts. None of the proposed management activities would lead to a violation of federal, state, or 

local laws imposed for the protection of the environment. Alternative A does not propose any change 

in the present management direction. As such, Alternative A serves as the baseline for comparing 

the other alternatives. Without funding and staffing to support needed programs and to provide 

protection for the resources, Alternative A provides the least support for long-term productivity and 
Environmental Assessment 139

sustainability of the refuge. Alternative C provides the most benefits to the refuge, the natural 

resources supported by the refuge, and the local community, supporting long-term productivity and 

sustainability of the refuge. 

Adaptive management is a key component of each alternative. As such, the actions outlined would 

not establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects nor represent a decision in 

principle about future considerations. Refuge management activities are constantly adapted as new 

research, data, and information become available. 

See Table 7 for a comparison of the environmental consequences related to the categories of wildlife 

and habitat management, resource protection, visitor services, and refuge administration. 

UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 

Under Alternative A—the no action alternative—there are numerous unavoidable 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 

plants and nuisance animals; and a probable continued decline in biodiversity. Over time, if these 

issues are not addressed, they will continue to impact refuge resources. There would also be 

adverse impacts on public uses, mostly in terms of 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 would be similar to those of Alternative A, though 

probably less severe in scope and intensity. Alternative B aims to restore and enhance habitat 

primarily for waterfowl throughout the refuge. A portion of these efforts would include an intensified 

program to monitor and control invasive plant species that infest aquatic and upland habitats. 

Overall, the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with Alternative B would be less than would 

exist under Alternative A. 

Alternative C, the proposed alternative, also has some unavoidable impacts. Generally, these 

impacts are expected to be minor and/or short-term in duration. However, the refuge will attempt to 

minimize these impacts whenever possible. As with the other two alternatives, other impacts that 

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 will 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, FARMING AND FOREST 

MANAGEMENT 

Soil disturbance and siltation due to water management activities; road and levee maintenance; 

forest management activities (thinning and prescribed fire); farming; and the construction of 

observation towers, trails, and kiosks are expected to be minor and of short duration. To further 

reduce potential impacts, the refuge will use best management practices to minimize the erosion of 

soils into water bodies. 
140 Santee Na

Table 6. Summary of environmental effects by alternative 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Bald Eagle Neutral to Negative. 

No change in eagle habitat to support stable to decreased populations.

Neutral to Positive. Limited change in eagle habitat to support stable to increased populations.

Positive. Emphasis managemenesting haincreased population

Wood Stork Neutral. 

No change in wood stork foraging habitat.

Positive. Increased management to provide additional foraging areas to support increased wood stork numbers.

Same as A

Waterfowl Neutral to negative. 

No change in available waterfowl habitat to allow for increased waterfowl numbers. 

Positive. Increase in food sources and habitats to support increased waterfowl numbers. 

Same as A

Southern James Bay Canada geese 

Neutral to negative. No change in available habitat for geese to allow for increased numbers.

Positive. Increase in food and green browse would support increased numbers of geese. 

Same as A

Wading Birds Neutral to Positive. 

No change in wading bird habitat to support stable to increasing populations.

Neutral to Positive. Increased information to support stable to increased wading bird populations.

Positive. Increased support stawading bir

Wood ducks Neutral to negative. 

Wood duck boxes remain at current level. No specific habitat management to provide resources needed to support a larger wood duck population. 

Positive. Increased number of wood duck boxes and increased brood habitat would support larger wood duck population. 

Same as A
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Neotropical and Migratory Songbirds 

Neutral to negative. No active management. 

Negative. Decreased neotropical migratory bird habitat to support decreased populations. 

Positive. Increased migratory band habitaincreased Increased 

Managed Wetlands Neutral. 

Continue to manage wetlands under continuous water management regime. 

Neutral to positive. Increased information would allow for more management control if additional water control structures installed. 

Positive. Increased formal manwould allow target mult

Forests Neutral to negative. 

Current forest management plan is outdated. 

Neutral to negative. Manage existing forests with updated plan, but no reforestation since scrub/shrub would transition to waterfowl habitat. 

Positive. Update forplan and foefforts on iand under

Grassland, scrub/shrub Neutral. 

Maintain existing fields. 

Neutral to negative. Maintain existing fields with some transitioned to waterfowl habitat. 

Neutral to Increased which fieldby various to increase 

Prescribed fire Neutral to negative. 

Burns conducted based on fuel loads and not biological reasons. 

Neutral to positive. Burns conducted mainly to support waterfowl habitat. Biological basis for burns. 

Positive. Burns conreasons anwaterfowl 

Control of Exotic Plants Negative. 

No specific exotic plant control efforts are in place. 

Positive. Increased management. Decreased exotic plants in habitats serving waterfowl. 

Positive. Increased Decreased plants, with target exot
142 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Herpetological Species (e.g., frogs, toads, snakes, and lizards) 

Neutral to Negative. No active management. 

Neutral to Positive. Increased information. 

Neutral to Increased to support populationinformation

Determine a valid acquisition boundary based on the original refuge configuration and establishment. 

Neutral to negative. Inaccurate boundary hampers refuge management. 

Same as Alternative A. Neutral to 

Determininboundary cmanageme

Acquire inholdings and critical acres on all units of the refuge. 

Neutral to negative. No active acquisition efforts. 

Neutral to positive. Prioritize target parcels and purchase from willing sellers if funds available. 

Neutral to Prioritize tapurchase fActively sefunds and 

Santee Cooper Lease Agreement 

Neutral. No change in existing lease. 

Neutral to positive. Ratify pending amendments. 

Positive. Seek modfor increasrefuge. 

Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson 

Neutral. Continue to protect site from destruction. 

Same as Alternative A. Positive. 

Increase sand developrovide be

Protection Neutral to negative. 

Available law enforcement officer patrols periodically. 

Same as Alternative A. Neutral to 

Schedule renforcemeincrease pinfrastructu

Providing Information to the Public 

Neutral. No change to existing program. 

Positive. Increased number of kiosks and increased information. 

Same as A
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Youth hunt Neutral. 

No change to existing program. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as A

Hunting Opportunities Neutral. 

No change to exiting deer and upland game and hunting. 

Same as Alternative A. Neutral to 

Alter huntiachieve bineeds. No days. 

Freshwater Fishing Opportunities 

Neutral. No changes to fishing opportunity. 

Negative. Discontinue night fishing. Only daytime fishing allowed. 

Neutral to Implement to track fisProvide danighttime f

Wildlife Viewing and Photography Opportunities 

Neutral. Stable opportunities and facilities for wildlife viewing and photography. 

Neutral to Negative. Stable facilities. Seasonally decreased wildlife viewing and photography opportunities. 

Positive. Increased photograpfacilities. 

Environmental Education Opportunities 

Neutral. Limited program. 

Positive. Increased environmental education programs and participation. 

Same as A

Visitor Center Visitation Neutral to negative. 

Expect increase in visitation due to anticipated population growth in area. No change in visitor center programs. 

Neutral to positive. Expect increase in visitation due to anticipated population growth in area. Enhanced interpretation materials at visitor center. 

Positive. Expect incdue to antigrowth in aadditional programs visitor satis

Interpretive Programs Negative. 

Stable interpretive programs, but increased visitation. 

Neutral to Positive. Stable to increasing interpretive programs. 

Positive. Expanded programs. 
144 Santee Na

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Interpretive Trails Neutral. 

Stable interpretive trails. 

Neutral to positive. Increased number of interpretive maps, brochures, and signs. 

Positive. Increased interpretive and signs. 

Santee Birding Festival Neutral. 

No action. 

Same as Alternative A. Positive. 

Birding fesan excelleopportunity

Local Residents Neutral to Negative. 

Minimal management and outreach. 

Same as Alternative A. Positive. 

Increased outreach. awareness 

Volunteers Neutral. 

Stable volunteer work force. 

Positive. Expanded volunteer work force. 

Same as A

Friends of Santee NWR Negative. 

Friends group not focused on wildlife and habitat. 

Positive. Increased membership. Increased support of refuge management and operations. 

Same as A

Recreational Concessions Neutral. 

No concessions. 

Same as Alternative A. Neutral to 

Develop cocompatible 

Control of Trash and Litter Neutral to negative. 

No change in efforts. 

Neutral to positive. Eliminate alcoholic beverages and glass containers. Otherwise no change. 

Positive. Actively adat worst areducation 
Environmental Assessment 

Issues 

Alternative A 

(Current Management – No 

Action Alternative) 

Alternative B 

Targeted Habitat primarily 

for Waterfowl 

A

Wildlife & 

(Propo

Administrative Facilities and signs 

Neutral. No changes. 

Positive. Upgrade facility to provide better utility services. Increase maintenance of refuge information and boundary signs. 

Same as A

Staff Neutral. 

No change in the levels of biological support and wildlife and habitat protection. 

Positive. Increased staff in biological programs. Enhanced information and habitat management. 

Positive. Increased programs. information manageme

Relationship with South Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Santee-Cooper 

Neutral. No change. 

Positive. Increased coordination. 

Same as A

Climate Change Neutral. 

No climate change actions. 

Positive. Encourage research on the refuge that contributes to overall knowledge of climate change effects. 

Same as A
146 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 will include informational signs that request trail 

users to remain on the trails, in order to avoid causing potential erosion problems. 

Forest management activities (e.g., 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 practice in modern fire suppression and 

management to minimize impacts to soils and subsequent erosion and sedimentation. 

Farming activities require the preparation of soil for planting various crops and ground cover. The best 

available farming techniques are utilized to minimize loss of topsoil and siltation. Fields are never left in a 

bare soil state for longer than is necessary to produce a crop. Pesticide and fertilizer use is the absolute 

minimum required and monitored to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. 

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. 

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 will be planned to 

avoid unacceptable levels of impact. 

The known and anticipated levels of disturbance from the proposed alternative are not considered to 

be of concern. Nevertheless, the refuge will 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 will 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 will be discontinued, restricted, or rerouted to other less 

sensitive areas. 

Forest management activities, such as thinning and prescribed fire, will 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. Bald eagle nest areas are always avoided 

and burns occur when eagles are not active on the nests. 

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. Location of new trails would be such that minimal or no removal of native vegetation would 

occur. Any unavoidable clearing of vegetation would be mitigated by planting a greater amount of 

vegetation in various restoration sites throughout the refuge. There would be a net gain of vegetative 

cover and no loss of carbon sequestration at the refuge. 
Environmental Assessment 147

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 will 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 (e.g., thinning and prescribed fire) would also temporarily disturb 

vegetation, including trees, understory plants, and ground cover (e.g., saplings, shrubs, forbs, 

grasses). These effects, which would also be localized and temporary, will be minimized by proper 

marking of areas and diligent monitoring. Pine dominated forests require periodic fire in order to 

remain healthy and provide the greatest habitat benefits to wildlife. While fire has the immediate 

effect of disturbing vegetation, the beneficial results far outweigh the initial disturbance. 

USER GROUP CONFLICTS 

As public use increases, unanticipated conflicts between different user groups could occur. If this 

should happen, the refuge will adjust its programs, as needed, to eliminate or minimize any public 

use issues. The refuge will 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. Positive impacts that would be expected include higher property values, 

less intrusion of invasive exotic plants, and increased opportunities for viewing more diverse wildlife. 

However, some negative impacts that may occur include a higher frequency of trespass onto 

adjacent private lands, and noise associated with increased traffic. To minimize these potential 

impacts, the refuge will 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 will 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; the National Historic Preservation Act; Executive Order 11988, 

Floodplain Management; and other applicable regulatory requirements. 
148 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 nonfederal) 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 Santee NWR. 

ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES 

Migratory Birds

Santee NWR does not allow hunting of any migratory birds or waterfowl. The refuge is a designated 

waterfowl sanctuary. The refuge contributes to beneficial cumulative effects related to migratory 

waterfowl. 

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 Santee NWR. 
Environmental Assessment 149

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.” Of the 15,000 acres of refuge lands, the Cuddo and Pine Island 

units are currently open to limited deer hunting, which have had an average of 115 deer harvested 

per season since 2002. 

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 

South Carolina DNR estimates that 244,045 deer were harvested in South Carolina in 2005 (SCDNR 

2005 Deer Harvest Report). Harvest records by each county indicate that Clarendon County 

harvested 4,534 deer in 2005. This total harvest also computes to 65.8 acres per deer or 9.7 deer 

per-square-mile. These harvest records fluctuate year-to-year and were down 8.8 percent from 2004. 

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 on 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 their need for eradication. Clarendon County, South Carolina, ranked 

twelfth in the state for overall hog harvest in 2005, and increased from fourteenth the previous year 

(SCDNR 2005 Deer Harvest Report). This harvest trend indicates an increasing population and a need 

for increasing the overall annual harvest. They are a popular game species, and the public interest 

would best be served by allowing this activity on the refuge. However, even with hunting, feral hogs are 

likely to always be present because they are prolific breeders. 

Wild Turkey 

Turkeys are non-migratory and therefore hunting only impacts the local population. Because the 

refuge turkey hunts are restricted to the youth hunt, there are few turkeys taken each year. 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. 
150 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Small Game (Squirrel, Raccoon, Opossum) 

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, 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. 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 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, such as feeding and 

resting, of birds might occur. 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 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 
Environmental Assessment 151

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. Refuge regulations 

further mitigate possible disturbance by hunters to non-hunted wildlife. Vehicles and ATVs 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 Santee NWR because the use of lead shot is not 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 

The wood stork and the bald eagle are known to occur or potentially occur within the boundary of the 

refuge. Although the bald eagle is no longer listed, there is the potential that it could nest on the 

refuge. If bald eagle nesting activity occurs on, or nearby 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. 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 not be any appreciable cumulative effects under any of 

the alternatives. 

An Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation Consultation (Appendix G) was completed in 2007 for Santee 

NWR 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 actions are not likely to adversely affect these species. Under the Effects Determination 

section, the evaluation finds that impacts on listed species from the objectives, strategies, programs, 

and projects proposed in this CCP 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. Santee 

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 15,000 acres of refuge lands. 
152 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

The level of recreation use and ground-based disturbance from visitors would be largely concentrated 

at trails and the refuge’s offices, visitor center, 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 but 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 period. 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. 

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 will 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 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 vehicle and 

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 
Environmental Assessment 153

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 associated natural resources; however, no indirect or direct 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. 

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. A CCP is designed to be amended, if 

circumstances change substantially, prior to the expected 15-year lifetime. 

Anticipated Impacts if Individual Hunts are Allowed to Accumulate 

National wildlife refuges, including Santee NWR, conduct hunting programs within the framework of 

state and federal regulations. Santee NWR is more restrictive on hunting than the state on most 

state lands. By maintaining hunting regulations that are as restrictive, or more restrictive, than the 

state regulation ensures that a better diversity of management options exist upon which statewide 

and regional management implications can be assessed. The Draft CCP, including its hunting 

objective, strategies, and provisions, has been reviewed and is supported by SCDNR. Additionally, 

all national wildlife refuges in South Carolina 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; 

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. 
154 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 kiosks, or creation of new trails. While these activities would cause shortterm 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 plans 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 155

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 Santee NWR Draft CCP/EA was written with the participation and assistance of refuge and 

Service staff and the SCDNR. 

In March 2005, a refuge biological review was completed. A team of biologists conducted a 

comprehensive biological review for the refuge to help guide CCP development. Participants in the 

biological review were drawn primarily from the refuge, the Service, and the SCDNR. 

Also in 2005, refuge and Service personnel met to conduct a visitor services’ review. The information 

and recommendations in the reports of the biological and visitor service reviews provided a valuable 

starting point for the development of this Draft CCP/EA. Subsequently, the refuge hosted a public 

scoping meeting on May 22, 2007, and began an outreach campaign through various media to collect 

ideas and concerns from all stakeholders. Please see Chapter III of the Draft CCP for more 

information on public scoping and overall consultation and coordination in plan development. 

PLANNING TEAM 

Marc Epstein, Refuge Manager, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Donny Browning, Project Leader, USFWS, SC Lowcountry Refuge Complex 

Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS, SC Lowcountry Refuge Complex 

Bernie Goode, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Larry Woodward, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Kay McCutcheon, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Buddy Baker, SCDNR 

Haven Barnhill - SCDNR 

BIOLOGICAL REVIEW TEAM 

Mark Purcell, USFWS, ACE Basin NWR 

Bernie Goode, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Larry Woodward, USFWS, Santee NWR 

Frank Bowers, USFWS, Migratory Birds, Atlanta (Retired) 

Bill Mahan, SCDNR 

Tommy Strange, SCDNR 

Sam Chappelear, SCDNR 

Craig Watson, USFWS, ACJV, Charleston 

Dave Bauman, SCDNR 

Rob Kelsey, USFWS, Refuges, Atlanta 

Jim Berdeen, Clemson University 

Kenny Williams, Ducks Unlimited 

Bob Noffsinger, USFWS, Migratory Birds, Manteo, NC 
156 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Larry McCord, Santee Cooper 

Craig Sasser, USFWS, Cape Romain NWR 

John Inabinet, Santee Cooper 

Sarah Dawsey, USFWS, Cape Romain NWR 

Jan Tripp, USFWS, Savannah NWR 

Dean Demarest, USFWS, Migratory Birds, Atlanta 

Chuck Hunter, Migratory Birds, Atlanta 

Walt Rhodes, SCDNR 

Mike Housh, USFWS, Carolina Sandhills NWR 

Joe Cockerell, USFWS, Ecological Services, Charleston 

VISITOR SERVICES REVIEW TEAM 

Garry Tucker, Visitor Services and Outreach, USFWS, Atlanta 

Richard Mattison, Visitor Services and Outreach, USFWS, Atlanta (Retired) 

Pam Darty, USFWS, Lower Suwannee NWR 

Bonnie Strawser, USFWS, Alligator River NWR 

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS 

Richard Kanaski, Regional Archaeologist, USFWS, Savannah 
Appendices 157

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. 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. 
158 Santee 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, it’s 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 offices 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 159

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). 
160 Santee 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is required to develop 15-year Comprehensive Conservation Plans for 

all National Wildlife Refuges outside Alaska. The Act also describes the 

six public uses given priority status within the NWRS (i.e., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 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 161

National Wildlife 

Refuge: 

A designated area of land, water, or an interest in land or water within 

the System. 

Native Species: Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

Notice of Intent (NOI): A notice that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and 

considered (40 CFR 1508.22). Published in the Federal Register. 

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. 
162 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

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. 
Appendices 163

Refuge Purposes: See Purposes of the Refuge 

Songbirds: 

(Also Passerines) 

A category of birds that are medium to small, perching landbirds. Most 

are territorial singers and migratory. 

Step-down 

Management Plan: 

A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It 

describes strategies and implementation schedules for meeting CCP 

goals and objectives (Service Manual 602 FW 1.6 U). 

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/EIS 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 U.S. 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). 
164 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Study 

Areas: 

Lands and waters identified through inventory as meeting the definition 

of wilderness and undergoing evaluation for recommendation for 

inclusion in the Wilderness System. 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 165

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 

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 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (also, FWS) 

TFT Temporary Full Time 

USC United States Code 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
166 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 167

Appendix B. References and Literature 

Citations 

Dupree, A. Hunter. 1957. Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and 

Activities to 1940. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 460 pp. 

Gabrielson, Ira N. 1943. Wildlife Conservation. The Macmillan Company, New York, 

New York. 250 pp. 

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. 

New Employee Handbook. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2000. Summary Report: 1997 National Resources Inventory 

(revised December 2000), Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, and 

Statistical Laboratory, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. 89 pp. 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2003. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002 Census 

of agriculture, state profile: South Carolina. Accessed online on March 14, 2005 at 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/sc/cp99045.PDF. 

Conner, R.C. and R.M. Sheffield. 2000. South Carolina’s forest resources -- 2000 update. 

U.S. Forest Service Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS–65. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. 

Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 

Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

SCDNR. 2006. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. Comprehensive Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. Accessed 8-20-06 on the World Wide Web at: 

http://www.dnr.sc.gov/cwcs/. 

SCDNR. 2006. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005 Deer Harvest Report. 

USDA, 1997. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

National Resources Inventory. 

Scorecard, 2005. Criteria Air Pollutant Report: Clarendon County, SC. Accessed 5-17-07 on the 

World Wide Web at: http://www.scorecard.org/envreleases/cap/county.tcl?fips_county_code=45027#exposures_pollutants . 

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. 
168 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

Sanderson, G.C. 1966. The study of mammal movement – a review. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

 30(1):215-235. 

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. 
Appendices 169

Appendix C. 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 

Intended to prevent 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 Secretary of the Interior and Commerce to enter into 

cooperative agreements with states and other non-Federal interest 

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. 

This act 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. 

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. 
170 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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, preservation 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 

This Act and its amendments have as its objective the restoration 

and maintenance of 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. 

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. 
Appendices 171

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 

This Act 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 endangered and threatened 

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 

This act 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. 

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. 
172 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Estuaries and Clean Waters 

Act of 2000 

This law creates 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) 

The Act 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 

The purpose of this law is to minimize 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 

Provided that nothing in the Mining Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, or 

the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands authorized mining coal 

on refuges. 

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 

The Secretary of Agriculture was given the authority 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 landmanaging 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. 
Appendices 173

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 

1956 

Establishes 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. 

Improvement Act of 1978 This act was passed to improve 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 will celebrate its centennial anniversary in the year 

2003. Established the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial 

Commission to prepare a plan to commemorate the 100th

anniversary of the 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 longterm plan to meet the priority operations; maintenance and 

construction needs for the 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. 
174 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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 15 c 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. 

Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 

1948 

This act 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 

The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act 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. 
Appendices 175

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 

1918, as amended 

This Act 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. 

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 

It 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. 
176 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act 

of 1966 

Prior to 1966, there was no single Federal Law that governed the 

administration of the various wildlife refuges that had been 

established. This Act defines the National Wildlife Refuge System 

and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to permit any use of an 

area provided such use is compatible with the major purposes(s) 

for which the area was established. 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 

1997 

This Act 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 

System lands, identifies the Secretary of the Interior as responsible 

for managing and protecting the 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 oriented recreational development or protection of 

natural resources. It also authorizes the charging fees for public 

uses. 
Appendices 177

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

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. 

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 Department of the 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 21st 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. 
178 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

STATUE DESCRIPTION 

Uniform Relocation and 

Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition 

Policies Act (1970), as 

amended 

Provides for uniform and equitable treatment of persons who sell 

their homes, businesses, or farms to the Service. The Act requires 

that any purchase offer be no less than the fair market value of the 

property. 

Water Resources Planning 

Act of 1965 

Established Water Resources Council to be composed of Cabinet 

representatives including the Secretary of the Interior. The Council 

reviews river basin plans with respect to agricultural, urban, 

energy, industrial, recreational and fish and wildlife needs. The act 

also established a grant program to assist States in participating in 

the development of related comprehensive water and land use 

plans. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

of 1968, as amended 

This act 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 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 directs the Secretary of the Interior to 

review every roadless area of 5,000 acres or more and every 

roadless island regardless of size within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and to recommend 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. 
Appendices 179

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) 

The purpose of this Executive Order is to prevent 

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) 

Federal agencies are directed to provide leadership 

and 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. 
180 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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 NVCT 

facilitates the compilation of regional and national 

summaries, which in turn, can provide an ecosystem 

context for individual refuges. 

EO 12962, Recreational Fisheries (1995) Federal agencies are directed 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) Federal agencies are directed 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). 
Appendices 181

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. 
182 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 183

Appendix D. Public Involvement 

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS 

A public scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2007, at the Summerton Cultural Arts 

Center in Summerton, South Carolina. Meeting notices were published in the local newspapers; 

meeting notices were posted at the refuge and at the Arts Center; and invitations were mailed to 

approximately 35 individuals and groups. A total of 22 members of the public attended the meeting. 

ISSUES IDENTIFIED 

Internal:

y Ensure up-to-date maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the refuge’s water 

management and water delivery capabilities to meet migratory bird objectives (focus on 

waterfowl, waterbirds, and marsh birds) and to include a comprehensive understanding of the 

ecology of wetlands and enhanced health of the wetland vegetative communities for all 

migratory birds. Monitor the impact captive-reared mallards on food resources produced for 

migratory waterfowl. 

y Ensure wintering needs (forage and sanctuary) of migratory Southern James Bay Canada 

Geese with emphasis on high caloric foods, green browse, improved agricultural crops, and 

reduction of impact of deer/resident geese on available foods. This is to include a partnership 

with the SCDNR to conduct a study of both migratory and resident geese to assist the state in 

determining the impact of hunting on migratory geese and determine if an expanded hunt on 

y Continue perpetuation of early successional grassland, shrub/scrub communities on the 

abandoned agricultural fields - - including emphasis on adapted management linked to 

ongoing (off-site) and former old-field research studies. To include an evaluation of the 

number of size of fields and determine the feasibility for reforestation of some fields in native, 

desirable forest communities (e.g., carbon sequestration programs) if possible. 

y Improved forest management to improve understory and mid-story vegetation densities for 

several key groups of non-game birds (need an updated Forest Management Plan). To 

include a partnership with the SCDNR to establish breeding bird surveys on the refuge, 

technical assistance through an existing MOU, and on recommendations for management of 

key species as identified in the SC Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy and the South Atlantic 

Migratory Bird Initiative. 

y Control exotics, invasive and non-desirable plant communities on upland and wetland sites. 

To include developing partnerships with Santee-Cooper and other agencies or partnerships 

for funding and control of exotic species. 

y Work with Santee-Cooper and State to explore possibility of encouraging native submerged 

aquatic plants into main reservoir backwaters and coves associated with the Refuge and 

controlling grass carp impacts to native species. To include working with the SCDNR and 

others on the potential of establishing desirable, native wetland plant communities for 

enhanced migratory bird management. 

y Encourage and promote management and monitoring activities to increase wood duck 

productivity. 

y Acquisition of additional property around Dingle Pond and other units to provide a clearly 

defined boundary and buffer from increasing local land development. To include working with 

SCDNR and Santee-Cooper to promote environmental stewardship efforts and an 

understanding how future landscape changes (development) will impact adjacent refuge 
184 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

habitats. Encourage Santee-Cooper to look at the potential of buffers zones that could be 

created by reestablishing former refuge boundary lines. For example, a request has been 

made to Santee-Cooper to reestablish the former water boundary line at the Dingle Pond, 

Polly-Cantey Bay area. Additional buffers have also been requested along the Bluff Unit and 

Cantey Bay area. 

y A critical need has been identified for a forester to update the existing Forest Management 

Plan. This would provide direction for forest resource management with potential for harvest 

and mechanical thinning for habitat management. 

y Continue present work to evaluate the wetland management plan on all units and develop an 

updated, formal wetland management plan to include reconstruction and repair of dikes on the 

Cuddo Unit, replace and install additional water pumps to maintain adequate water flow 

capabilities on all refuge units, and evaluate the diking systems and water control structure 

locations on all units for enhanced water management capability. 

y The 2001 Fire Management Plan was well done; however, the fire management plan needs to 

be updated to include current resource management objectives. The Biological Review Team 

was concerned with the direction towards managing mixed hardwoods though mostly dormant 

season burns. However, there was a split opinion on the frequency, season, and use of fire in 

the mixed hardwood community. The present burn plan needs to have targeted resource 

conservation objectives that are linked to State and national plans, such as, the SC 

Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and SAMBI such that the 

resulting forest treatments will be providing habitat to identified key migratory bird species. 

The practice of burning and/or mechanical manipulation needs to be clearly addressed 

relative to habitat types, for safe fuel reduction, migratory birds and other native species. 

y Develop the refuge volunteer program to include volunteers to assist with the biological 

program including bird monitoring, water quality monitoring and/or other activities that 

volunteers could do depending on their level of expertise. 

y Develop a regional coalition of “outreach” partnerships that could link nearby conservation 

areas and programs together, to help with educational and interpretive programs, and 

enhance local/regional awareness of the refuge. To include a coordinated effort to determine 

the feasibility of developing a birding festival at Santee NWR that would bring together local 

and regional partners. 

y Develop an understanding of local demographic changes with respect to how increased 

human population growth will impact user demand and impacts to refuge programs and 

resources. 

y Make a determination of the condition of existing public use trails and other facilities and 

determine needed maintenance and improvements for safe, compatible, and appropriate 

uses. 

State:

y Habitat loss, fragmentation and/or alteration 

y Human disturbance of critical bird nesting areas 

y Chemical contamination of species from pesticides and other sources 

y Non-native invasive species – both plant and animal 

y Prescribed fire to maintain fire-dependent habitats 

y Water quality 

y Air quality 

y Conversion of land uses from rural to urban due to increasing population 

y Potential for increase in the decline of vertebrate species 

y Increase baseline biological inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution and 

status of native species 
Appendices 185

y Increase commitment by natural resource agencies, conservations organizations and 

academia toward establishing effective conservations strategies 

y Funding and budgets for natural resource conservation 

y Create public-private partnerships and educational outreach programs for broad-scale 

conservation efforts 

y Quality hunting and fishing opportunities 

Public

y Waterfowl management efforts should be based on carrying capacity of refuge lands 

y Refuge should evaluate ways to increase wintering waterfowl numbers 

y General concern with declining waterfowl numbers 

y Increase communication with the public via a website that provides information on what is 

being done and what the refuge wants to do. 

y Identify refuge needs that could be better accomplished with volunteers (e.g., planting corn, 

maintaining dikes) 

y Refuge should create a “wish list” of needs and let refuge partners know about it 

y General concerns about continued funding for refuge activities given the considerable budget 

cuts and staff reductions 

y Concern that workforce planning will further reduce refuge staff 

y Consider possible user fees for affluent bird watchers 

y Increase education about duck stamps (e.g., fund much more than ducks) 

y Maintain close coordination with Santee/Cooper for lake management 

y Concerns about pollution effects that will arise with increased development 

y Private landowners are attracting waterfowl away from the refuge resulting in a loss of “public” 

birds 

y What is the waterfowl carrying capacity of the refuge? 

y Refuge should consider determining a habitat index 

y Refuge should consider increasing the amount of flooded wetlands/impoundments 

y Refuge should increase acreage of flooded agricultural lands 

y Better control of water levels in impoundments is needed 

y The hydrology of Dingle Pond should be restored so that it actually functions like a Carolina 

bay 

y General concern that future development surrounding the refuge will result in further declines 

in waterfowl numbers 

y There should be no hunting on the refuge 

y There should be some increased hunting opportunities on the refuge 
186 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 187

Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations 

Santee National Wildlife Refuge Appropriate Use Determinations 

An appropriate use determination is the initial decision process a refuge manager follows when first 

considering whether or not to allow a proposed use on a refuge. The refuge manager must find that 

a use is appropriate before undertaking a compatibility review of the use. This process clarifies and 

expands on the compatibility determination process, by describing when refuge managers should 

deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. If we find that a proposed use is not 

appropriate, we will not allow the use and will not prepare a compatibility determination. 

Except for the uses noted below, the refuge manager must decide if a new or existing use is an 

appropriate refuge use. If an existing use is not appropriate, the refuge manager will eliminate or 

modify the use as expeditiously as practicable. If a new use is not appropriate, the refuge manager 

will deny the use without determining compatibility. Uses that have been administratively determined 

to be appropriate are: 

y Six wildlife-dependent recreational uses - As defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), the six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation) are determined to be appropriate. However, the refuge manager must still 

determine if these uses are compatible. 

y Take of fish and wildlife under State regulations - States have regulations concerning take of 

wildlife that includes hunting, fishing, and trapping. We consider take of wildlife under such 

regulations appropriate. However, the refuge manager must determine if the activity is 

compatible before allowing it on a refuge. 

Statutory Authorities for this policy: 

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

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Administration Act). 

This law provides the authority for establishing policies and regulations governing refuge uses, 

including the authority to prohibit certain harmful activities. The Administration Act does not authorize 

any particular use, but rather authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to allow uses only when they are 

compatible and “under such regulations as he may prescribe.” This law specifically identifies certain 

public uses that, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the Refuge System. 

The law states “. . . it is the policy of the United States that . . .compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general public use of the System . . .compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the System and shall receive 

priority consideration in refuge planning and management; and . . . when the Secretary determines 

that a proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within a refuge, that activity 

should be facilitated . . . the Secretary shall . . . ensure that priority general public uses of the System 

receive enhanced consideration over other general public uses in planning and management within 

the System . . . .” The law also states “in administering the System, the Secretary is authorized to 

take the following actions: . . . issue regulations to carry out this Act.” This policy implements the 

standards set in the Administration Act by providing enhanced consideration of priority general public 

uses and ensuring other public uses do not interfere with our ability to provide quality, wildlifedependent recreational uses. 
188 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Recreation Act). This law authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to “. . . administer such areas [of the System] or parts thereof for public 

recreation when in his judgment public recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary 

use.” While the Recreation Act authorizes us to allow public recreation in areas of the Refuge 

System when the use is an “appropriate incidental or secondary use,” the Improvement Act 

provides the Refuge System mission and includes specific directives and a clear hierarchy of 

public uses on the Refuge System. 

Other Statutes that Establish Refuges, including the Alaska National Interest Lands 

Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh - 410hh-5, 460 mm - 460mm-4, 539-539e, 

and 3101 - 3233; 43 U.S.C. 1631 et seq.). 

Executive Orders. We must comply with Executive Order (E.O.) 11644 when allowing use of offhighway vehicles on refuges. This order requires that we: designate areas as open or closed to offhighway vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, promote safety, and minimize conflict among 

the various refuge users; monitor the effects of these uses once they are allowed; and amend or 

rescind any area designation as necessary based on the information gathered. Furthermore, E.O. 

11989 requires us to close areas to off highway vehicles when we determine that the use causes or 

will cause considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, habitat, or cultural or historic 

resources. Statutes, such as ANILCA, take precedence over executive orders. 

Definitions: 

Appropriate Use

A proposed or existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following four conditions. 

1) The use is a wildlife-dependent recreational use as identified in the Improvement Act. 

2) The use contributes to fulfilling the refuge purpose(s), the Refuge System mission, or goals 

or objectives described in a refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the 

date the Improvement Act was signed into law. 

3) The use involves the take of fish and wildlife under State regulations. 

4) The use has been found to be appropriate as specified in section 1.11. 

Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United States and Alaska Natives (including 

Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who are members of federally recognized tribes. 

Priority General Public Use. A compatible wildlife-dependent recreational use of a refuge involving 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 

Quality. The criteria used to determine a quality recreational experience include: 

y Promotes safety of participants, other visitors, and facilities. 

y Promotes compliance with applicable laws and regulations and responsible behavior. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives 

in a plan approved after 1997. 

y Minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. 

y Minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners. 

y Promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American people. 

y Promotes resource stewardship and conservation. 
Appendices 189

y Promotes public understanding and increases public appreciation of America’s natural 

resources and our role in managing and protecting these resources. 

y Provides reliable/reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife. 

y Uses facilities that are accessible and blend into the natural setting. 

y Uses visitor satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. As defined by the Improvement Act, a use of a refuge 

involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation. 
190 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Cooperative Farming

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 191

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Upland Game Hunting

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. 
192 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Fishing/Boating

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 193

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography

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. 
194 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation

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 195

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Bicycling

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. 
196 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Use: Exotic and Nuisance Wildlife Control

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 197

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Research 

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. 
198 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

FINDING OF APPROPRIATENESS OF A REFUGE USE 

Refuge Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Use: Forest Management – Commercial Timber Harvest 

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 199

Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations 

Santee National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determinations 

Introduction: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed several uses for compatibility during the comprehensive 

conservation planning process for Santee National Wildlife Refuge. 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 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Santee National 

Wildlife Refuge, 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: upland game hunting, fishing/boating, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education and interpretation, bicycling, research, exotic and nuisance 

wildlife control, forest management – cooperative timber harvest, and cooperative farming. 

Refuge Name:

Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

Refuge Recreation Act 

Refuge Purposes: 

Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits served by the lands and waters of the refuge, the 

Service administratively designated Santee National Wildlife Refuge in 1941, under the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act and the Refuge Recreation Act. This designation outlined several primary 

purposes which guide management for these lands and waters: 

y Refuge Establishment: May 5, 1941, State, Congressional District: South Carolina, 6th District 

y Purpose: ”... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 

migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

y Purpose: “...to conserve and protect migratory birds...and other species of wildlife that are 

listed...as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or develop adequate wildlife 

habitat.” 16 U.S.C. 715i (Migratory Bird Conservation Act) 

y Purpose: “... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) 

the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or threatened 

species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ... real ... property. Such 

acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and conditions of restrictive covenants 

imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as 

amended). 
200 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge’s primary purpose applies to all lands and waters managed by the refuge, regardless of 

when they were added to the refuge. Since the refuge has management agreements with the Santee 

Cooper Public Authority, lands and waters under those management agreements are also subject to 

the conditions of those agreements. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: 

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

Act of 1997, is: 

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

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

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

future generations of Americans.

Other Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies: 

Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225) 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (15 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715r; 45 Stat. 1222) 

Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718-178h; 48 Stat. 451) 

Criminal Code Provisions of 1940 (18 U.S.C. 41) 

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 54 Stat. 250) 

Refuge Trespass Act of June 25, 1948 (18 U.S.C. 41; 62 Stat. 686) 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j; 70 Stat.1119) 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4; 76 Stat. 653) 

Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131; 78 Stat. 890) 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.; 80 Stat. 915) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee; 80 Stat. 927) 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq; 83 Stat. 852) 

Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands (Executive Order 11644, as amended by 

Executive Order 10989) 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq; 87 Stat. 884) 

Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935, as amended in 1978 (16 U.S.C. 715s; 92 Stat. 1319) 

National Wildlife Refuge Regulations for the Most Recent Fiscal Year (50 CFR Subchapter C; 

43 CFR 3101.3-3) 

Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (S.B. 740) 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act of 1990 

Food Security Act (Farm Bill) of 1990 as amended (HR 2100) 

The Property Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article IV 3, Clause 2 

The Commerce Clause of The U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57, USC668dd) 

Executive Order 12996, Management and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. March 25, 1996 

Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 25-33 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 
Appendices 201

Description of Use: 

Upland Game Hunting

Hunting has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997. With the implementation of the CCP, the Service will continue 

(e.g., develop needed regulations and publish the appropriate Federal Register notice) to open 

specified units of the refuge to upland hunting for deer, migratory birds, and raccoons, and will allow 

the harvest of feral hogs (exotic species) as an incidental take during scheduled hunts. This will 

provide additional opportunities for a priority recreational activity and will help to reduce the feral hog 

population on the refuge. Implementing the upland game hunting program will follow the existing 

refuge hunt plan, including posting appropriate notice in the Federal Register; and establishing 

regulations in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations. 

 

Upland hunting for white-tailed deer is presently allowed in designated areas of the Cuddo and Pine 

Island units of the refuge. A special youth hunt is conducted on the Bluff Unit with a quota for the 

number of hunters and harvest. Additional special hunts will be considered for turkey on the Cuddo 

Unit and deer/hog on the Bluff Unit. The refuge will continue to allow upland hunts for raccoon and 

doves on the Cuddo Unit. The remainder of the refuge will remain closed to upland hunting to 

minimize conflicts with other priority uses, except that special hunts for hogs (exotic species) will be 

considered if necessary. 

Availability of Resources: A schedule has been established for administering the existing program 

that includes one week of deer hunting with primitive weapons on the Pine Island Unit and one week 

each of deer hunting with archery and primitive weapons on the Cuddo Unit. The Bluff Unit presently 

has three days of hunting for youths, ages 11-17, with three additional days set aside for other 

special use deer hunts. Additionally, the Cuddo Unit is open to 12 days of hunting for mourning 

doves, raccoons, and opossums. Funds are needed annually to mow, grade, and repair roads and 

parking areas open to hunter access; to maintain signs; and to print hunting regulations and permits. 

Management of the program has a biological, administrative, maintenance, and law enforcement 

component. Partnering with the State will help provide the needed components. Details for 

administering an expanded program have not been determined. The proposed additional special 

hunts for turkey, deer, and hogs will not pose a significant administration need and will only be 

conducted if resources are available. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Many of the impacts associated with upland 

hunting are similar to those considered for other public use activities, such as wildlife viewing and 

wildlife 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. Direct 

mortality can impact isolated, resident game species populations by reducing breeding populations to 

a point where the isolated population can no longer be sustained. This can result in localized 

extirpation of isolated populations. 

 

The hunt would be conducted prior to migratory waterfowl arrival; therefore, minimal disturbance to 

migratory waterfowl is anticipated. Use of lead shot is allowed for deer and feral hogs, but 

considering the separation between the upland hunt and wetland habitat, the ingestion of lead shot by 

migratory birds should be minimal. The walk-in hunters would use existing fire breaks and roads for 

access. No soil compaction or vegetation disturbance is expected. Parking would occur in temporary 

sites already designated along existing fire lines and roads. 
202 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

The refuge does not have an active hog removal program where the permittees trap and remove feral 

hogs from the refuge. The primary intent of feral hog hunts would be to increase pressure on this exotic 

species and assist in the population control of this unwanted species. Upland hunting for feral hogs would 

help remove the hogs in this area and would assist the refuge in the control of this species. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Several stipulations will be necessary to ensure 

compatibility of this use. Additional stipulations may be added, as the program is developed. Known 

stipulations are listed. 

 

y The hunt will be conducted in accordance with State regulations and seasons. 

y The methods of hunting to be considered include primitive weapons, archery, .22 caliber 

rimfire rifles, and shotguns. 

y Hunting will be allowed only in the designated units. 

y Quota hunt permits will be issued for special hunts. 

y Hunting will be conducted based on the goals and objectives outlined in the CCP. 

y Check stations will be used to collect hunt data and to monitor the quality of the hunt. 

y Vehicle access and parking will be limited and confined to designated areas and unimproved 

roads. 

y Liberal bag limits or extended seasons may be established for feral hogs as part of a wider 

effort to eliminate this non-native species. 

y Hunting will be allowed based on existing refuge rules and regulations. 

Upland hunting would have little impact on other visitor activities. There are four units within the 

refuge. While one unit is open to hunting, the other units will be open for general visitor access. 

General public access is limited to hunters in units open to hunting for safety reasons. 

Justification: Hunting is a priority wildlife-dependent use under the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act. Upland hunting, as described, was determined to be compatible, in view of the 

potential impacts that hunting can have on the Service’s ability to achieve purposes and goals of the 

refuge, because: (1) hunter densities and use levels will be relatively low during days the refuge is 

open to hunting; (2) sufficient restrictions have been established to ensure that an adequate amount 

of high-quality habitat would be available to accommodate the needs of deer and other wildlife using 

the refuge; and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent recreation 

during the upland hunt season. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:
Appendices 203

Description of Use: 

Fishing/Boating

Fishing has been identified as a priority wildlife-dependent activity under the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act and is a traditional use at the refuge. This wildlife-dependent recreational 

use is supported by boating; therefore, boating impacts which are associated with fishing are also 

considered in this review. 

Fishing is permitted on the refuge. Designated areas are closed seasonally as sanctuary areas from 

fishing activities to protect migratory waterfowl. Fishing areas include the open waters of Lake 

Marion, shoreline of the Bluff Unit, and inland ponds and channels. 

Fishing is allowed in accordance with State regulations. Additionally, the refuge has implemented 

refuge-specific fishing regulations which can be update annually in Title 50 Code of Federal 

Regulations. The listed items are a summary of refuge-specific fishing regulations. 

y Fishing is allowed only during daylight hours. 

y Night fishing from boats is allowed in the open waters of Lake Marion, except 

designated areas that are seasonally closed as a waterfowl sanctuary. 

y Airboats, personal watercraft, or hovercraft are not allowed. 

 

Inland and shoreline fishing is available, but the fishing opportunities in the open waters of Lake 

Marion is by far the largest component of the fishing program. Because of the associated wildlife and 

habitat impacts of boats, regulations have been developed to reduce impacts from boats. 

With the advent of jet boats, personal water craft, and use of airboats, many boats can now operate 

at fast speeds in shallow water. With these developments, fishing boats now present the potential to 

disturb foraging and loafing water birds in shallow water habitats. Outboard-powered boats also have 

the potential to cause impacts to wildlife and the submerged aquatic plants. Non-motorized boats 

(e.g., canoe and kayak) may have less impacts but could be disruptive seasonally in winter waterfowl 

use areas or in rookery or roosting areas. In recent times, these impacts have been increasing along 

with the number of anglers and boaters utilizing the open waters of the refuge. Over the last 20 years 

the number of sports fishermen has increased and annual fishing visits are made by approximately 

50,000 visitors. The combination of increased anglers and boat designs has increased impacts in the 

open waters of the refuge, impacting the quality of the fishing experience. The requirement to obtain 

and possess a fishing permit, which is self issuing and free, is an adaptive strategy to augment public 

awareness of the refuge, refuge rules, and boundaries. This strategy may also help reduce wildlife 

disturbance and minimize problems associated with submerged aquatic plants. 

Fishing by boat represents the largest percentage of fisherman, but bank fishing opportunities are 

available from Fort Watson Road and from numerous other locations where anglers fish from the 

bank or fish by wading in the water. Several freshwater borrow pits and drainage ditches provide 

limited freshwater fishing opportunities. A common issue associated with bank fishing is litter. 

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. Funds are 

needed annually to mow, grade, and repair roads, parking lots, and boat ramps open to fishing or 

boating; replace gravel on roads leading to boat ramps; paint, repair, and replace fencing and signs; 

and develop and print brochures. Two rangers (one duel function law enforcement officer), one fulltime law enforcement officer, and two maintenance workers spend up to two months a year managing 

the fishing program. These salaries come out of the refuge’s operating budget, which is adequate to 

sustain the existing program. 
204 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Funding for the improvements outlined in the CCP is not currently available. For example, the cost to 

post the water boundary is estimated at $60,000; however, we are seeking assistance from Santee 

Cooper Public Service Authority for installation of boundary poles to reduce cost. Replacing and 

posting the water boundary signs is highly important. If the water boundary zones were expanded, 

additional funding would be necessary. Funding would also be needed for road and parking 

improvements, restrooms, bank fishing improvements, litter control, and freshwater fishing 

improvements. A fee for use is not recommended within the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: Anticipated impacts were identified and evaluated based on best 

professional judgment and published scientific papers. Over-fishing has been known to cause 

ecological extinction of certain fish species and precedes all other human disturbance (Jackson et al 

2001). In recent history, over-fishing in some areas has led to the decline of certain species. 

However, the lake system that surrounds the refuge was created primarily for hydroelectric power 

generation, with fishing a secondary resource available to the public. The fishery resource of the lake 

has changed significantly with time, habitat, and fish populations. The refuge open water fishing 

opportunity is a small portion of the 110,600-acre lake. Primary game fish are largemouth bass, black 

Crappie, chain pickerel, channel catfish, flathead catfish, blue catfish, freshwater striped bass (striped 

white and hybrid bass), bream, and shellcracker. Santee Cooper Public Service Authority began 

introducing triploid (sterile) grass carp to the Santee Cooper Lakes in 1989, in an effort to control and 

manage the exotic invasive hydrilla infestations. Today, the State monitors fish populations and has 

set seasons, slot and size limits, and total bag limits for most sports fish, making the likelihood of 

over-fishing depleting fish stocks minimal. The areas of the refuge closed to boating and fishing also 

serve to recharge local waters. Collectively, the State fishing regulations and the seasonally closed 

waterfowl sanctuary areas should minimize the likelihood of fish stocks declining on the refuge and 

minimize migratory bird impacts from boating. 

Wildlife responds differently to boats based on their size, speed, the amount of noise they make, and 

how close the crafts get to wildlife. Boats increase the access of visitors to areas not open to most 

other visitors, thus having a greater potential to cause wildlife disturbance if not managed properly. 

The speed and manner in which a boat approaches wildlife can influence wildlife responses. Rapid 

movement directly toward wildlife frightens them, while movement away from or at an oblique angel to 

the animal is less disturbing (Knight and Cole 1995). Dahlgren and Korschgen (1992) categorized 

human activities in order of decreasing disturbance to waterfowl: 

1. rapid over water movement and loud noise (e.g., power-boating, water skiing, and aircraft), 

2. over water movement with little noise (e.g., sailing, wind surfing, rowing, and canoeing), 

3. little over water movement or noise (e.g., wading and swimming), and 

4. activities along shorelines (e.g., fishing, birdwatching, hiking, and traffic). 

Hume (1976 as cited by Dahlgren and Korschgen 1992) observed a similar differential response of 

waterfowl to human activities. Common goldeneyes often flew when people on the shore 

approached within 100 or 200 meters, but settled elsewhere on the water. A single sailing dingy was 

sufficient to cause more than 60 common goldeneyes to take flight and for most to leave the vicinity 

within a few minutes. Remaining birds then flew up each time the boat approached to within 300 to 

400 meters and generally left the area within an hour. The appearance of a powerboat caused 

instantaneous flight by most birds. If the boat traversed the length of the reservoir, all remaining birds 

left within minutes. Hume reported that waterfowl abundance decreased over time as a result of the 

increased frequency of boating. 
Appendices 205

In Germany, Bauer et al. (1992) concluded that boating pressure on wintering waterfowl had reached 

such a high level that it was necessary to establish larger sanctuaries and stop water sports and 

angling from October to March. Likewise, on numerous occasions Thornburg (1973) observed 

boaters causing mass flights of diving ducks on the Mississippi River. He believed that increased 

boating could pose a serious threat to the continued use of the area by great numbers of migratory 

waterfowl. Thornburg (1973) concluded that eventually restrictions on boating activity may be 

necessary and that establishing a sanctuary should be considered. 

Rodgers and Schwikert (2002) compared flushing distance of three species of birds in response to a slow 

versus fast approach using the same outboard-powered boat. A fast approach resulted in significantly 

larger flush distances for brown pelicans, anhingas, and great egrets. They concluded that water bird 

staging areas along migratory corridors and frequently used foraging sites of resident birds merit 

protection from human activity. In another study, Rodgers and Smith (1997) recommended that the 

establishment of 150-meter buffer zones around colonial bird rookeries would help minimize disturbance. 

Increasing the predictability of boating patterns to help wildlife habituate to non-threatening human 

disturbance can also be accomplished by establishing well marked routes of travel. 

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). Refuge rules regarding boating and boat use, including seasonally closed areas 

and prohibiting the use of air-thrust boats, hover-craft, airboats, and personal watercraft, will 

assist in lowering disturbance to birds. Additionally, a designated canoe and kayak trail will have 

interpretive opportunities for visitors to increase awareness of waterbirds. Consideration for seasonal 

use of certain areas will also reduce impacts. Creation of seasonally no-motor zones in sensitive 

wintering waterfowl staging areas or rookeries will also reduce impacts from boating and serve as a 

safety measure for non-motorized boats. 

Under Service policy, fishing tournaments cannot originate within the refuge, but, because the quality 

of fishing is better within the refuge, tournament fishermen originating from a tournament outside the 

refuge often travel into refuge waters. Tournaments have become big businesses and can 

substantially increase the level of fishing activity in the refuge. This can have negative impacts on 

other sports fisherman, wildlife, and habitat. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: Fishing is allowed on the refuge in accordance 

with State regulations. In addition, the refuge has the following sports fishing regulations, which are 

paraphrased. 

y A free refuge sports fishing permit is required. 

y Fishing is allowed only during daylight hours from refuge shorelines. 

y Night fishing from boats is allowed with possession of a free sports fishing permit in the 

open waters of the refuge (i.e., Lake Marion). 
206 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

y Fishing and boat/canoe/kayak launching is not permitted except in designated boat 

launch areas and as seasonally specified as open for general public access. 

y Airboats, personal watercraft, or hovercraft are not allowed. 

y All areas open to boating are open to fishing. All State and Federal fishing regulations 

apply. 

Boating impacts wildlife due to noise and speed, as well as from increased access to more parts of 

the lake. Boat wakes can cause erosion of shoreline and may be a safety issue for canoe and kayak 

operations. There are areas on the refuge, including Black Bottom at Cuddo, Savannah Branch at 

Pine Island, and Cantey Bay, that are seasonally closed to all entry, including for fishing, from 

November 1 to March 1 due to the areas serving as waterfowl sanctuaries. Additional zones may be 

expanded to other shallow water habitats of the refuge if necessary to serve the primary refuge 

purpose for waterfowl. Reducing disturbance from powerboats would also benefit other shallow 

water foraging and loafing birds. Water boundaries were previously marked and the refuge is 

seeking funds to repair or replace damaged markers. Closed areas buffers are depicted on refuge 

tear sheet maps and will be updated for the fishing regulation brochures. Monitoring will help the 

Service to determine the effectiveness of refuge management actions in maintaining migratory birds, 

endangered species, and other wildlife populations on the refuge. 

The refuge has little control over fishing tournaments which originate off the refuge. However, the 

staff will work with the organizers of these events to educate them to the impacts boating can have on 

wildlife and brief them on refuge regulations. 

It is anticipated that the existing and proposed rules will be adequate to sustain migratory bird and 

endangered species populations and adequate stocks of fish, and provide for a quality fishing 

experience which has little impact on other visitors. If wildlife populations suffer as a result of fishing 

or boating activities, the quality of fishing declines, or other wildlife impacts occur, additional buffer 

zones may be established and/or additional motor boat restrictions may be implemented. The refuge 

will modify or eliminate any use with unacceptable impacts. 

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) sufficient restrictions have been established to ensure the protection of 

migratory birds and that an adequate amount of high-quality feeding and resting habitat would be 

available to accommodate the needs of waterfowl, migratory birds, and other resident birds using the 

refuge; and (3) sufficient opportunities are available for other priority wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Mandatory 15-Year Re-evaluation Date:
Appendices 207

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 

wildlife observation and photography. Commercial 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. Posted with closed area signs, certain portions of the refuge are closed to protect wildlife, 

such as during the migratory, wintering waterfowl season. Wildlife viewing and photography 

improvements have been made at the Wrights Bluff nature trail and additional opportunities are being 

developed on the other units of the refuge, such as the Cuddo Wildlife Drive, along hiking trails, 

Dingle Pond, and at other locations to 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 a diversity of wetland or upland habitats for wildlife viewing. Although no photography blinds 

currently exist on the refuge, wildlife viewing blinds are being considered. In addition to hiking trails, 

a canoe/kayak trail on the Cuddo and Pine Island Units will enhance existing wildlife observation and 

photography within upland and wetland habitats. 

Approved forms of access for wildlife viewing and photography include driving legal motor vehicles, 

hiking, and motorized and non-motorized boats. Certain areas may be closed to specific forms of 

transportation. Motor boat restriction zones are in place in several locations to provide protection for 

migratory birds and to improve the quality of fishing opportunities. Bicycles are not allowed on hiking 

trails and will be allowed only on designated routes. 

Refuge brochures and maps will provide the public with the locations of visitor facilities. Additional 

informational displays and maps are located at refuge boat ramps, public boat ramps, refuge kiosks, 

and visitor contact stations. 

Availability of Resources: 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 repair roads open to the public; replace 

gravel on the Wildlife Drive and other public roads; repair, and replace boardwalks and trails; paint, repair, 

and replace signs; and develop and print brochures. Up to two equipment operators, two rangers, two 

law enforcement officers, and the refuge manager can be involved in managing this program. 

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 refuge in 

cooperation with other partners, will have to pursue additional funding opportunities as they become 

available. Other refuge staff, volunteers, and the Friends of Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Association also support these uses. 

Anticipate Impacts of Uses: This purpose of 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 levels within 

acceptable limits. This is based on the impacts at the existing and projected level of use. 
208 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Short-term Impacts: Impacts associated with wildlife observation activities can be divided into 

two categories, based on whether the activity occurs within or outside of a vehicle. In general, 

activities that occur outside of vehicles tend to increase disturbance potential for most wildlife 

species (Klein 1993; Gabrielson and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al. 2005). Wildlife 

observation trails and pullouts along the Cuddo Wildlife Drive have a greater potential for 

disturbing wildlife species. 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 walking requires a longer period of time to cover the same distance. 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 

cause more disturbances to waterfowl than 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 their vehicles to view wildlife, wildlife photographers 

are much more likely to leave their vehicles and 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). 

Boating impacts on wildlife can be classified based on the form of boating activity (Korschgen and 

Dahlgren 1992; Knight and Cole 1995) the season of use (Burger 1995) and species tolerance to the 

activity (Jahn and Hunt 1964). For example, motorboat activity likely has more disturbances on wildlife 

than non-motorized boat travel because motorboats produce a combination of movement and noise 

((Knight and Cole 1995). Even canoes can cause disturbance based on the ability to access shallower 

areas of the marsh (Speight 1973). However, compared to motorboats, personal water craft (jet skis), 

and airboats, canoe travel appears to have the least disturbance (Jahn and Hunt 1964). 

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. For example, during 

the fall migration and over-wintering season, wildlife observation, photography, environmental 

education, interpretation, and waterfowl hunting are all occurring simultaneously and are at the 

highest levels of the year. Techniques to limit disturbance must be evaluated, 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 

public use may not be 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 Listed Stipulations 
Appendices 209

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 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 determine 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, relocate the activity or program, or eliminate the program. 

Stipulations that may be employed include those listed. 

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 Cuddo Wildlife Drive. 

y Impacts from wildlife viewing and photography can be reduced by providing observation 

blinds. 

y The establishment of stay in your vehicle zones could further reduce disturbance on the 

Wildlife Drive. 

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 in 

areas where members of the public are generally allowed help fulfill 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 youth and adult education and 

interpretation of the natural resources of the refuge. Activities include on-site staff-led or teacher-led 

environmental education programs; off-site teacher-led classroom programs; teacher workshops; and 

interpretation of wildlife, habitat, other natural features, and/or management activities occurring on the 

refuge. These activities seek to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of wildlife and 

their habitats and to contribute to wildlife conservation and support of the refuge. Environmental 
210 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

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. 

The CCP identifies an expansion of the environmental education program to a curriculum-based 

program that focuses on habitat diversity, wildlife, and children. Over time, the program would grow to 

provide a diverse range of on-site staff-led education programs. The programs will explore various 

habitats of the refuge (i.e., lake system, wetlands, bottomlands, pinelands, hardwood uplands, and 

Carolina Bays), leading to a better understanding of the value of these habitats to fish and wildlife 

resources, the human influence on the ecosystem, and the importance of these resources to society. 

The refuge has a visitor center facility to support a moderate-sized program and can develop curricula 

that allow students to explore and experience these habitats firsthand. 

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 plan also calls for more extensive improvements, such as 

expanding the visitor center for exhibits, displays, staffing, and developing interpretive trails (e.g., 

canoe trail and Dingle Pond trail enhancements); making improvements at the Wrights Bluff 

observation deck; developing more interpretive wildlife viewing areas; and consideration of a guided 

golf-cart type tour. 

Proposed changes in the environmental education and interpretive program are planned for areas 

currently open to the public. Current interpretive sites include the Visitor Center, Santee Indian 

Mound and Ft. Watson, Wrights Bluff Nature Trail, Cuddo Wildlife Drive, Cuddo Nature Trail, Pine 

Island Nature Trail, Dingle Pond Nature Trail, Santee NWR Canoe and Kayak Trail. The refuge 

utilizes the visitor center as the focal point for education programs. Supervised activities will 

encourage the exploration of the environment, but efforts will be made to return any collected item to 

the habitat from which it came in an unharmed condition. 

Availability of Resources: Annual refuge operation and maintenance funds support the Visitor 

Service 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 Friends of the Santee National Wildlife Refuge, Fish and Wildlife Foundation, other 

grants or endowments, and refuge budget increases under the Refuge Operating Needs System 

(RONS). The Santee friends group is supportive of the refuge public use program, providing 

volunteers and supplementing refuge programs and facilities. Refuge staff, such as interpretive 

rangers and volunteers, provides the staffing for these uses. 

Anticipated Impacts of Uses: Environmental education primarily occurs at the Santee Visitor 

Center and surrounding areas. The expansion of the program, as proposed, would increase 

disturbance in several new sites, however, impacts would be considered short-term and discreet due 

to the low anticipated frequency of use and ability to move sites to a new area if the habitat showed 

signs of impacts. 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, Wildlife Drive, canoe/kayak trail, or other improved facilities. Adding 

the new interpretive sites will have some wildlife or habitat impacts. The canoe/kayak trail expands 

use sites on the Cuddo and Pine Island units and only minimal clearing will be required for parking 
Appendices 211

and launch areas. The existing boat launch and earthen parking area will be minimally enhanced at 

Pine Island. The preferred route for the Dingle Pond trail enhancements uses the existing trail and 

fire break, and about two tenths of an acre of clearing would be required for a parking lot. Initial plans 

include working with neighborhood partners to develop public access points on the south boundary of 

Dingle Pond (e.g., parking lots and a kiosk). These visitor contact areas would originate just off the 

refuge. The trail would pass by some wetlands, but the footprint of the trail will be in uplands where 

impacts are minimal. Additional expansions would include raised boardwalks through forested 

wetlands for environmental interpretation. 

 Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: While anticipated impacts are expected 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. 

Program activities will be modified to avoid observed or predicted impacts. Built into all curriculums 

will be a section on wildlife etiquette. 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 determine if objectives are being met and 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. 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 Cuddo Wildlife Drive will be carefully monitored. If impacts are 

detected, adaptive strategies will be developed, such as re-routing traffic and public activity during 

sensitive times, or establishment of “stay in your vehicle” zones, to lessen wildlife disturbance. 

Annual evaluations will be conducted to assess if objectives are being met and that 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. They 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 with cost built into the refuge operation and maintenance budget. Identified 

improvements will not be developed until adequate staff and budget are available to develop and 

operate them. 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 that unacceptable wildlife impacts are occurring, the refuge will modify the activity to 

minimize or eliminate the impacts. 
212 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Both programs allow the education of the public on the missions of the Service and Refuge System, 

and the purposes of the refuge. They highlight the areas which are most closely aligned 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:

Description of Use: 

Bicycling 

While not one of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses listed in the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act, bicycling is a mode of transportation currently used to facilitate 

wildlife observation. Bike riding is also included in the Compatibility Determination (CD) for Wildlife 

Observation and Photography. This CD provides additional guidance on this specific use. As 

proposed, bike riding would occur only on designated roads and trails. This use occurs all year. 

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 

Wildlife Drive and other public roads; repair and replace boardwalks and trails; paint, repair, and 

replace signs; and develop and print brochures. The refuge will seek outside funding, grants, and 

partnerships to fund the development of bicycle paths. 

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 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, joggers, and all-terrain vehicle riders 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, 

along with other similar sport activities, such as jogging, is not permitted. 

Other forms of bike riding may be appropriate. The intent of some bike riders is wildlife viewing and 

several bicycle trails are planned in the CCP. Bicycle riders are not permitted to ride on refuge hiking 

trails. This activity disturbs other trail users and will be eliminated from hiking trails or other areas 

where a conflict may occur. 
Appendices 213

Short-term Impacts: Wildlife disturbance relative to bicycle riding has been poorly studied with most 

references using other activities, such as walking, hiking, and operating vehicles and their impacts on 

wildlife; therefore, bicycle impacts are inferred (unless noted). As noted in the Wildlife Observation 

and Photography CD, 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 (including bicycling) tend to increase the disturbance potential for most 

wildlife species (Klein 1993; Gabrielson and Smith 1995; Burger 1981; Pease et al. 2005). Out of 

vehicle activities along wildlife observation trails and pullouts along the Cuddo Wildlife Drive have the 

greatest potential for disturbing wildlife species. 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). 

A study conducted at Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge indicated that jogging and bike riding in an 

open habitat, such as marshes where the activity is highly visible to wading birds, shorebirds, and 

waterfowl, is disruptive. As a result, marsh birds in open areas flee from joggers and bike riders 

(Laskowski 1999). 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 NWR (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. For example, during the fall 

migration and the over-wintering season wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation are all occurring simultaneously and are at the highest levels of the year. Refuge 

hunts are planned before the primary migratory waterfowl use period. Techniques to limit disturbance 

must be evaluated, and 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 urban expansion, human population growth, and increased visitor opportunities 

could result in seasonal shifts in migratory bird use of the refuge wetland habitats. 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 Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: All forms of wildlife observation should have 

minimal wildlife and habitat impacts. However, bicycling can cause wildlife impacts near wetland 

areas, can increase wildlife impacts, and can disrupt other individuals viewing wildlife. Bicycles will 

not be permitted on established hiking trails. Bicycling on the Cuddo Wildlife Drive has not reached a 

level where disturbance is occurring to wildlife or other individuals participating in wildlife observation. 

However, as use of the Cuddo Wildlife Drive or other trails increase, bicycling could become a greater 

disruption to wildlife or other visitors. As soon as bike paths are developed, bicycling will be limited to 
214 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

these sites. Evaluation of bike riding on bike paths and other roads open to biking will be conducted 

annually to assess if objectives are being met, if habitat impacts are within a tolerable range, and if 

wildlife populations are being adversely affected. If evidence of unacceptable impacts begins to 

appear, it may be necessary to change the activity or the program, relocate the activity or program, or 

eliminate the program. 

Stipulations that might be employed include: 

 

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 The establishment of stay in your vehicle zones could further reduce disturbance on the 

Wildlife Drive or provide seasonal-only access to sensitive areas. 

y Techniques specific to bicycling will include: re-routing, modifying, or eliminating bicycle riding 

activities which have demonstrated direct wildlife impacts near 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 help fulfill 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 and promote increased 

awareness, understanding, and support of refuge resources and programs. The stipulations outlined 

above should minimize potential impacts relative to wildlife/human interactions. At the current level of 

visitation, bicycling does not seem to conflict with the national policy to maintain the biological 

diversity, integrity, and environmental health of the refuge. 

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 facilitates the purposes, vision, and goals of 

the refuge. The refuge hosts research from a variety of research institutions, including the U.S. 

Geological Survey and Santee-Cooper Public Authority. 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 biologist and approved by the refuge manager. Refuge approved research 

will prioritize studies that are fish and wildlife management-oriented studies that provide information 

that serves the refuge or the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
Appendices 215

Availability of Resources: The refuge presently has a small trailer on-site to support temporary 

housing for researchers and students. As funding becomes available, the CCP proposes the addition 

of an updated dorm facility and recreational vehicle pads on the refuge. The refuge maintains a small 

and growing geographic information system database and a library of pertinent biological texts, 

published scientific and biological papers, reports, and reprints. 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 (Director’s Order 109, dated March 28, 2005). 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. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed 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 

(Directors Order Number 109). 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 the refuge updating 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 the 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:
216 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Description of Use: 

Exotic and Nuisance Wildlife Control 

Exotic animals (e.g., feral hogs) are one of the most destructive exotic animals invading refuge 

habitats. Similarly, nuisance animals (e.g., beaver) can also be destructive to real assets and 

habitats. They are present in nearly all refuge habitats. Coyotes are also found on all units of the 

refuge. With impacts not clearly known at this time, population control measures will be considered if 

adverse impacts are determined as a result. 

Feral hogs cause considerable damage and impacts to native wildlife and habitats. Feral hogs are 

known to occur in some refuge units and on adjacent lands. Trapping and hunting are means used to 

control feral hogs and trapping is used for beaver and coyote control. For assistance in control of 

these species, trappers and their helpers will be issued access under special use permits. Trappers 

and hunters will be permitted to remove feral hogs from the refuge through the use of live traps and 

existing public hunts. 

The CCP outlines the importance of the removal of feral hogs from the refuge, monitoring the feral 

hog population after this time, and adjusting the target take accordingly to limit impacts to native 

wildlife and habitats. Additionally, trappers will be used to assist in the reduction of nuisance wildlife, 

such as beavers and coyotes. 

Availability of Resources: 

The current level of refuge funding is adequate to support the feral hog removal program as it is 

proposed in the refuge’s CCP. Funding at the current level is adequate to administer a feral hog 

removal or nuisance wildlife program. Management staff administers permits and checks for permit 

compliance. Law enforcement officers monitor permit compliance and compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations. 

Anticipated Impacts of Use: 

Minor, short-term, and discreet increased disturbance to native wildlife may be caused by trapping 

activities. Native wildlife, such as raccoons, opossums, and wild turkey, may occasionally feed on 

corn used for bait at trap sites. The potential for disturbance to the visiting public does exist. 

However, most trapping activities will take place in areas closed to the public or at night to limit 

disturbance. Additionally, all measures will be taken to ensure that the activity does not present a 

safety hazard to the general public or other wildlife. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

Feral hog removal permits will be issued and renewed annually subject to successful performance 

during the permit period and on a prescribed need. 

Agent trappers will furnish all labor, equipment, and supplies required to accomplish the effective 

capture and removal of hogs, coyotes, or beaver from the refuge. 

Possession of firearms is prohibited except during legal public hunts. 
Appendices 217

All captured hogs will become the property of the trapper and will be disposed of in accordance with 

local, state, and federal laws. 

Period of use, time of entry, route of travel, and techniques used are subject to approval by the refuge 

manager. 

All trapping and capture activities (e.g., locations and time) will be restricted to areas and times 

designated and approved by the refuge manager. 

Individuals with wildlife violations, felony violations, trespass violations, a pattern of repeated 

misdemeanor violations, and other similar violations will not be permitted to conduct trapping under 

this program. 

Agent trappers will be required to submit reports outlining the number of hogs or beaver captured and 

the number of traps operated each month. 

Agent trappers must provide the refuge with detailed personal information for each helper trapper and 

must provide detailed information on all vehicles to be used in the removal program. 

Justification: Feral hog removal and the resulting reduction of the refuge feral hog population help 

reduce habitat disturbance, competition between feral hogs and native wildlife for food resources, 

native wildlife mortality, safety hazards due to hog and car collisions, and asset destruction caused by 

rooting activities. Without this feral hog removal program, an unrealistic amount of refuge staff time 

would be required to reduce the feral hog population. 

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use: 

Forest Management – Commercial Timber Harvest 

A Refuge Forest Management Plan was produced for the Santee NWR in 1975. This plan is now 32 

years old. It does not presently meet the landscape goals and objectives for habitat types of Santee 

NWR or those developed in the CCP. Under the refuge’s CCP, timber harvesting will be used in 

forest and woodland stands where the trees are merchantable to assist in stand reduction that 

enhance conditions for migratory bird and wildlife habitat. 

Timber harvesting will be used to help achieve several of the goals and objectives outlined in the CCP. 

These goals include maintaining nesting substrate for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the 

improvement of habitat for key priority species identified by SAMBI or SCDNR Strategic Plan, the creation 

of diversity in the landscape, and the maintenance of biological integrity. The strategies and techniques 

for these will be discussed in detail in development of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) and/or an 

updated Forest Management Plan, as a step-down plan of the CCP. 

Periodically, timbered areas of the refuge will be assessed to determine 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 usually used where the purpose of the harvest is to create a range of stand densities 

throughout the forest. In this case a relatively small portion of the stand is removed and is most 
218 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

applicable where the objective is to create forest openings, enhanced understory, or where more 

diversity in the forest is desired. 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 likely use of this method is to reduce 

trees in areas where the shrub layer would provide habitat for migratory song birds. Although this 

method reduces the amount of pre-harvest work by eliminating marking, it requires closer monitoring 

of the logging operation. Either method will provide needed disturbance to the forest floor and 

enhance forest regeneration and succession. Mechanical disturbance is more desirable in the mixed 

hardwood where fire could damage hardwood species. 

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, personnel on the refuge’s staff need to be knowledgeable in forest ecology. They must 

also have an awareness of the capabilities and limitations of timber harvesting operations. At the 

present time, such staffing is available. The CCP provides for staffing at both the technical and 

professional level to meet this requirement in the future. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Harvesting operations can have a major impact on 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 layers have grown fewer with closed canopy 

conditions and the disturbance will have positive impacts to enhance understory regeneration. The 

removal of some of the stems opens up the canopy and allows sunlight penetration to the forest floor. 

The herbaceous layer responds positively to the removal of the overstory and enhances portions of 

the shrub layer and mid-story layer. This can create important breeding and foraging opportunities 

for migratory song birds and enhance overall wildlife habitat conditions. 

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 Listed 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. The permit should also address any specific requirements to restore 

road and other assets damaged as a result of the permittee’s activities. 
Appendices 219

While checking on harvest operations, refuge staff will be aware of present and forecasted weather 

conditions. Should soil moisture reach 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: The forest management actions proposed in the CCP are in accordance with Service 

guidelines for the protection, management, and enhancement of wildlife populations and habitats on 

the refuge. The habitat for migratory birds will require periodic manipulation if goals are to be met. 

The timber harvest will also help meet goals of maintaining upland habitat diversity and will help 

maintain the biological integrity of the refuge landscape. 

Mandatory 10 Year Re-evaluation Date: 

Description of Use:

Cooperative Farming 

Permit cooperative farming activities on Santee NWR for the purpose of providing food for wintering 

waterfowl and a wide variety of resident and migratory wildlife. This activity would constitute a 

commercial use of the refuge as a Cooperative Farming Agreement that typically consists of an 80/20 

percent shared crop. The normal 80/20 percent (or higher) is based on the cooperative farmer 

harvesting 80 percent of the crop for labor, equipment costs, fuel, fertilizer, and land preparation, with 

the refuge deriving the remaining 20 percent of the crop as a fee for use of the refuge land. This 

standard will be evaluated to consider existing fallow field conditions on the refuge. This proposed 

use (cooperative farming) would be considered on all units within Santee NWR. The amount of 

cooperative farming will be the minimal amount needed based on waterfowl and habitat objectives 

that were established for the Santee NWR and as recommended by a recent refuge biological review. 

The cropland allocation on each unit will be reviewed periodically to determine the success of the 

program and to ensure the use is meeting refuge goals and objectives. Additional habitat will also be 

provided through native moist-soil management and flooded forested wetlands. 

Availability of Resources: 

Presently, ample previously farmed fallow land is available on the Santee NWR to support cooperative 

farming. The majority of previously farmed fallow land receives minimal maintenance and management 

by way of a mowing/fire regimen. Without the preferred management, fallow farm fields will succeed to 

undesirable, rank stands of young pine, sweet gum, or other monotypic vegetative cover types. 

Historically, these fields were cooperatively farmed as part of the refuge program. 

Cost estimates to administer a cooperative farming program would vary greatly, depending on the 

size of program and the situations afforded to the refuge at the time of the actual farming agreement 

being drafted. Actual costs to the refuge would be mainly for staff wages to administer the program, 

fees for yearly soil sampling, and costs for fuel to cover site visits. Estimated cost for staffing would 

be between .10 and .25 of a full-time equivalent position at the GS-7 level, with some additional 

staffing cost for supervisory oversight. At present, base funding is available to cover staff costs. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: 

The proposed use is not expected to have any significant impact upon refuge resources providing 

that: 1) this activity is strictly monitored by refuge personnel; and 2) the cooperative farmer follows all 

directives in the Cooperative Farming Agreement. Some impacts on refuge resources can be 
220 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

expected as land will need to be disturbed to facilitate the farmers activities and some minor 

disturbances to wildlife can be expected due to this activity. The cropland management agreement 

and plan outlines compliance with Service pesticide use policies and as stipulated in the Refuge 

Manual. Minimal impacts are expected as only pre-approved pesticides may be used on the refuge. 

Determination (check one below):

 Use is Not Compatible 

X Use is Compatible, with the Listed Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: 

 

y The farmer will only plant suitable wildlife foods and cover crops, such as corn, winter wheat, 

millet, or other pre-approved wildlife food and cover crop, with the refuge share being 

determined at time of harvest. 

y Farming activities will be conducted March through October to avoid conflict with migratory 

bird management. 

y Refuge soils will be maintained at proper PH levels by the farmer as determined by yearly soil 

analysis. 

y The farmer will follow all directives in the Cooperative Farming Agreement, paying particular 

attention regarding the application of pesticides. 

y Farmer will not cause any unreasonable disturbance to refuge wildlife. 

y Each Cooperative Farming Agreement will be reviewed annually and all activities will be 

evaluated to determine the success of the program as it relates to assisting the refuge to meet 

stated refuge goals and objectives for wildlife habitat and management. 

Justification: 

In 1941, Congress established the Santee NWR with the primary purpose ”... for use as an inviolate 

sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds..” and with a focus on waterfowl 

management. Santee NW R is comprised of fee title and leased land for which agricultural crop 

production is considered essential for carrying out the intended purposes, including recent 

recommendations provided by the refuge biological review. Contract or force account farming would 

not require compatibility determinations as there would be no commercial production over and above 

that needed to support migratory and wintering waterfowl and migratory birds. However, existing and 

projected refuge funding and staffing levels necessitate the use of cooperative farming agreements to 

achieve these foraging objectives. A Cooperative Farming Agreement will be established for this use, 

which requires farmers to minimize impacts and greatly reduce applications of pesticides and artificial 

fertilizers. Further, only minimal acreage will be farmed to coincide with existing waterfowl population 

and habitat needs. Also, it would create landscape diversity by creating small interspersion fields 

favorable to resident wildlife. 

This use is deemed compatible under the stipulated requirements. Since the proposed use will further 

refuge establishment purposes, this compatibility determination is necessary only to ensure that these 

uses are compatible with higher priority wildlife and habitat purposes established by Congress, and the 

mission of the Refuge System. No additional justification for this use is necessary or appropriate.

Mandatory 10-Year Re-evaluation Date: 
Appendices 221

Literature Cited:

Arctander, P., J. Fjeldsa, and A. Jensen. 1984. Sejlads med lufpudebade, jagt og andre forstyrrelser 

af jugle of sealer ved Saltholm jaj-september 1984. Milljoministeriet, 

Fredningsstyrelsen, Denmark. 

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. 1995. Beach Recreation and Nesting Birds. Pages 281-295 in T.L. Knight and K. J. 

Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Receptionists: Coexistence Through Management and Research. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. 372pp. 

Burger, J. 1981. The Effects of Human Activity on Birds at a Coastal Bay. 

Biological Conservation. 21:231-241. 

Cronan, J.M. 1957. Food and Feeding Habits of the Scaups in Connecticut Waters. 

Auk 74(4):459-468. 

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. 

Fox, A.D. and Madsen. 1997. Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Hunting Disturbance on 

Waterbirds in Europe: Implications for Refuge Design. Journal of Applied Ecology 34: 1-13. 

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. 

Hume, R.A. 1976. Reaction of Goldeneyes to Boating. British Birds 69:178-179. 

Jackson, Jeremy B. C., Kirby, Michael, Berger, Wolfgang, H., Bjorndal, A. 2001. Historical 

Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems. Science, Volume 293: pp. 629-638. 

Jahn, L. R, and R. A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and Coot Ecology and Management in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Conservation Department. Tech. Bull. No. 33. 211 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. 

Knight, R. L. and D. N. Cole. 1995. Wildlife Response to Recreationist. Pages 71-79 in R.L. Knight 

and K. J. Gutzwiller, ed. Wildlife and Recreation: Coexistence thorough Management and 

Research. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 372 pp. 
222 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Korschgen, C.E. and R. B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbance of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects and 

Management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Leaflet 13.2.15. 7 pp. 

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. 

Laskowski, H., T. Leger, J. Gallegos, and F. James. 1993. Behavior Response of Greater 

Yellowlegs, Snowy Egrets and Mallards to Human Disturbance at Back Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge. Unpub. Repot #51510-01-92. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 25pp. 

 

Madsen, J. 1995. Impacts of Disturbance on Migratory Waterfowl. Ibis 137: S67-S74. 

Madsen, J., E. Bogebjerg, J.B. Kristensen, J. Frikke, and J.P. Hounisen. 1992. Forsogsreservat 

Ulvshale-Nyord: Baggrundsundersogelser efteraret. 1985 til foraret 1989. Danmarks 

Miljoundersogelser Fagilig Rapport. 47:1-57. 

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. 

Morton, J.M., A.C. Fowler and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1989a. Time and Energy Budget of American Black 

Ducks in Winter. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 401-410. 

Morton, J.M., R.L. Kirkpatrick, M.R. Vaughan, and D.F. Stauffer 1989b. Habitat Use and Movements 

of American Black Ducks in Winter. Journal of Wildlife Mangement 53: 390-400. 

Paulus, S.L. 1984. Activity Budgets of Nonbreeding Gadwalls in Louisiana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 48: 371-380. 

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. 

Reichholf. J. 1973. Begrundung einer okologischen Strategie der Jagd auf Enten. Anzeiger 

Ornitholghishes Gessellschafte Bayern. 12: 237-247. 

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. 

Rodgers, J. A. Jr., and H. T. Smith. 1997. Buffer Zone Disturbances to Protect Foraging and Loafing 

Waterbirds from Human Disturbances in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1): 139-145. 

Rodgers, J. A. Jr., and S. T. Schwikert, 2002. Buffer-zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing 

Waterbirds from Disturbance by Personal Watercraft and Outboard-powered Boats. Conservation 

Biology 16 No.1 Pages 216-224. 

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. 
Appendices 223

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. 

Stevenson, Phillip W. and Sulak, Kenneth. 2001. Egress of Adult Sport Fish from an Estuarine 

Reserve within Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, Florida. 

Marine Estuary Sci. Conso. pp. 77-89. 

Thompson, D. 1973. Feeding Ecology of Diving Ducks on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River, 

Journal of Wildlife Management 37: 367-381. 

Thornburg, D.D. 1973. Diving Ducks Movement on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River, 

Journal of Wildlife Management 37: 382-389. 

Wikipedia. 2005. Mountain Biking. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain.biking>. 

Wolder, M. 1993. Disturbance of Wintering Northern Pintail at Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, 

California. M.S. Thesis, Humbolt State University. Arcata 62 pp. 

Public Review and Comment: Following the initial gathering of information, a Notice of Intent to 

prepare a CCP for the refuge was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2007. The 

Service also placed ads in local newspapers, posted information on the refuge’s web site 

regarding upcoming meetings and how to submit comments, posted meeting information in 

the local community (e.g., at local shops, at the refuge’s Visitor Center, and at local libraries), 

and sent out flyers announcing the public meetings. A public scoping meeting was conducted 

on February 21, 2007, with approximately 25 people attending. 
224 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Approval of Compatibility Determinations 

The signature of approval is for all compatibility determinations considered within the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for Santee National Wildlife Refuge. If one of the descriptive uses is considered 

for compatibility outside of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the approval signature becomes 

part of that determination. 

Refuge Manager: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Compatibility 

Coordinator: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Refuge Supervisor: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 

Regional Chief, National 

Wildlife Refuge System, 

Southeast Region: ________________________________________________ 

 (Signature/Date) 
Appendices 225

Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation 

Originating Person: Marc Epstein 

Telephone Number: (803) 478- 2217 

E-Mail: marc_epstein@fws.gov 

Date: September 5, 2007 

PROJECT NAME: SANTEE 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/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

III. Station Name: Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

IV. Description of Proposed Action 

The proposed action consists of approving and then implementing a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for Santee National Wildlife Refuge in Clarendon County, South 

Carolina. The CCP provides overall management guidance on the refuge over a 15 year 

period in the form of a vision, 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 

Santee 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. 
226 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

V. Pertinent Species and Habitat:

A. Include species/habitat occurrence map:

B. Complete the following table: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT STATUS1

Wood stork (Mycteria americana) – have been observed foraging 

and loafing on wetland habitats within the refuge acquisition boundary, 

but nesting has not been documented. 

E 

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 

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: Clarendon County, South Carolina 

C. Section, township, and range (or latitude and longitude): 

33°36’ North Latitude, 79°6’ West Longitude (approx. center of refuge) 

D. Distance (miles) and direction to nearest town(s): 

 Santee, 10 miles to south, Summerton, 5 miles to north of refuge 

E. Species/habitat occurrence within Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary: 

 Wood stork: habitat and species (foraging/loafing, not nesting) both occur 

 Bald eagle: habitat and species (foraging, nesting) both occur 
Appendices 227

Location Map of Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

VII. Determination of Effects:

A. Explanation of effects of the action on species and critical habitats in item V. B: 

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT IMPACTS TO SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

Wood stork – wetland areas No impacts anticipated on existing refuge lands; proposed acquisition 

of additional areas would protect more habitats and thus likely be 

beneficial. 

B. Explanation of actions to be implemented to reduce adverse effects:

SPECIES/ 

CRITICAL HABITAT ACTIONS TO MITIGATE/MINIMIZE IMPACTS

Wood stork – wetland areas No mitigation measures needed unless nesting is observed; if nesting is 

observed, implement buffer zone around nesting area. 
228 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

VIII. Effect Determination and Response Requested: 

SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT

DETERMINATION1

REQUESTED NE NA AA

Wood stork – wetland areas 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

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 229

Appendix H. Wilderness Review 

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land that retains its 

primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human inhabitation, and is 

managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which: 

1. generally appears to have been influenced 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 types 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 unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size; 

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; and 

5. may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

The lands within Santee National Wildlife Refuge were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the 

criteria for wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. 

A proposal for wilderness designation of 163 acres of island habitat at Santee NWR was finalized on 

March 25, 1975, and submitted for congressional approval. No official action was taken by Congress 

at the time to include the islands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In 1993 

and again in 1999, official requests from Congress for information regarding the Santee wilderness 

proposal were made, thus indicating that the proposal was still viable for consideration. However, no 

official legislative action has yet been taken by Congress. 

The proposed Santee Wilderness Area consists of 13 islands located in Lake Marion in Clarendon 

County, South Carolina. These islands comprise 163 acres and are split between two of the four 

refuge management units. The Cuddo Unit includes the Plantation Islands and the Pine Island Unit 

includes Pine Island. The islands range in size from the 22-acre Pine Island to less than one acre in 

the Plantation Islands. 

Historically, the timber in the area was actively harvested and agricultural land was actively farmed 

prior to the creation of Lake Marion when the hydroelectric dam was built. Natural regeneration had 

restored much of the wilderness character of the islands in 1975 and presently the islands exhibit 

even greater wilderness character because of nearly 70 years of forest growth. The islands contain a 

mix of pine and hardwood forests. 

The Wilderness Act specifies that proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as wilderness 

pending congressional approval. The proposed Santee Wilderness Area has been managed as 

wilderness since 1975 and will continue to be treated as wilderness in perpetuity. 

The Service analyzed other refuge lands within the planning area and found no additional areas that 

meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by the Wilderness Act. 
230 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 231

Appendix I. Refuge Biota 

BIRDS 

The Santee NWR, established in 1941 as a refuge for migratory waterfowl, lies in the upper coastal 

plains of central South Carolina in Clarendon County, approximately seven miles south of Summerton 

on Highway 301. 

The refuge is comprised of 15,095 acres of mixed hardwoods, mixed pine/hardwoods, pine 

plantations, marsh, croplands, old fields, ponds, impoundments, and open waters located in four 

separate management units along Lake Marion, a hydroelectric reservoir. This diversity of habitats 

on Santee NWR supports a wide variety of birds. 

This list of 293 species is based on records and observations by refuge personnel, state biologists, 

and visiting birders and on a literature search of appropriate publications. Persons having information 

regarding species not listed are urged to contact the Refuge Manager. 

Since most birds are migratory, species use of the refuge is indicated by the following codes: 

P = Permanent Resident 

W = Winter Visitor 

S = Summer Resident 

T = Transient 

A = Accidental 

LOONS 

___ Common Loon T 

___ Red-throated Loon T 

GREBES 

___ Red-necked Grebe T 

___ Horned Grebe W 

___ Eared Grebe A 

___ Pied-billed Grebe P 

PELICANS, CORMORANTS, DARTERS 

___ American White Pelican A 

___ Double-crested Cormorant P 

___ Anhinga P 
232 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

HERONS, BITTERNS, STORKS 

___ Great Blue Heron P 

___ Green Heron S 

___ Little Blue Heron P 

___ Cattle Egret S 

___ Great Egret P 

___ Snowy Egret P 

___ Tricolored Heron P 

___ Black-crowned Night-Heron P 

___ Yellow-crowned Night-Heron S 

___ Least Bittern S 

___ American Bittern W 

___ Wood Stork A 

IBISES 

___ Glossy Ibis S 

___ White Ibis P 

WATERFOWL 

___ Tundra Swan W 

___ Canada Goose W 

___ Barnacle Goose A 

___ Greater White-fronted Goose W 

___ Snow Goose W 

___ Fulvous Whistling-Duck A 

___ Mallard P 

___ American Black Duck W 

___ Gadwall W 

___ Northern Pintail W 

___ Green-winged Teal P 

___ Blue-winged Teal P 

___ Cinnamon Teal A 

___ Eurasian Wigeon A 

___ American Wigeon W 

___ Northern Shoveler W 

___ Wood Duck P 

___ Redhead W 

___ Ring-necked Duck W 

___ Canvasback W 

___ Greater Scaup W 

___ Lesser Scaup W 

___ Common Goldeneye W 

___ Bufflehead W 

___ White-winged Scoter A 

___ Ruddy Duck W 

___ Hooded Merganser W 

___ Common Merganser W 

___ Red-breasted Merganser W
Appendices 233

VULTURES 

___ Turkey Vulture P 

___ Black Vulture P 

HAWKS 

___ American Swallow-tailed Kite A 

___ Mississippi Kite S 

___ Sharp-shinned Hawk W 

___ Cooper's Hawk P 

___ Red-tailed Hawk P 

___ Red-shouldered Hawk P 

___ Broad-winged Hawk S 

___ Rough-legged Hawk A 

___ Golden Eagle W 

___ Bald Eagle P 

___ Northern Harrier W 

OSPREYS, FALCONS 

___ Osprey P 

___ Peregrine Falcon T 

___ Merlin T 

___ American Kestrel W 

QUAIL, TURKEY, CRANES 

___ Northern P 

___ Wild Turkey P 

___ Sandhill Crane A 

RAILS, AVOCETS 

___ King Rail P 

___ Virginia Rail W 

___ Sora W 

___ Yellow Rail T 

___ Black Rail T 

___ Purple Gallinule S 

___ Common Moorhen P 

___ American Coot W 

___ American Avocet A 

PLOVERS 

___ Semipalmated Plover T 

___ Wilson's Plover T 

___ Killdeer P 

___ Piping Plover T 

___ American Golden Plover T 

___ Black-bellied Plover T 
234 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

SANDPIPERS 

__ Marbled Godwit T 

___ Whimbrel T 

___ Upland Sandpiper T 

___ Greater Yellowlegs W 

___ Lesser Yellowlegs T 

___ Solitary Sandpiper T 

___ Willet T 

___ Spotted Sandpiper W 

___ Ruddy Turnstone T 

___ Wilson's Phalarope T 

___ American Woodcock P 

___ Common Snipe W 

___ Short-billed Dowitcher T 

___ Long-billed Dowitcher T 

___ Red Knot T 

___ Sanderling T 

___ Semipalmated Sandpiper T 

___ Western Sandpiper T 

___ Least Sandpiper T 

___ White-rumped Sandpiper T 

___ Baird's Sandpiper T 

___ Pectoral Sandpiper T 

___ Dunlin T 

___ Stilt Sandpiper T 

___ Buff-breasted Sandpiper T 

___ Ruff A 

GULLS, TERNS, SKIMMERS 

___ Herring Gull P 

___ Ring-billed Gull P 

___ Laughing Gull T 

___ Franklin's Gull A 

___ Bonaparte's Gull W 

___ Forster's Tern W 

___ Common Tern W 

___ Little Tern S 

___ Royal Tern T 

___ Caspian Tern T 

___ Black Tern T 

___ Black Skimmer A 

PIGEONS, DOVES, CUCKOOS 

___ Rock Dove P 

___ Mourning Dove P 

___ Common Ground-Dove A 

___ Yellow-billed Cuckoo S 

___ Black-billed Cuckoo T 
Appendices 235

OWLS 

___ Barn Owl P 

___ Eastern Screech-Owl P 

___ Great Horned Owl P 

___ Barred Owl P 

___ Long-eared Owl W 

___ Short-eared Owl W 

___ Northern Saw-whet Owl T 

GOATSUCKERS 

___ Chuck-will's widow S 

___ Whip-poor-will T 

___ Common Nighthawk S 

SWIFTS, HUMMINGBIRDS, KINGFISHERS 

___ Chimney Swift S 

___ Ruby-throated Hummingbird S 

___ Belted Kingfisher P 

WOODPECKERS 

___ Northern Flicker P 

___ Pileated Woodpecker P 

___ Red-bellied Woodpecker P 

___ Red-headed Woodpecker P 

___ Yellow-bellied Sapsucker W 

___ Hairy Woodpecker P 

___ Downy Woodpecker P 

___ Red-cockaded Woodpecker P 

FLYCATCHERS 

___ Eastern Kingbird S 

___ Gray Kingbird A 

___ Western Kingbird T 

___ Scissor-tailed Flycatcher A 

___ Great Crested Flycatcher S 

___ Eastern Phoebe W 

___ Yellow-bellied Flycatcher T 

___ Acadian Flycatcher S 

___ Willow Flycatcher T 

___ Alder Flycatcher T 

___ Least Flycatcher T 

___ Eastern Wood-Pewee S 

___ Olive-sided Flycatcher T 
236 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

LARKS, SWALLOWS 

___ Horned Lark W 

___ Tree Swallow T 

___ Bank Swallow T 

___ Northern Rough-winged Swallow S 

___ Barn Swallow S 

___ Cliff Swallow T 

___ Purple Martin S 

JAYS, CROWS 

___ Blue Jay P 

___ American Crow P 

___ Fish Crow P 

TITMICE, NUTHATCHES, CREEPERS 

___ Carolina Chickadee P 

___ Tufted Titmouse P 

___ White-breasted Nuthatch P 

___ Red-breasted Nuthatch W 

___ Brown-headed Nuthatch P 

___ Brown Creeper W 

WRENS 

___ House Wren W 

___ Winter Wren W 

___ Bewick's Wren A 

___ Carolina Wren P 

___ Marsh Wren W 

___ Sedge Wren W 

MIMIC THRUSHES, THRUSHES 

___ Northern Mockingbird P 

___ Gray Catbird P 

___ Brown Thrasher P 

___ American Robin P 

___ Wood Thrush S 

___ Hermit Thrush W 

___ Swainson's Thrush T 

___ Gray-cheeked Thrush T 

___ Veery T 

___ Eastern Bluebird P 

KINGLETS 

___ Blue-gray Gnatcatcher P 

___ Golden-crowned Kinglet W 

___ Ruby-crowned Kinglet W 

PIPITS 

___ American Pipit W 

___ Sprague's Pipit A 
Appendices 237

WAXWINGS, SHRIKES, STARLINGS 

___ Cedar Waxwing W 

___ Loggerhead Shrike P 

___ European Starling P 

VIREOS 

___ White-eyed Vireo S 

___ Yellow-throated Vireo S 

___ Solitary Vireo W 

___ Red-eyed Vireo S 

___ Philadelphia Vireo T 

___ Warbling Vireo T 

WOOD WARBLERS 

___ Black-and-white Warbler P 

___ Prothonotary Warbler S 

___ Swainson's Warbler S 

___ Worm-eating Warbler T 

___ Golden-winged Warbler T 

___ Blue-winged Warbler T 

___ Tennessee Warbler T 

___ Orange-crowned Warbler W 

___ Nashville Warbler T 

___ Northern Parula S 

___ Yellow Warbler T 

___ Magnolia Warbler T 

___ Cape May Warbler T 

___ Black-throated Blue Warbler T 

___ Yellow-rumped Warbler W 

___ Black-throated Green Warbler T 

___ Cerulean Warbler T 

___ Blackburnian Warbler T 

___ Yellow-throated Warbler P 

___ Chestnut-sided Warbler T 

___ Bay-breasted Warbler T 

___ Blackpoll Warbler T 

___ Pine Warbler P 

___ Kirtland's Warbler T 

___ Prairie Warbler S 

___ Palm Warbler W 

___ Ovenbird T 

___ Northern Waterthrush T 

___ Louisiana Waterthrush S 

___ Kentucky Warbler S 

___ Connecticut Warbler T 

___ Mourning Warbler T 

___ Common Yellowthroat P 

___ Yellow-breasted Chat S 

___ Hooded Warbler S 

___ Wilson's Warbler T 

___ Canada Warbler T 

___ Slate-throated Redstart S 
238 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

WEAVER FINCHES, BLACKBIRDS 

___ House Sparrow P 

___ Bobolink T 

___ Eastern Meadowlark P 

___ Western Meadowlark A 

___ Yellow-headed Blackbird A 

___ Red-winged Blackbird P 

___ Orchard Oriole S 

___ Northern Oriole W 

___ Rusty Blackbird W 

___ Brewer's Blackbird A 

___ Boat-tailed Grackle A 

___ Common Grackle P 

___ Brown-headed Cowbird P 

TANAGERS 

___ Western Tanager T 

___ Scarlet Tanager T 

___ Summer Tanager S 

FINCHES 

___ Northern Cardinal P 

___ Rose-breasted Grosbeak T 

___ Blue Grosbeak S 

___ Indigo Bunting S 

___ Painted Bunting S 

___ Dickcissel T 

___ Evening Grosbeak W 

___ Purple Finch W 

___ House Finch T 

___ Pine Siskin W 

___ American Goldfinch W 

___ Rufous-sided Towhee P 

___ Savannah Sparrow W 

___ Grasshopper Sparrow W 

___ Henslow's Sparrow A 

___ Le Conte's Sparrow W 

___ Vesper Sparrow W 

___ Lark Sparrow T 

___ Bachman's Sparrow P 

___ Dark-eyed Junco W 

___ Chipping Sparrow P 

___ Clay-colored Sparrow A 

___ Field Sparrow P 

___ White-crowned Sparrow W 

___ White-throated Sparrow W 

___ Fox Sparrow W 

___ Lincoln's Sparrow A 

___ Swamp Sparrow W 

___ Song Sparrow W 
Appendices 239

 MAMMALS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Beaver Castor canadensis

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Black bear Ursus americanus

Black rat Rattus rattus

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis 

Cotton mouse Peromyscus gossypinus 

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis 

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus

Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus 

Eastern pipistrel Pipistrellus subfiavus

Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana

Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis

Golden mouse Peromyscus nuttalli

Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus

Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus 

Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus

House mouse Mus musculus 

Least shrew Cryptotis parva 

Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus 

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata

Marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris

Marsh rice rat Oryzomys palustris 

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylanicus

Mink Mustela vison

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus 

Northern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius 
240 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Norway rat Rattus norvegicus

Oldfield mouse Peromyscus polionotus 

Opossum Didelphis marsupalis

Pine Vole Pitymys pinetorum 

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Plecotus rafinesquii

Red bat Lasiurus borealis

Rice rat Oryzomys palustris

River otter Lutra Canadensis

Seminole bat Lasiurus Seminolus

Short-tailed shrew Blarina brevicauda

Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans

Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius

Southeastern shrew Sorex longirostris 

Southern flying squirrel Glaucomys volans

Star-nosed mole Condylura cristata 

Whitetail deer Odocoileus virginianus

Red fox Vulpes vulpes 

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis 

AMPHIBIANS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Lesser Siren Siren intermedia 

Greater Siren Siren lacertian 

Eastern Newt Notophthalmus viridescens 

Two-toed Amphiuma Amphiuma means 

Maybee’s Salamander Ambystoma mabeei 

Spotted Salamander Ambystoma maculatum 

Marbled Salamander Ambystoma opacum 

Mole Salamander Ambystoma talpoideum 

Southern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus auriculatus 

Dwarf Salamander Eurycea quadridigitata 
Appendices 241

Common Name Scientific Name 

Slimy Slamander Plethodon glutinosus 

Many-lined Salamander Stereochilus marginatus 

Eastern Spadefoot Toad Scaphiopus holbrooki 

Oak Toad Bufo quercicus 

Southern Toad Bufo terrestris 

Fowler’s Toad Bufo woodhousei 

Northern Cricket Frog Acris crepitans 

Southern Cricket Frog Acris gryllus 

Gray Treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis 

Green Treefrog Hyla cinerea 

Spring Peeper Hyla crucifer 

Pine Woods Treefrog Hyla femoralis 

Barking Treefrog Hyla gratiosa 

Squirrel Treefrog Hyla squirella 

Little Grass Frog Limnaoedus ocularis 

Brimley’s Chorus Frog Pseudacris brimleyi 

Southern Chorus Frog Pseudacris nigrita 

Ornate Chorus Frog Pseudacris ornate 

Crawfish Frog Rana areolata 

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana 

Green Frog Rana clamitans 

Pig Frog Rana grylio 

Southern Leopard Frog Rana sphenocephala 

Carpenter Frog Rana virgatipes 

Eastern Narrowmouth Toad Gastrophryne carolinensis 

REPTILES 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American Alligator Alligator mississippiensis 

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentine 

Eastern Mud Turtle Kinosternon subrubrum 

Eastern Musk Turtle Sternotherus odoratus 
242 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

River Cooter Chrysemys concinna 

Florida Cooter Chrysemys floridana 

Yellowbelly Slider Chrysemys scripta 

Spotted Turtle Clemmys guttata 

Chicken Turtle Deirochelys reticularia 

Eastern Box Turtle Terrapene Carolina 

Spiny Softshell Trionyx spiniferus 

Carolina Anole Anole carolinensis 

Eastern Fence Lizard Sceloporus undulates 

Five-lined Skink Eumeces fasciatus 

Ground Skink Scincella lateralis 

Six-lined Racerunner Cnemidophorus sexlineatus 

Slender Glass Lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus 

Eastern Glass Liazrd Ophisaurus ventralis 

FISH 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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
Appendices 243

Common Name Scientific Name 

Brown bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus

Carp Cyprinus carpio

Carolina pigmy 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 

Easterrn 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 Gobionellus schufeldti

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas

Golden topminnow Fundulus chrysotus

Goldfish Carassius auratus

Hickory shad Alosa mediocris

Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus

Ironcolor shiner Notropis chalybaeus

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
244 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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
Appendices 245

PLANTS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Tag alder Alnus serrulata

Alligator-weed Alternanthera philoxeroides

Water hemp Amaranthus cannabinus

False indigo Amorpha fruticosa

Asiatic dayflower Aneilema keisak

Giant reed Arundo donax

Asters Aster spp.

Mosquito-fern Azolla caroliniana

Sea myrtle Baccharis halimifolia

Baggar’s-ticks Bidens spp.

Water-shield Brasenia schreberi

Sedges Carex spp.

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana

Partridge pea Cassia fasciculate

Button-bush Cephalanthus occidentalis

Lamb’s quarters Chenopodium album

Water hemlock Cicuta maculate

Wood reed Cinna arundinacea

Sawgrass Cladium jamaicense

Leather-flower Clematis crispa

Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia

Dodder Cuscuta sp.

Sedges Cyperus spp. 

No common name Dichromena colorata

Millet Echinochloa crusgalli

Spikerushes Eleocharis spp.

Wildrye Elymus virginicus

Dog-fennel Eupatorium capillifolium

Water-weed Egeria densa

Water-weeds Elodea spp.

Plume grass Erianthus giganteus
246 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Marsh eryngo Eryngium aquaticum

Water locust Gleditsia aquatica 

Halberd-leaved marsh mallow Hibiscus militaris

Rose mallow Hibiscus mosheutos

Pennywort Hydrocotyle rannunculoides

Pennyworts Hydrocotyle spp. 

Spider-lily Hymenocallis crassifolia

Jewel-weed Impatiens capensis

Blue flag Iris virginica

Soft rush Juncus effuses

Duckweeds Lemna spp.

No common name Lilaeopsis chinesis

Frog’s-bit Limnobium spongia

Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua

Cardinal-flower Lobelia cardenalis

Water-primroses Ludigia spp.

Loosestrife Lythrum lineare

Climbing hempweed Mikania scandens

Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera

Parrots-feather Myriophyllum sp.

Yellow pond-lily Nuphar luteum

White water-lily Nymphaea odorata

Tupelo gum Nussa aquatic

Black gum Nussa sylvatic

Golden-club Orontium acquaticum

Royal fern Osmunda regalis

Panic grasses Panicum spp.

No common name Paspalm distichum

Arrow-arum Peltandra virginica

Reed Phragmites communis

Marsh fleabanes Pluchea spp.

Smartweeds Polygonium spp.
Appendices 247

Common Name Scientific Name 

Pickerel-weed Pontedaria cordata

Pondweeds Potomogeton spp.

Mock-bishopweed Ptilimnium capillaceum

Beakrush Rhynchospora sp.

Swamp rose Rosa palustris

Swamp dock Rumex verticillatus

No common name Sacciolephis striata

Arrowheads Sagittaria spp.

Swamp willow Salix caroliniana

Elderberry Sambucus canadensis

Common threesquare Scirpus americanus

Bulrush Scirpus cyperinus

Olynei’s threesquare Scirpus olynei

Salt marsh bulrush Scirpus robustus

Soft-stem bulrush Scirpus validus

Skullcap Scutellaria sp.

Butterweed Senecio sp.

Foxtail grass Setaria magna

Water parsnip Sium suave

Seaside goldenrod Solidago sempervirens

Giant cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides

Duckweek Spirodela polyrrhiza

Bald cypress Taxodium distichum

Gamma grass Tripsacum dactyloides

Narrow-leaved cattail Typha angustifolia

Southern cattail Typha domingensis

Blue cattail Typha glauca

Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia

No common name Uniola latifolia

No common name Uniola laxa

Bladderwort Utricularia sp.

No common name Verbesiana occidentailis
248 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Ironweed Vernonia sp.

No common name Viburnum dentatum

Wild rice Zizania acquatica

Giant cutgrass Zizaniopsis miliacea

Water tupelo Nyssa aquatic

Red maple Acer rubrum

River birch Betula nigra

Black willow Salix nigra

Swamp cottonwood Populus heterophylla

Swamp tupelo Nyssa acquatica

No common name Biflora

American elm Ulmus Americana 

Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia

Overcup oak Quercus lyrata

Willow oak Quercus phellos

Water oak Quercus nigra

Swamp chestnut oak Quercus michauxii

Pond cypress Taxodium ascendens

Sycamore Platanus occidentalis

Red mulberry Morus rubra

Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana

Water ash Fraxinus caroliniana

American holly Ilex opaca

Tag alder Alnus serrulata

Green ash Fraxinus Pennsylvania

Swamp ash Farxinus Carolina

Bitter pecan Carya cordiformis

Black gum Nyssa sylvatica

Sweet bay Magnolia virginiana

Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto

Water hickory Carya aquatic

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Appendices 249

Common Name Scientific Name 

Longleaf pine Pinus palustris

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana

Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides

Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera

Bluestern palmetto Sabal minor

Red bay Persea borbonia

Southern red cedar Juniperus silicicola

Titi Cyrilla racemiflora

Pepper-vine Ampelopsis aborea

Lizard’s tail Saururus cernuus
250 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 
Appendices 251

Appendix J. Budget Requests 

REFUGE OPERATING NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) 

Station Rank Project Number Project Title Cost 

4 00004 Visitor Center staffing at 

Santee NWR to meet minimum 

requirements 

$59.5K 

2 99001 Maintenance and habitat 

management to meet minimum 

requirements 

$122K 

3 00002 Public Use (declining 

capabilities) 

$49K 

1 00001 Wildlife protection and 

management (declining 

capabilities) 

$65K 

1 98002 Improve moist soil 

management capabilities 

$180K 

7 99002 Provide optimal habitat for the 

Eastern painted bunting 

$160K 

8 01009 Reintroduce Endangered RedCockaded Woodpecker $193K 

6 00003 Restore vital habitat 

management and protection 

capabilities (declining 

capabilities) 

$49K 

2 98003 Restore water level 

management to existing 

managed wetlands 

$220K 

10 98008 Restore use of prescribed fire $200K 

11 02001 Create new interpretive 

exhibits in visitor center 

$179K 

12 01005 Conduct extensive studies of 

Dingle Pond unit 

$254K 

13 98002 Underground storage tank 

monitoring 

$25K 

14 99003 Evaluate health of populations 

of key forest land birds 

$150K 
252 Santee National Wildlife Refuge 

Station Rank Project Number Project Title Cost 

5 01004 Restore hardwood habitat in 

managed wetlands 

$60K 

9 00005 Prepare CCP $120K 

3 02003 Provide supplemental winter 

forage for St. James Bay 

colony of Canada geese and 

migratory waterfowl 

$55K 

4 03001 Invasive plant species 

eradication/management 

$65K 

MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 
Appendices 253

Appendix K. List of Preparers 

Marc Epstein, Refuge Manager, USFWS Santee NWR 

Donny Browning, Project Leader, USFWS, S.C. Lowcountry Refuge Complex 

Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, USFWS, S.C. Lowcountry Refuge Complex 

Bernie Goode, USFWS Santee NWR 

Larry Woodward, USFWS Santee NWR 

Kay McCutcheon, USFWS Santee NWR 

Buddy Baker, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

Haven Barnhill, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources