Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Chesterfield County, South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
December 2009
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
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, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources .......... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 7
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 13
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 15
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 23
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 23
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 23
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 29
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 31
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 33
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 40
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 41
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 41
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 46
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 48
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 51
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 56
Land Protection, Conservation, and Management ............................................................ 56
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 64
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 65
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 67
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 67
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 67
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 69
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 69
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 70
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 71
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 72
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 72
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 75
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 75
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 76
ii Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 77
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 77
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 87
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 98
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 101
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................... 109
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 109
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 109
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ..................................................................... 109
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 110
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 113
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 114
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 114
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................. 118
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 118
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 118
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 119
I. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 121
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 121
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 121
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 122
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 122
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 122
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 123
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 125
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 127
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 127
Features and Management Common to all Alternatives .......................................................... 127
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 127
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) Longleaf Pine Forest/Wildlife
Management with RCW Focus and Visitor Services ...................................................... 128
Alternative B - Maximizing Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity While
Providing Visitor Services ............................................................................................... 130
Alternative C - (Proposed Alternative) Optimizing Ecosystem Management
with Enhanced Visitor Services....................................................................................... 132
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 134
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................ 148
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 149
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 149
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 149
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 149
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 149
Table of Contents iii
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 150
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 150
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 150
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 151
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 151
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 151
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 162
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 162
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 162
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 162
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 163
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 163
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 163
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 163
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 164
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 165
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 167
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 167
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... 169
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ...................................................... 179
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................... 187
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 201
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 201
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS ............................................................... 205
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ...................................................................... 223
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................... 247
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 253
Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review ......................................................................... 253
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ......................................................................................................... 255
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 263
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS .............................................................................................. 267
iv Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Refuge location and boundary map ...................................................................................... 8
Figure 3. Public lands in Chesterfield County, South Carolina .......................................................... 14
Figure 4. Level III ecoregions of the eastern United States
Source:(http://edc2.usgs.gov/LT/LCCEUS.php) ................................................................ 16
Figure 5. Level III and IV ecoregions of South Carolina ..................................................................... 17
Figure 6. Watershed-based ecosystem units, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................... 19
Figure 7. Daily average temperature and precipitation, Cheraw, Chesterfield County,
South Carolina (1971-2000) ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 8. Daily average temperature and precipitation, Pageland, Chesterfield County,
South Carolina (1971-2000) ............................................................................................... 26
Figure 9. Generalized geologic map of South Carolina ..................................................................... 30
Figure 10. Generalized soil map of Chesterfield County, South Carolina .......................................... 32
Figure 11. Average annual precipitation, evapotranspiration, and annual water yield ....................... 34
Figure 12. Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section for South Carolina ............................................ 35
Figure 13. South Carolina watersheds ............................................................................................... 37
Figure 14. Population growth in Chesterfield County, South Carolina 1900-2005 ............................. 54
Figure 15. Red-cockaded woodpecker population data 1998 through 2009 on
Carolina Sandhills NWR .................................................................................................... 63
Figure 16. Proposed organizational chart—Carolina Sandhills NWR ............................................... 116
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Cheraw, SC1588 (1971-2000) Chesterfield County, South Carolina ................................. 24
Table 2. Pageland, SC 6616 (1971-2000) Chesterfield County, South Carolina .......................... 25
Table 3. Air quality statistics by city/county, 2007 ............................................................................. 38
Table 4. Regional air quality trends – Charlotte – Columbia – Florence MSA, 1990-2007 ............... 39
Table 5. Summary of habitat types on Carolina Sandhills NWR ....................................................... 45
Table 6 Demographics of Chesterfield County, South Carolina ....................................................... 53
Table 7 Activities in South Carolina by U.S. residents ...................................................................... 55
Table 8. Proposed positions to achieve desired future conditions and optimally manage
refuge natural, cultural, and administrative resources ...................................................... 115
Table 9. Summary of projects (not in priority order; organized by goal, e.g., wildlife,
habitat, resource protection, and visitor services) ............................................................ 117
Table 10. Carolina Sandhills NWR step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives of the CCP ...................................................................................... 118
Table 11. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Carolina Sandhills NWR............. 135
Table 12. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Carolina Sandhills NWR..................... 155
Table I-1. Commonly observed reptiles and amphibians of Carolina Sandhills NWR ....................... 255
Table I-2. Conspicuous flowering plants at Carolina Sandhills NWR ............................................... 256
Table I-3. Carolina Sandhills NWR bird list ....................................................................................... 257
Table I-4. Species of special concern and state threatened that occur on
Carolina Sandhills NWR ................................................................................................... 260
Table I-5. Priority aquatic species of the Southeastern Plains Ecobasin
(Pee Dee Watershed portion only) ................................................................................... 261
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
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide refuge management actions
and direction for the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in refuge
management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be permitted 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 (Service) proposed plan, as well as other alternatives
considered and their effects on the environment. The 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 CCP is to develop a management action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering more
than 95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act (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 (Improvement Act) established, for the first
time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were initiated
in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Complete comprehensive conservation plans for each unit of the Refuge System;
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
 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 authorize refuge managers to determine compatible
public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established
for American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep
(1936) after over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant
herds. The drought conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding populations of
ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on “waterfowl
production areas” (i.e., protection of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on
waterfowl continues today and now includes protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic
loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for
endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other data validate the finding that
communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation
grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each dollar spent on the
Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42
in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2002).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) stipulates that
comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and
private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity
for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
4 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Carolina Sandhills 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 Carolina Sandhills NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, South Carolina Forestry Commission, Sand Hills State Forest, Friends of Carolina
Sandhills NWR, and private landowners, etc.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be permitted unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use
that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or
detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All
programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those
mandates are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine the refuges’ contribution to biological
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Carolina Sandhills NWR 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
6 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
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 sustainability of fish and wildlife species in the State of South Carolina.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) (http://dnr.sc.gov/index.html), as
organized on July 1, 1994 under the South Carolina Restructuring Act, is composed of the former
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Water Resources Commission (non-regulatory
programs), Land Resources Commission (non-regulatory programs), State Geological Survey (State
Geologist), and South Carolina Migratory Waterfowl Committee. The SCDNR’s mission is to serve as
the principal advocate for and steward of South Carolina’s natural resources. Its 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. SCDNR is divided into an executive group and five divisions: Land, Water and
Conservation; Law Enforcement, Marine Resources, Outreach and Support Services, and Wildlife
and Freshwater Fisheries.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability of fish and wildlife in the
State of South Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating
common mission objectives where appropriate. For example, the SCDNR finalized its
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy in 2005. This Draft CCP/EA dovetails with that plan
by integrating appropriate elements.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
The Carolina Sandhills NWR is in Chesterfield County, South Carolina. Work on the Carolina Sandhills
NWR Draft CCP/EA was initiated in January 2007, and is scheduled for completion in September 2009.
The CCP contains concepts to guide development and implementation of land use and management
programs and associated facilities for the next 15 years. Consideration of the refuge's physical, biological,
and cultural resources; the socioeconomic environment; and refuge management and administration is
taken into account and analyzed to produce an overview of the refuge and the challenges it faces. The
EA is prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines. In addition
to documenting the existing environmental and socioeconomic setting, the EA evaluates the impact of the
proposed and alternative actions including a no action alternative in order to facilitate selection of the
alternative most suitable for implementation.
The Carolina Sandhills NWR is in a rural area in the northeastern region of South Carolina. The refuge is
comprised of 47,850 acres, including fee ownership of 45,348 acres, and nine conservation easements
totaling 2,502 acres. The majority of the refuge lies in Chesterfield County, South Carolina, with one fee
title tract totaling 210 acres in Marlboro County. The refuge is managed by the Service. Its primary use is
hunting; although wildlife observation, hiking, and fishing are also popular.
The refuge was established by Executive Order 8067, dated March 17, 1939, under the authority of the
1933 National Industrial Recovery Act and the Emergency Relief Appropriations of 1935. The Federal
Government purchased land from willing sellers through the Resettlement Administration. The badly
eroded land supported few populations of wildlife species; initial conservation efforts focused on restoring
the barren land. Today, the refuge is managed to restore the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.
Within the refuge there are 30 small man-made impoundments, 1,200 acres of fields and forest openings,
and more than 42,000 acres of forested woodland, habitats which contribute to the refuge's diversity of
flora and fauna. Management of the refuge's unique blend of pinelands, pocosin bottoms, freshwater
ponds and lakes, croplands, openings, and small food plots provide havens for nearly 200 species of
birds, 42 species of mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 25 species of amphibians, and more than 750 plant
species. The largest population of endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers within the Refuge System;
rare plants, including several species of carnivorous pitcher plants; and the unusual Pine Barrens treefrog
are all found in the refuge. Figure 1 illustrates the refuge location and boundary.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
HISTORY
South Carolina is composed primarily of four physiographic provinces (Atlantic Coastal Plain/Coastal
Zone, Sandhills, Piedmont Plateau, and Blue Ridge Mountains) (Figure 2). The Atlantic Coastal
Plain/Coastal Zone is nearly flat and composed entirely of geologically recent sediments such as sand,
silt, and clay. The Piedmont Plateau contains the roots of an ancient, eroded mountain chain. Along the
southeastern edge of the Piedmont is the Fall Line, where rivers drop to the Coastal Plain. The Sandhills
region, a strip of ancient beach dunes, divides the Coastal Plain from the higher Piedmont. The Coastal
8 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Refuge location and boundary map
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Physiographic provinces of South Carolina
10 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Plain is remnant of a former inland coastline formed during the Miocene Epoch. Rivers and streams
drained the Piedmont, depositing silt and sand, eventually forming bands of sand dunes. These
rolling beds of deep sandy soil are now host to an extensive longleaf forest. The Carolina Sandhills
NWR lies along this Fall Line. (South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 2005a).
Human habitation of the Sandhills has probably existed for more than 10,000 years. Before the
arrival of European man, scattered Native American tribes, which were later known as the Catawba
Indian Nation, sparsely populated the region. Little information is available concerning the early
history of European settlement in this area. Not until the 16th century did explorers visit the area and
for the next 150 years, the only people to visit the region on a regular basis were trappers and traders
in search of furs and hides. Welsh settlers from Pennsylvania and Delaware first moved into this
region and began to establish permanent settlements in inland South Carolina in the mid-1700s
(USFWS 2007a). The settlers were later joined by Scotch-Irish and English. The oldest town in the
immediate area of the refuge is Cheraw, Chesterfield County, which was settled around 1748 and
was a center for transportation along the Pee Dee River. Chesterfield County was formed in 1785,
and is now largely agricultural. General Sherman's troops passed through this area during the Civil
War, briefly occupying the towns of Cheraw and Chesterfield (South Carolina State Library 2006).
Vast longleaf pine forests dominated the landscape of the Sandhills when Europeans first settled the
area. By the late 1800s, the forests supported major lumber and naval store industries. However, by
the early 1900s, the forests were depleted and farming became the predominant lifestyle in the region.
(A discussion of the demise of the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem can be found in Chapter II.
Fire suppression and over-harvesting of longleaf pine, along with poor agricultural practices and deep
infertile soils led to the collapse of the timber and agricultural industries. In contrast to the settlement
pattern for most of South Carolina, the Sandhills were not settled primarily by farmers. Due to the
inability of Sandhills soils to hold water, only a small percentage of this region is considered good for
farmland, even with modern practices. In the 1700s, it was nearly worthless from an agricultural
perspective. In fact, George Washington, after passing through the Sandhills from Augusta to
Columbia, remarked that the land was probably the poorest that he had ever seen. This region is by
no means a desert, but the native plants are adapted for quick use of the abundant but periodic rain
water in ways which most agricultural crops are not (SCDNR 2000).
The Old Wire Road -- The Old Wire Road is a remnant of an early stage coach route that had one of
South Carolina's first telegraph wires strung alongside of it. The road is not paved and in certain
segments within the refuge it is closed to vehicular traffic. In most places, Old Wire Road follows the
top of a sand ridge to avoid problems with stream crossings. This is said to be the route followed by
General Sherman's army during the Civil War when it marched from Columbia, South Carolina, into
North Carolina. Old breastworks can be found in the woods along Old Wire Road near its intersection
with State Highway 102. A grave marker for a confederate soldier is located on Scotch Road near the
turnoff for the Sugarloaf Mountain Recreation Area (SCDNR 2000).
The Bombing of Patrick -- An unusual clearing in the Carolina Sandhills NWR, just south of
Rogers Branch and east of State Highway 145, holds a special historical significance. During
World War II, this part of the refuge was used as a U.S. Army Air Force bombing range where
pilots could practice their skills. The cleared area was mowed in such a way as to generate a
large "X" shaped feature that pilots could use as their target. The "X" was lit up at night so pilots
could practice after dark. On one occasion, a plane accidentally bombed the nearby town of
Patrick, mistaking street lighting at the town crossroads for the intended target. Fortunately, the
practice bombs contained flour instead of gunpowder, and no damage was done. Today, the old
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
bombing field still displays the "X" shaped pattern, but the lights have been removed. The north
and east quarters are planted to wildlife food crops, while the south and west quarters are planted
to grass. Dove hunts annually take place on the site (SCDNR 2000).
Transfer of lands to the SC Forestry Commission -- In the 1930s, the Federal Government acquired
lands in Chesterfield and Darlington Counties as part of the land utilization project. This program
acquired eroded and abused lands and provided owners with more productive lands elsewhere. On
March 17, 1939, Executive Order 8067 established the Carolina Sandhills NWR. In April 1939, a
Cooperative and License Agreement between the Secretary of Agriculture and the South Carolina
Forestry Commission was signed, which established the use of a portion of the property by the
Forestry Commission as a demonstration-conservation area. This area, encompassing 46,339 acres,
became known as the Carolina Sandhills Wildlife Management Area. The primary concern at the time
was developing and rehabilitating the land, providing short- and long-term employment opportunities,
and establishing a resource base for a permanent rural economy. Other objectives provided for the
development of wildlife populations sufficient to allow public hunting, recreational opportunities of all
types, research and demonstration for forest conservation practices, and production of timber crops.
In January 1989, legislation was proposed to transfer title of these lands from the Federal Government
to the Forestry Commission in exchange for basic fire protection for 50 years; prescribed burning
services for 5 years; and designated reforestation services for converting 2,300 acres of slash pine to
native longleaf pine not to exceed a 25-year-period. The transfer was completed in 1991 (South
Carolina Forestry Commission 2004).
PURPOSE
Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Carolina Sandhills NWR by Executive Order 8067, on March
17, 1939, under authority of the 1933 National Industrial Recovery Act and the Emergency Relief
Appropriation of 1935 and designated management of the refuge to the Service. The original
purposes of the refuge were to provide habitat for migratory birds, to demonstrate sound
management practices that would enhance natural resources conservation, and to provide wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities.
Over time, restoration efforts have reestablished this once-damaged, barren land to a healthy, rich habitat
for plants and animals. The responsibilities of the Service have expanded to help restore and enhance
the longleaf pine habitat for the benefit of the red-cockaded woodpecker, designated as an endangered
species in 1970. Today, the refuge operates under mandates to provide environmental education and
interpretation of its work. Improving habitat and restoring native plant communities, monitoring
populations of the red-cockaded woodpecker and other species, and assessing the impacts of
management actions on wildlife and habitats are all critical elements in the refuge's operations.
In keeping with the mission of the Refuge System " to preserve a national network of lands and
waters for the conservation and management of fish, wildlife, and plant resources of the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations" (Executive Order 12996, March 1996), the
Carolina Sandhills NWR has five primary objectives:
1) To restore, maintain, and enhance longleaf pine habitat and associated plant and animal species:
The longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem, the characteristic habitat of the Carolina Sandhills NWR,
once covered more than 90 million acres across the southeastern United States, stretching from
Virginia to Texas. This unique ecosystem, shaped by thousands of years of natural fires that
burned through the area every 2 to 4 years, has been reduced to fewer than 2 million acres.
12 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Today, only scattered patches of this once-immense forest remain, with most occurring on public
lands. Factors contributing to the demise of the ecosystem include aggressive fire suppression
efforts, deforestation for agriculture and development, and conversion to other pine types.
Carolina Sandhills NWR serves as a demonstration site for land management practices, which
conserve and enhance the diminishing longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem.
2) To conserve, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species, with special emphasis on
the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW):
Several state and federal listed threatened and endangered species are found on the refuge,
including the Pine Barrens tree frog, white wicky, and the RCW. Unlike other woodpeckers, the
RCW roosts and nests in cavities of living southern pines. The RCW serves as an indicator
species for the health of the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem. The RCW is also referred to as a
"keystone" species," having dozens of other animals use its cavity either as a convenience or as a
requirement of survival.
3) To provide habitat for migratory birds:
The Carolina Sandhills NWR provides stop-over or nesting habitat for many species of neotropical
migratory birds and resident songbirds, including the prairie warbler, Bachman's sparrow,
American redstart, and Kentucky warbler.
Several species of waterfowl may be found in the fall and winter, including mallards, black ducks,
pintails, green-winged teal, American widgeon, ring-necked ducks, and hooded mergansers.
Canada geese and wood ducks may be seen in the refuge pools year-round.
4) To provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and wildlife-oriented
recreation:
Environmental education programs are conducted throughout the year for school children, civic
organizations, and the general public. Wildlife interpretive displays and literature are available on-site
to help the visitor better understand the refuge and its objectives. Several of these items can
also be downloaded from the Carolina Sandhills NWR website (www.fws.gov/carolinasandhills).
5) To demonstrate sound land management practices that enhance natural resource conservation:
The staff at the Carolina Sandhills NWR uses a number of management techniques in support of
its stated objectives. These include prescribed burning, which mimics the natural fires that
historically burned through the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem every few years. These fires
suppress the growth of hardwood trees, creating an open park-like condition preferred by the red-cockaded
woodpecker and many other animals and plants native to this ecosystem.
Pond and lake water levels are also manipulated seasonally to encourage the growth of desired
emergent aquatic vegetation and control unwanted submergent vegetation, which left unchecked,
could degrade pond habitat over time. Water level manipulation can also enhance resource
availability for fish and waterfowl.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Carolina Sandhills NWR is one of the 14 Land Management Research and Demonstration (LMRD)
Areas managed by the Service. These sites serve as institutions of investigation, innovation, and
instruction in wildlife and habitat management. Carolina Sandhills and St. Mark’s NWRs were chosen
as LMRD areas that are restoring and managing the range of subtypes of longleaf pine forest, from
xeric sandhills to mesic flatwoods and hydric savannahs. In the future, a specialized biologist will
oversee the research, development, and testing of new management techniques at each
demonstration site. Through wildlife inventorying and habitat monitoring, the sites will become a
repository of data and information about featured habitats or management issues (USFWS 2007b).
Lands within the Carolina Sandhills NWR were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for
wilderness areas, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. No areas in the refuge were found to
meet those criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further
analyzed in this Draft CCP/EA (National Wilderness Preservation System 2004).
There are no Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) designated by the State of South Carolina, [nor
Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW)] in the Carolina Sandhills NWR (South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control 2004). However, the State of South Carolina does
designate the upper Lynches River (which flows along the western boundary of the Carolina Sandhills
NWR) and its sandhills tributaries which drain the refuge (Rocky Creek, Big Sandy Creek, Little
Sandy Creek, and Swift Creek) as an area of primary conservation concern (SCDNR 2005a). In
addition, a 54-mile segment of the Lynches River is a designated Scenic River, from U.S. 15 near
Bishopville to the eastern boundary of Lynches River State Park (in Darlington and Lee Counties),
just downstream of the refuge (SCDNR 2009a).
Also considered in nearby Chesterfield County, were a state forest and two state parks (Figure 3).
Along with the refuge, this aggregate of public lands encompasses nearly 100,000 acres of longleaf
pine forests and plant assemblages:
 The Sand Hills State Forest, which adjoins the Carolina Sandhills NWR to the south and east, is
a unit of the South Carolina Forestry Commission and a designated Wildlife Management Area in the
SCDNR system. The Sand Hills State Forest encompasses 46,000 acres of forest, which provide
hiking and nature trails, camping sites, birding, picnic shelters, a fishing lake, mountain biking and
horseback trails, wildlife observation, and ponds. The Sand Hills State Forest is a demonstration
area for forest management. During the early years, the forest was leased from the Federal
Government, with the objective to restore the land and demonstrate conservation forestry. In 1991,
the lands were transferred in fee title to the State of South Carolina. The forest is managed for
longleaf pine, red-cockaded woodpeckers, and sustained multiple uses such as pine straw
production, timber, and recreation (SCFC 2004). The Sand Hills State Forest, along with the
Carolina Sandhills NWR, constitutes a secondary core population of RCW within the Sandhills
Recovery Unit (USFWS 2003b).
 Part of the Cheraw State Park is the H. Cooper Black Jr. Memorial Field Trial and Recreation
Area which is used for national-level field trial and retriever competitions. This area includes 7,000
acres of rolling acres of longleaf pine forest and fields managed by the South Carolina Forestry
Commission and recreation facilities, including stables, kennels, corrals, arenas, campgrounds and a
kitchen/meeting hall, managed by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
[SCPRT]. There also are more than 20 miles of equestrian trails and sand roads for riders in the
park, some that lead into Sand Hills State Forest and Cheraw State Park (SCPRT 2009a).
14 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Public lands in Chesterfield County, South Carolina
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
 Cheraw State Park (i.e., Cheraw State Recreation Area), founded in 1934, is the oldest state
park in South Carolina. Its 7,361 acres are managed by the SCPRT. It was developed by the
Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), a New Deal Program created by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt. The program was designed to provide employment during the Great Depression, while
addressing national needs in conservation and recreation. The park offers a championship golf
course, cabins, camping, boating, fishing, hiking and other recreational activities. Significant natural
features of Cheraw State Park are its longleaf pine forest that supports red-cockaded woodpeckers
and extensive wetlands with stands of Atlantic white cedar trees. In addition, the Hudsonia Flats
Heritage Trust Site protects populations of rare plants, including golden heather, pyxie moss, as well
as other species (SCPRT 2009a).
 The Cheraw Fish Hatchery was constructed in 1937 with federal funds and assigned to the state for
operation and maintenance. However, the facility was returned to the Federal Government in Fiscal year
1947, and renamed Cheraw National Fish Hatchery. Ownership of the hatchery was returned to the
state in 1983 as part of the Service’s effort to reduce warm water hatchery operations throughout the
federal system. Over 3 million sport fish are produced annually for release into South Carolina's public
lakes and rivers. Species produced include striped bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, bluegill,
redear, redbreast sunfish, and channel catfish (SCDNR 2007).
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographical area that includes and interconnects all the living (biotic) organisms,
their physical (abiotic) surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them.
The United States (including Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico) is comprised of 14 Ecosystem
Divisions. Of these 14, the Subtropical Division includes the Southern Atlantic and Gulf Coast states.
Within the Subtropical Division are two Provinces: the Southeastern Mixed Forest Province (an area
of about 193,000 square miles, comprising the Piedmont and parts of the Gulf Coastal Plains); and
the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Province (an area of about 174,000 square miles, comprising the
Middle Atlantic and Southern Coastal Plains (Bailey 1978).
The Southeastern Plains (Level III) Ecoregion, shown in Figure 4 as area 65, overlies and straddles parts
of these two provinces. The Southeastern Plains is the largest ecoregion in the southeast, covering about
130,000 square miles. The Southeastern Plains are a mosaic of cropland, pasture, woodland, and forest.
Natural vegetation is predominantly longleaf pine, with smaller areas of oak-hickory-pine and Southern
mixed forest. Much of the natural forest has been replaced by managed timberlands. The ecoregion is
characterized by a long growing season and abundant rainfall, but relatively poor sandy soils, which limit
agricultural competitiveness with many other Ecoregions. The Cretaceous or Tertiary-age sands, silts,
and clays of the ecoregion contrast geologically with the older metamorphic and igneous rocks of the
Piedmont (area 45), and with the Paleozoic limestone, chert, and shale found in the Interior Plateau (area
71). Elevations and relief are greater than in the Southern Coastal Plain (area 75), but generally less than
in much of the Piedmont. Streams in this area are relatively low-gradient and sandy-bottomed (Griffith et.
al. 2002, U.S. Geological Survey 2008).
The Carolina Sandhills NWR sits astride a most remarkable longleaf pine range: the Sandhills (Level
IV) Ecoregion. The Sandhills Ecoregion (area 65c) of the Southeastern Plains is wedged between
the Middle Atlantic/Southern Coastal Plains and the Piedmont, as shown in Figure 5. The sandhills
is a rolling-to-hilly region composed primarily of Cretaceous age marine sands and clays, capped in
places with Tertiary sands, deposited over the crystalline and metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont.
16 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Level III ecoregions of the eastern United States
Source: (http://edc2.usgs.gov/LT/LCCEUS.php)
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 5. Level III and IV ecoregions of South Carolina
18 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Many of the droughty, low-nutrient soils formed in thick beds of sand, although some soils contain
more loamy and clayey horizons. Some upland areas are underlain by plinthite, and side slopes tend
to have fragipans that perch water and cause lateral flow and seepage. Stream flow is consistent;
larger streams seldom flood or dry up because of the large infiltration capacity of the sandy soil and
the vast ground-water storage capability of the sand aquifer. On drier sites, turkey oak and blackjack
oak occur with longleaf pine and a wiregrass ground cover. Loblolly pine forests and other oak-pine
forests are now more widespread due to fire suppression and logging.
Ecosystems are experiencing increasing impacts from human activities, the threat of which will
require extraordinary flexibility and innovation to successfully conserve and manage them. In recent
years, conservationists have fostered the idea that resource conservation can best be achieved by
taking a holistic approach to management. The Service is working with divergent interests on
ecosystem-based approaches to conserve the variety of life and its processes. Sustainable
communities and species conservation and recovery require joint efforts of private landowners and
local communities, as well as state and federal governments. The Service has developed
cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trends of fish and wildlife populations and
biological diversity within ecosystems. There are 53 ecosystem units identified by the Service and all
of the Service's field units (National Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries, Law Enforcement,
Ecological Services offices, and Fishery Resources offices) combine forces to tackle projects,
improving efficiency and effectiveness. The Carolina Sandhills NWR is in the Savannah/Santee/Pee
Dee Rivers watershed ecosystem unit (Unit 33), which is shown in Figure 6.
THE LONGLEAF PINE/WIREGRASS ECOSYSTEM
The longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem, the characteristic habitat of Carolina Sandhills NWR, once
covered approximately 90 million acres in the southeastern United States. This unique ecosystem,
shaped by thousands of years of natural fires that burned through every 2 to 4 years, has been reduced
to fewer than 2 million acres, representing a 97 percent decline in this important ecosystem. Today,
only scattered patches of the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem occur, primarily in the coastal plains of
the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas. About half of these surviving stands
of longleaf pine exist on public lands. (A discussion of the factors affecting the decline of the longleaf
pine/wiregrass ecosystem is given in Chapter II.)
The longleaf pine is valuable in many ways. It is a hardy species, relatively wind firm and resistant to
many insects that attack other pines, such as the pine tip moth and southern pine beetle, and
diseases such as fusiform rust and root rot. The wood of the longleaf pine is dense and strong; its
long, straight boles yield high-value wood products. Longleaf pine is not only more tolerant of fire
than is loblolly pine or slash pine; it actually requires frequent, low intensity fires for reproduction and
expansion. The frequent fires reduced the amount of litter on the ground, so resulting fires were
mostly low-intensity, surface blazes that killed few trees. Fires in the spring or early summer play a
critical role by clearing the ground of grasses and needles so that seeds, dropping from their cones in
the autumn, can quickly absorb the nutrients in the ash. Germination of the longleaf pine seedlings
occurs within 2 weeks. After several years of developing a strong tap root system, the longleaf pines
begin to grow in amazing spurts, 2 or 3 feet during each growing season. This fast growth quickly lifts
their growing tips above the level of most ground fires, and they add a thick bark that protects the tree
from fire. In time, the trees become tolerant to all but the hottest fires. This species grows and
survives well on poor, sandy soils. The old-growth longleaf pine is an impressive specimen, topping
120 feet on the better soils, and sometimes exceeding 3 feet in diameter. Mature trees can achieve
extreme ages, 300 to 400 years. It thrives in a variety of conditions; a few feet from the ocean or on
mountain ridges of 2,500 feet elevation and more than 200 miles inland.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 6. Watershed-based ecosystem units, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
20 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
From a botanical perspective, longleaf forests are incredibly diverse. Researchers studying one
coastal plain longleaf pine community identified 124 plant species in a plot of 100 square feet.
Another study in Alabama identified 40 species per square meter. This ranks longleaf pine
communities among the most diverse habitat types on earth. Within the sandhills region, due to
poorer soils, the plant diversity on a micro scale is much less than in the coastal plain; however, the
uneven topography is responsible for diversity across the landscape, on a macro scale. More than
750 species of plants have been identified on Carolina Sandhills NWR. More than 30 plant and
animal species associated with longleaf pine ecosystems, including the red-cockaded woodpecker,
are listed as threatened or endangered. The management practices used at the Carolina Sandhills
NWR seek to conserve and enhance the plant and animal species dependent on the diminishing
longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem (Kush 2003).
Watershed-Based Ecosystem Units Unit
Number
Watershed-Based Ecosystem Units Unit
Number
NORTH PACIFIC COAST 1 TENNESSEE/CUMBERLAND RIVER 28
KLAMATH/CENTRAL PACIFIC COAST 2 CENTRAL GULF WATERSHEDS 29
CENTRAL VALLEY-CALIFORNIA/SAN FRANCISCO BAY 3 FLORIDA PANHANDLE WATERSHEDS 30
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 4 ALTAMAHA WATERSHEDS 31
COLUMBIA BASIN 5 PENINSULAR FLORIDA 32
INTERIOR BASIN 6 SAVANNAH/SANTEE/PEE DEE RIVERS 33
LOWER COLORADO RIVER 7 ROANOKE/TAR/NEUSE/CAPE FEAR RIVERS 34
GILA/SALT/VERDE RIVER 8 CARRIBEAN 35
MIDDLE AND UPPER RIO GRANDE 9 DELAWARE RIVER/DELMARVA COASTAL AREA 36
LOWER RIO GRANDE 10 HUDSON RIVER/NEW YORK BIGHT 37
PECOS RIVER 11 CONNECTICUT RIVER/LONG ISLAND SOUND 38
EDWARDS PLATEAU 12 GULF OF MAINE RIVERS 39
EAST TEXAS 13 LAKE CHAMPLAIN 40
TEXAS GULF COAST 14 CHESAPEAKE BAY/SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 41
ARKANSAS/RED RIVERS 15 PACIFIC ISLANDS 42
SOUTHERN APPALACHIANS 16 ARCTIC ALASKA 43
UPPER COLORADO RIVER 17 NORTHWEST ALASKA 44
PLATTE/KANSAS RIVERS 18 INTERIOR ALASKA 45
UPPER MISSOURI/YELLOWSTONE RIVERS 19 SOUTHEAST ALASKA 46
MISSOURI MAIN STEM 20 SOUTH CENTRAL ALASKA 47
LOWER MISSOURI RIVER 21 BRISTOL BAY/KODIAK 48
MISSISSIPPI HEADWATERS/TALLGRASS PRAIRIE 22 YUKON-KUSKOKWIM DELTA 49
UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER/TALLGRASS PRAIRIE 23 BERING SEA/ALEUTIAN ISLANDS 50
GREAT LAKES BASIN 24 BEAUFORT/CHUKCHI SEAS 51
OZARK PLATEAU 25 NORTH PACIFIC/GULF OF ALASKA 52
OHIO RIVER VALLEY 26 SOUTH FLORIDA 53
LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER 27
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Comprehensive conservation plans are being prepared for the eight Service refuges in the State of
South Carolina. The plans will provide refuge managers with a 15-year strategy and broad direction
to conserve wildlife and their habitats; to achieve refuge purposes; and, to contribute to the mission of
the Refuge System. In addition, the plans identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. The plans for these eight refuges
(Waccamaw, Santee, Carolina Sandhills, ACE Basin, Cape Romain, Pinckney Island, Tybee, and
Savannah) are currently in various stages of preparation.
Many regional conservation plans and initiatives are derivatives of national plans. These regional
plans are developed by a variety of cooperating regional agencies and organizations and are being
planned and implemented in the southeastern United States. Some of the more notable are listed
below:
NABCI – North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Populations and habitats of North America's birds are protected, restored, and enhanced through
coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state, and local levels, guided by sound
science and effective management. Bird Conservation Regions encompass landscapes having
similar bird communities, habitats, and resource issues (NABCI-US 2002).
PIF – Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans
PIF is a cooperative partnership between government agencies, private organizations, individuals,
academic communities, and industry. Bird Conservation Plans have been developed for
Physiographic Areas in the Northeast by PIF. These plans identify priority species for conservation
efforts in each area, recommend population and habitat objectives for managing these priority
species, and provide implementation and management strategies for reaching objectives (Hunter et.
al. 2001, Ruth 2006).
NAWCP – The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The plan provides an overarching continental framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. It sets forth
goals and priorities for waterbirds in all habitats, at nesting sites, during annual migrations, and during
nonbreeding periods. It advocates continent-wide monitoring; provides an impetus for regional
conservation planning; proposes national, state, provincial, and other local conservation planning and
action; and gives a larger context for local habitat protection (Kushlan et. al. 2002).
NAWMP – The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
The vision of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan is to recover waterfowl populations by
restoring and managing wetland ecosystems; to conserve biological diversity in the western hemisphere;
to integrate wildlife conservation with sustainable economic development; and, to promote partnerships of
public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals for conservation. Canada, the United States,
and Mexico are committed to the ongoing continental effort to restore North America's waterfowl and
wetland resources (NAWMP, Plan Committee 2004).
22 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
ACJV – The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
The ACJV is a partnership focused on the conservation of habitat for native birds in the Atlantic
Flyway of the United States from Maine south to Puerto Rico. The joint venture is a partnership of the
18 states, commonwealths, and key federal and regional habitat conservation agencies and
organizations in the joint venture area. The joint venture was originally formed as a regional
partnership focused on the conservation of waterfowl and wetlands under the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (see above) and has since broadened its focus to the conservation of
habitats for all birds consistent with major national and continental bird conservation plans and the
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (see above) (ACJV 2005).
SAMBI – The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative
This plan represents one of the initial efforts in North America to integrate the objectives of four major
bird conservation plans (the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States Shorebird
Conservation Plan, North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, and Partners in Flight) under the
North American Bird Conservation Initiative into a single plan that land managers, biologists,
administrators, and private landowners can use to achieve common goals and objectives for bird
conservation across a regional landscape. The primary objectives are to develop population and
habitat goals for priority species, delineate “all bird” focus areas, develop a long-term framework for
bird conservation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, and develop and seek funding for "all bird"
projects (Watson and Malloy 2006).
CWCS – South Carolina's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
The CWCS identifies the challenges facing the State of South Carolina's diverse wildlife species and
devises strategies to conserve those "species with the greatest conservation need," and their
habitats. It is a guide to conserving the 1,240 species of fish and wildlife that have immediate
conservation needs or are key indicators of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. The CWCS
emphasizes a cooperative, proactive approach to conservation, inviting local governments,
businesses, and conservation-minded organizations and individuals to join in the task of maintaining
fish and wildlife resources (SCDNR 2005a).
The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Recovery Plan
The ultimate recovery goal is red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) viability. Once this goal
is achieved, the size, number, and distribution of populations will be sufficient to counteract threats of
demographic, environmental, genetic, and catastrophic stochastic events, thereby maintaining long-term
viability for the species as defined by current understanding of these processes (USFWS 2003b,
USFWS 2006a).
NBCI – Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative
The NBCI's charge is to develop a quantitative habitat-oriented plan to restore bobwhites to the
density they enjoyed during the baseline year 1980 (Dimmick et. al. 2002).
208 Water Quality Management Plan of South Carolina
This plan is developed for the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the development and
implementation of area-wide waste treatment management plans. It requires states to identify areas
with water quality problems and designate an entity to develop area-wide waste treatment
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
management plans so as to attain the national goal of "fishable-swimmable waters" as required by
the Clean Water Act (SCDHEC 1997).
South Carolina Water Plan
The purpose of this plan is to establish guidelines for the effective management of the state's surface
and ground water resources; to sustain the availability of the water resource for present and future
use; to protect public health and natural systems; and, to enhance the quality of life for all citizens
(Badr et. al. 2004).
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
National wildlife refuges serve as part of the last safety net to supporting biological diversity – the
greatest challenge facing the Service. Impacts and underlying causes and threats to biological
diversity include:
 Loss or reduction of species with specific habitat requirements;
 Loss, alteration, and fragmentation of habitat due to development and other human activities;
 Simplification and degradation of remaining habitats, including alteration and fragmentation;
 Introduction and spread of exotic, nuisance, and invasive species;
 Lack of environmental regulation and enforcement;
 Cumulative effects of land and water resource development projects;
 Wildlife disturbance due to development and other human activities;
 Increased air quality standards and population density in the wildland urban interface that
threaten the ability to apply prescribed fire on the landscape.
Habitat loss is the greatest threat facing wildlife habitat in South Carolina today. As of 2006, South
Carolina’s population had grown to more than 4 million people, up 7 percent from 2000. As a result,
thousands of acres of wildlife habitat are lost each year to accommodate the expanding human
population. The longleaf pine ecosystem once dominated much of the forest landscape in the coastal
plain of South Carolina. The conversion of undeveloped land to residential and commercial uses is
one of the biggest threats to this ecosystem. As the population grows, traffic increases and more
roads are planned and built. Conservation lands surrounded by development become very difficult to
manage with prescribed fire. Smoke management for air quality, health, and safety becomes more
difficult and results in increased costs of managing land for conservation.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The Carolina Sandhills NWR experiences a humid subtropical climate, with long, hot, sultry summers
and short, mild winters. The subtropical climate arises from a combination of the region's relatively
low latitude and elevation, the proximity of the warm Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, and the Appalachian
Mountains, which in winter help to buffer cold air from the interior of the United States. The average
temperature in Chesterfield County is about 61ºF, with average daily temperatures ranging from 30º-
55ºF in January and from 70º-91ºF in July.
The area receives, on average, 47-48 inches of precipitation per year. There is little difference in the
amount of precipitation between summer and winter seasons; however, the greatest amounts of rain
usually occur in July (a result of summer thunderstorm activity) and the least amounts of rain occur in
24 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
April. During the summer, South Carolina's weather patterns are dominated by a maritime
tropical air mass known as the Bermuda high. The air passing over the land is heated more
quickly than the ocean and becomes unstable, resulting in the formation of afternoon and evening
thunderstorms. The heaviest 1-day rainfall during the period of record (1893-2008) was 11.0
inches on October 10, 1990. Nearly all precipitation falls as rain, with winter snowfall totaling only
about 2 inches (SCDNR 2008, SCPRT 2009c).
Tables 1 and 2, and Figures 7 and 8, show temperature and precipitation data for the Carolina
Sandhills NWR as recorded at the Cheraw and Pageland (Chesterfield County) weather stations
for the period 1971 to 2000.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 51 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 87 percent. The sun shines 66 percent of the time in summer and 58
percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southwest for most of the year, except during
September and October when it is from the northeast. Average wind speed is highest, around 8
miles per hour, in March and April (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation
Service, National Water and Climate Center).
Table 1. Cheraw, SC1588 (1971-2000) Chesterfield County, South Carolina
Month
Temperature Precipitation
Average
daily
maximum
Average
daily
minimum
Average Average
Average
number of
days with
0.10 inch
or more
Average
snowfall
ºF ºF ºF In In
January 52.9 30.1 41.5 4.49 7 0.4
February 57.1 32.0 44.6 3.50 6 1.1
March 65.2 39.1 52.2 4.42 7 0.4
April 74.2 46.6 60.4 2.92 4 0.0
May 81.0 55.8 68.4 3.45 6 0.0
June 87.4 64.5 75.9 4.73 6 0.0
July 90.6 69.1 79.8 5.33 8 0.0
August 88.5 68.0 78.2 4.94 7 0.0
September 83.2 61.8 72.5 4.17 5 0.0
October 73.9 48.7 61.3 3.70 4 0.0
November 65.1 39.5 52.3 2.91 5 0.0
December 56.0 32.5 44.3 3.17 6 0.2
Yearly:
Average 72.9 49.0 61.0 --- --- ---
Total --- --- --- 47.73 71 2.1
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 2. Pageland, SC 6616 (1971-2000) Chesterfield County, South Carolina
Month
Temperature Precipitation
Average
daily
maximum
Average
daily
minimum
Average Average
Average
number of
days with
0.10 inch
or more
Average
snowfall
ºF ºF ºF In In
January 53.7 32.4 43.0 4.74 7 1.1
February 58.8 35.3 47.1 3.79 6 0.0
March 67.0 41.7 54.4 4.68 7 0.6
April 75.1 49.1 62.1 3.02 5 0.0
May 81.7 57.7 69.7 3.15 6 0.0
June 87.8 65.3 76.5 4.17 6 0.0
July 90.8 69.3 80.1 5.76 7 0.0
August 88.9 67.8 78.3 4.42 6 0.0
September 83.8 62.4 73.1 4.01 5 0.0
October 74.9 50.4 62.7 3.69 4 0.0
November 65.5 42.2 53.8 3.57 5 0.0
December 56.5 35.0 45.8 3.34 6 0.4
Yearly:
Average 73.7 50.7 62.2 --- --- ---
Total --- --- --- 48.33 70 2.0
26 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Daily average temperature and precipitation, Cheraw, Chesterfield County, South
Carolina (1971-2000)
Source: (SCDNR 2008)
Figure 8. Daily average temperature and precipitation, Pageland, Chesterfield County, South
Carolina (1971-2000)
Data is smoothed using a 29 day running average.
- Max. Temp. is the average of all daily maximum temperatures recorded for the day of the year
- Ave. Temp. is the average of all daily average temperatures recorded for the day of the year
- Min. Temp. is the average of all daily minimum temperatures recorded for the day of the year
- Precipitation is the average of all daily total precipitation recorded for the day of the year
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about
1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The ten warmest years in the 20th century have all occurred within the past
15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Some climate models, based on
emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, predict that
average surface temperatures could increase from 2.5 to 10.4oF by the end of this century. This
increase in CO2 is attributed largely to human activities since 1945. The burning of fossil fuels adds
5.6 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year; and deforestation contributes another 0.4 to
2.5 billion tons (Environmental Protection Agency 2009, SCDNR 2009b).
Since 1957, the climate of South Carolina has been characterized by warmer and drier conditions.
According to recent observations (1957-1991), the annual average temperature increased by nearly
1oF. The largest temperature increase resulted during the 1980s from warmer than average
wintertime temperatures. Precipitation decreased 6 percent or 3.2 inches primarily due to lower than
average springtime rainfall. Thus, the current trend in South Carolina's climate is warmer and drier
conditions (SCDNR 2009b).
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets, will cause sea levels to rise. Globally,
sea level has risen 4–10 inches during the past century. NASA estimates that yearly, 50 billion tons
of ice is melting from the Greenland ice sheet. NASA aerial surveys show that more than 11 cubic
miles of ice is disappearing from the ice sheet annually (Krabill et. al. 2000). Land less than 10
meters above sea level contains 2 percent of the world's land surface and 10 percent of its
population. In the United States, major impacts will be felt by coastal populations, particularly in the
Gulf and East Coast states.
In addition to the rising seas, the effects of climate change and global warming include changes in
weather and rainfall patterns, decreases in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed
ecosystems. For the southeastern United States and the Carolina Sandhills, effects may include
extreme precipitation events; greater likelihood of warmer and dryer summers and wetter and
reduced winter cold; and, alterations of ecosystems and habitats – to name but a few possibilities.
For example, a recent study of the effects of climate change on eastern United States’ bird species
concluded that as many as 78 bird species could decrease by at least 25 percent, while as many as
33 species could increase in abundance by at least 25 percent due to climate and habitat changes
(U.S. Global Change Science Program 2006).
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Office of the State Climatology, details some
of the changes the state might expect (SCDNR 2009b):
Agriculture and the fishing industry – While experts estimate that United States’ agricultural
production will be adequate for domestic needs even under the most extreme scenario, major
regional changes in the production and quality of food commodities are expected. Production is
generally predicted to shift northward, with crops in the southeast particularly vulnerable.
Productivity – Although warmer temperatures may lead to increased yields in some parts of the
country, South Carolina already has a high baseline temperature. Crops may be subject to increases
in moisture and heat-stress. The wettest scenario does not offset crops' increased water needs, and
drier scenarios suggest yield could decrease by nearly 80 percent. Even the direct positive effects on
photosynthesis of a CO2-enriched atmosphere cannot, in such cases, make-up for the indirect effects
of moisture-stress resulting from climatic change.
28 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Irrigation – Under the wet scenario, it is estimated that the southeast will require increased irrigation.
Irrigated land will require more water, and more land will require irrigation.
Crop mix – With warmer temperatures, crops such as corn would become less profitable in the
southeast, while profitability of heat-tolerant crops, such as cotton, could increase. Adjustments
might also be made in varieties planted (e.g., peach farmers in Saluda, Lexington, Edgefield, and
Aiken Counties might find themselves favoring varieties like May Gold and Early Amber over their
present Red Globe and Jefferson trees) to ensure the necessary dormancy period is achieved.
Disease and pest vulnerability – Warmer conditions may accelerate the life cycles of insect pests,
leading to attacks on plants at earlier and more susceptible stages of growth. The range of some
Gulf Coast pests could also shift northwards if winters became less severe.
Cultivated acreage – Because many South Carolina farms are already marginal enterprises, farmers may
not be able to compete in a changed environment. The amount of land under cultivation could decrease.
Fish and shellfish populations – Both increased water temperatures and changes in the salinity of
habitats could reduce the population of species profitable to the state's fishing industry.
Forestry – With over 60 percent of the state classified as forested, it is not surprising that forestry and
forest-related industry are key sectors in South Carolina's economy. Only tourism brings more
money into the state and, as sites for fishing, hunting, hiking, and camping, forests also contribute to
tourism. The economic benefits forests bring are not just important to the state, but to individuals in
the state: almost two-thirds of the forests remain in private, non-industrial ownership. Studies indicate
climate change could cause significant changes in South Carolina's forests.
 Dieback of forests in 30 to 80 years. Even modest warming could cause significant changes,
but a CO2-induced warming poses the additional threat of occurring so quickly that forests
would not be able to adjust in time.
 Loss of species. Southern hardwoods (e.g., black gum, laurel oak, and elm) might replace
loblolly pines as the dominant species.
 Conversion of Forest to Grasslands. The drier scenarios suggest that sections of the
southeast might not support forests at all. Abandoned farms that have traditionally reverted to
forest might now remain in grass.
 Increased vulnerability to pests and disease. Not only is the range of pests likely to increase,
but climate-stressed stands are more susceptible to attack by disease, pests, and fire.
Water Resources – Exactly how water resources will be affected by climate change is difficult to
ascertain. Global climate models vary widely in precipitation projections (i.e., the supply of water and
projections for water demand are also difficult to predict), but climate changes will also influence the
demand for water.
 Studies indicate the regional availability and reliability of water resources may be responsible
for the most dramatic effects of climate change. With warmer temperatures, demand for
water is likely to increase for agriculture, energy, cooling, and recreation. It is not certain
whether the supply will be able to meet the demand.
 Regardless of precipitation changes, water quality could be affected. Drier scenarios create
oxygen-starved lakes and streams and wet scenarios increase the threat of pollution from runoff.
 The capacity of the current drainage system to handle an increase in the frequency of large
amounts of precipitation could be exceeded.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Energy – Demand for electricity is sensitive to the weather and to industrial growth. Changes in
weather patterns result in changes in energy consumption. Higher temperatures could result in:
 An increased demand for air conditioning as the cooling season would last longer.
 Decrease in demand for heating due to warmer winters.
 An increase in electrical capacity; higher demands for air conditioning in the summer would be
partially offset by lower wintertime temperatures, affecting total consumption only moderately.
But the periods could require a significant increase in South Carolina's electrical capacity.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The primary factor determining topography and landscape features in South Carolina is the
underlying geology. Differences in rock types and rock structures are responsible for many of the
differences seen in the four major landform regions (Blue Ridge, Piedmont, Sandhills, and Coastal
Plain/Coastal Zone).
The Sandhills consist of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine, fluvial, and eolian sediments. Some
geologists believe the Fall Line Sandhills developed due to the erosion of the Tuscaloosa
Formation that was exposed during the Cretaceous uplift about 100 million years ago, resulting in
higher elevations along Fall Line Province than those of the adjacent Piedmont Province (Madden
et. al. 2003). This is in contrast to a popular hypothesis that the sandhills are ancient beach
dunes and that the Atlantic shoreline, during the Cretaceous Period, went through the middle of
the state and is responsible for the sand deposited in what is now called the Sandhills.
Regardless, the geology and topography of the Carolina Sandhills NWR is a product of the
events of the Cretaceous/Tertiary Period (Leigh 1998).
Figure 9 illustrates the area of Upper Cretaceous geology in the Sandhills region. Here alternating
beds of sand and clay of Upper Cretaceous age overlie bedrock. The bedrock has been associated
with the Tuscaloosa Formation, but more recently the formation has been called Middendorf, after its
geologic type locality in Chesterfield County. Sand and clay beds of greatly varying thickness and
lateral extent make up the Middendorf Formation. These materials are of continental origin and were
deposited in a deltaic environment by rivers carrying sediments eroded from the Appalachian
highlands and Piedmont area. As the formation dips toward the coast, the next successively
overlying formations are the Black Creek and Pee Dee formations (SCDNR 2002, Newcome 2004).
The Cretaceous and Tertiary-age sands, silts, and clays of the Sandhills region contrast with the older
metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont, and with the Paleozoic limestone,
chert, and shale found in the interior of the U.S. The Sandhills composed of Cretaceous-age marine
sands and clays, are capped in places with Tertiary sands, deposited over the crystalline and
metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont. The maximum thickness for the Middendorf formation in
Chesterfield County is estimated to be about 450 feet (Newcome 2004). The surficial material and
bedrock can be described as Quaternary medium to coarse sand decomposition residuum, loamy
sand, sandy loam, and sandy clay decomposition residuum; Cretaceous sand, sandstone, and
mudstone; and, Tertiary sand and clayey sand (Griffith et. al. 2002).
30 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Generalized geologic map of South Carolina
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
The Sandhills are a rolling to hilly region with elevations varying from about 100 to 700 feet above
mean sea level (MSL). Elevations in Chesterfield County range from 70' MSL along the Pee Dee
River in the eastern part of the county to 725' MSL in the northwest corner of the county (Newcome
2004), and are usually higher than the adjacent Piedmont or Coastal Plain regions. Elevations on the
refuge range from 250 to 500 ' MSL. The topography of the refuge is characterized by gently rolling
hills and deep sandy soils, with occasional outcroppings of red and kaolin clays (USFWS 2007a).
Maximum elevations in the immediate area of the Carolina Sandhills NWR are 513' MSL on Sugarloaf
Mountain and 520' MSL on Hebron Hill. Relief is greater than in the low lying Coastal Plains, but less
than in much of the Piedmont, and typically varies between 100 and 300 feet.
SOILS
The Sandhills consist primarily of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine, fluvial, and eolian sediments, the
majority of which is unconsolidated marine sediment (Leigh 1998). The soils of the Carolina Sandhills
are among the oldest in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Coastal Plain soils increase in age with
distance from the ocean since soils cannot be in formation until sea level has fallen sufficiently to
expose the former ocean floor to surface weathering conditions. Extensive weathering, over time, has
removed much of the original nutrient content of the soil and almost all soil fertility has been lost. The
only material left is the original quartz mineral grains, which are highly resistant to weathering. The
rolling nature of the topography and the sandy parent material combine to permit good surface and
internal drainage so that the majority of soils are very well drained, sometimes too well drained to hold
sufficient moisture for typical agricultural use. Because the soil texture allows for rapid leaching, soils
are also strongly acidic. It is not uncommon to find lenses or horizons in Sandhills soils where sand
grains have been cemented together with iron oxides, forming a barrier to root growth and water
movement (SCDNR 2000).
Soils are organized into a taxonomic classification system by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Natural Resources Conservation Service in which each soil is categorized by order, suborder, great
group, subgroup, family, and soil series. Nationwide, there are 12 orders of soil, two of which
(Entisols and Ultisols) dominate the Sandhills landscape. Quartzipsamments (a great group of
Entisols), and Kandiudults and Paleudults (great groups of Ultisols) are most common in the Carolina
Sandhills NWR (USDA NRCS 2008b).
Deep sandy soils with occasional outcroppings of red and kaolin clays are found on the Carolina
Sandhills NWR (USFWS 2007a). As shown in Figure 10, the predominant soil types on the refuge
consist of an association of the Alpin-Candor-Troup soil series, very sandy soils with a texture of
loamy sand to sand. These soils have thick surface horizons composed of sand. Much of the
original parent material was sand, but these upland soils may also have received eolian (carried by
wind) material over the years. The Alpin soil series (Quartzipsamments) is almost entirely sand.
Quartzpsamments are extremely sandy soils with little or no soil profile. The Alpin soil series consists
of very deep, excessively drained, rapidly permeable soils located on uplands of the Coastal Plain.
They formed in thick beds of sandy eolian or marine deposits. The Candor soil series (Kandiudults)
has loamy subsoil that holds adequate water for use by plants. The Candor series is established for
soils in a sandy family that have sufficient clay increase to qualify for a clay horizon within 40 inches
and have loamy or finer texture from 40 to 80 inches. The Troup soil series (Kandiudults/Paleudults)
consists of deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils with thick sandy surface layers and loamy
subsoils (USDA NRCS 2008a). As indicated, these soils have high percentages of sand (greater
than 85 percent), low soil moisture, and low soil nutrient content (Madden et. al. 2003). The
erodibility of these soils (K) averages about 0.10 and the slope of the terrain averages about 7
percent (SCDHEC 2007a). Figure 10 illustrates the general soil associations of Chesterfield County,
which completely encompasses the refuge (USDA NRCS 2008b).
32 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 10. Generalized soil map of Chesterfield County, South Carolina
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
HYDROLOGY
The hydrologic resources of South Carolina and the Carolina Sandhills NWR are abundant. As
discussed above, the refuge receives an average of 47 to 48 inches of precipitation a year, from
which 30 inches are returned to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration, leaving an average
annual water yield of approximated 17 inches which includes runoff and groundwater infiltration
Figure 11 (Cherry et. al. 2001).
Groundwater – The vast majority of South Carolina's water resources are contained as groundwater
in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Aquifer System, and in general, reliance on groundwater for
irrigation, industrial uses, and public water supply increases dramatically as one moves southeasterly
away from the Fall Line. Figure 12 illustrates a generalized hydrogeologic cross-section for South
Carolina, highlighting the six major aquifers in the state.
Chesterfield County has two markedly different sources of ground water. About 20 percent of the
county is in the Piedmont physiographic province, where the crystalline rocks beneath a thin
weathered zone contain ground water only in fractures. Wells in these rocks generally provide very
low yields, often less than 5 gpm (gallons per minute). The rest of the county, including the Carolina
Sandhills NWR, lies below the Fall Line and contains sand and clay beds of the Middendorf Formation,
one of the region’s most important sources of water supply. The Middendorf Aquifer is a prolific
source of water throughout the majority of the coastal plain and consists of coarse-grained fluvial
sands near the Fall Line that grade to fine-grained marine sands and clay in the northern and eastern
Lower Coastal Plain. The majority of the Pee Dee region, including Chesterfield, Darlington, Florence,
and Marlboro Counties, relies heavily on the Middendorf for irrigation, public supply, and industrial use
(SCDHEC 2007b). The sand aquifers of the Middendorf occur to depths as great as 450 feet near the
southern border of the county. Surface water tends to sink rapidly into the soil.
Wells in these aquifers yield as much as 900 gpm, but the potential exists for yields of 2,000-3,000 gpm.
All water in the sand aquifers is fresh. Generally, it is under artesian conditions of occurrence, but there
are some sites where a thick sand bed and deep static water level combine to produce water-table
(unconfined) conditions, and the static (nonpumping) water level is below the top of the aquifer (Newcome
2004). In these cases, the extremely high porosity of the soil combines with the generally high elevation
to produce ground water levels which lie fairly deep below the land surface.
Surface Water – There are four major river systems which drain the State of South Carolina: The
Pee Dee River watershed, the Santee River watershed, the Savannah River watershed and the
Coastal Plain/Edisto River watershed, as illustrated in Figure 13 (Cherry et. al. 2001). The Pee Dee
River basin, which drains about 25 percent of South Carolina, has the largest annual discharge of the
four major basins -- 10.5 billion gallons per day (16,245 cfs) (SCDNR 2005a).
The Carolina Sandhills NWR lies within the drainage basin of the Pee Dee River. The eastern portion
of the Carolina Sandhills NWR is drained by a tributary to the Pee Dee; i.e., Black Creek and its
western tributaries (Skipper Creek, Long Branch, Ham Creek, and Little Alligator Creek). Surface
water in these streams is clear but stained due to the presence of organic acids. Flood plain swamps
occur along some of the larger streams. The western portion of the refuge is drained by another
tributary to the Pee Dee; i.e., Lynches River and its eastern tributaries (Rocky Creek, Sandy Creek,
and Swift Creek-North and South Prongs). The tributaries of Lynches River are similar to those of
Black Creek except that they are deeper and swifter. The mainstream of Lynches River originates in
the Piedmont Plateau near the refuge. This stream is characterized by slightly stained and turbid
water with predominantly clay banks. Pocosin ecotones, swamp hardwood forests, and dense stands
34 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 11. Average annual precipitation, evapotranspiration, and annual water yield
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Figure 12. Generalized hydrogeologic cross-section for South Carolina
````````````````````````````````````
36 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
of evergreen shrubs border these streams, producing some of the best wildlife habitat found on
the refuge. Black Creek (USGS gage 02130900 near McBee) and Lynches River (USGS gage
02131500 near Bishopville) have average annual discharges of about 150 cfs and 500 cfs,
respectively (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] 2009). (These streams seldom flood or dry up
because of the large infiltration capacity of the sandy soil and the large ground-water storage
capacity of the sand aquifer) (SCDNR 2005b).
Air Quality
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 (as amended in 1990 and 1997), requires the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement air quality standards to protect public
health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were set for six pollutants
commonly found throughout the United States: lead, ozone, nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon
monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 and 2.5 microns in
diameter (PM10 and PM2.5) (EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 2009d). The South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Bureau of Air Quality (BAQ)
operates National Ambient Monitoring Stations (NAMS), State and Local Ambient Monitoring
Stations (SLAMS), and industrial monitoring sites to measure concentrations of these pollutants.
The BAQ currently (2005) operates a network of 133 monitors/samplers at 56 sites throughout
the state. "South Carolina currently meets, and has met since the early 1990's, all national
ambient air quality standards. . . Since 2000, air quality in South Carolina has continued to
demonstrate a steady trend of improvement" (SCDHEC, Bureau of Air Quality 2006).
In the vicinity of the Carolina Sandhills NWR, there are two DHEC-BAQ monitoring sites: McBee (site
450250001), Chesterfield County, SC and Darlington (site 450310003), Darlington County, South
Carolina. In addition, data are also available at a nearby monitoring site operated by the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Division of Air Quality in
Monroe (site 371790003), Union County, NC (NCDENR 2009). Areas that meet the NAAQA
standards are designated “attainment areas,” while areas not meeting the standards are termed “non-attainment”
areas. The 2005 monitoring results indicate that the areas surrounding the Carolina
Sandhills NWR qualify as attainment areas for all monitored pollutants, and that regional air quality is
improving; see Tables 3 and 4.
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a summary index for reporting daily air quality to convey how clean or
polluted the air is, and what associated health effects might be of concern. The AQI focuses on
health effects that may be experienced within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. EPA
calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone,
particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen
dioxide. Because all areas of the United States are currently attaining the NAAQS for lead, the AQI
does not specifically address lead. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air
quality standards to protect public health (EPA 2003). Based on this Air Quality Index, EPA
categorizes air quality as "good" in Chesterfield County and the Carolina Sandhills NWR area, with air
pollution posing little or no risk (EPA 2009a, c).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Figure 13. South Carolina watersheds
Source: (Cherry et. al. 2001)
38 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Air quality statistics by city/county, 2007
Air Quality Statistics by City/County, 2007a
Metropolitan Statistical Area
2000
Population
CO
8-hr
(ppm)
Pb
Qmax
(μg/m3)
NO2
AM
(ppm)
O3
8-hr
(ppm)
PM10
24-hr
(μg/m3)
PM2.5
Wtd AM
(μg/m3)
PM2.5
24-hr
(μg/m3)
SO2
AM
(ppm)
SO2
24-hr
(ppm)
Charlotte--Gastonia--Rock Hill,
NC--SC MSA 1,499,293 2 0 0.014 0.096 59 14.0 31 0.003 0.013
Columbia, SC MSA 536,691 2 0.01 0.011 0.084 100 13.7 32 0.003 0.017
Florence, SC MSA 125,761 ND 0 ND ND ND 12.4 32 ND ND
Chesterfield County, SC 42,768 ND ND ND 0.073 36 12.3 26 ND ND
Darlington County, SC 67,394 ND ND ND 0.073 ND ND ND ND ND
Union County, NC 123,677 ND ND ND 0.082 ND ND ND ND ND
National Ambient Air Quality Standards -- 9 1.50 0.053 0.075 150 15 35 0.030 0.140
CO - Maximum 8-hour average concentration must not exceed 9 ppm more than once per year.
Pb - Quarterly maximum concentration must not exceed 1.50 μg/m3 .
NO2 - Maximum annual average concentration must not exceed 0.053 ppm.
O3 - The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration measured must not exceed 0.075 ppm (Effective May 27, 2008)
PM10 - Maximum 24-hour concentration must not exceed 150 μg/m3 , more than once per year .
PM2.5 - The weighted annual mean concentration must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3.
- The 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations must not exceed 35 μg/m3 (Effective December 17, 2006).
SO2 - Maximum annual average concentration must not exceed 0.030 ppm.
- Maximum 24-hour concentration must not exceed 0.140 ppm more than once a year. (Footnotes Continued on Next Page)
ND - Indicates data not available
AM - Annual mean μg/m3 - Units are micrograms per cubic meter
Qmax - Quarterly maximum ppm - Units are parts per million
Notes: Data from exceptional events are not included. The monitoring data represent the quality of air in the vicinity of the monitoring site and,
for some pollutants, may not necessarily represent city/county-wide air quality.
a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/factbook.html
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
Table 4. Regional air quality trends – Charlotte – Columbia – Florence MSA, 1990-2007
Metropolitan
Statistical Area Pollutant Trend Statistic
Number
of Trend
sites
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Charlotte O3 4th Max 2 0.098 0.091 0.085 0.098 0.089 0.094 0.099 0.098 0.107 0.104 0.094 0.093 0.101 0.081 0.080 0.088 0.086 0.092
-Gastonia- PM10 2nd Max 3 56.0 55.3 54.3 50.7 49.0 51.3 48.0 55.0 60.0 50.0 54.0 55.7 43.7 44.7 44.7 48.3 51.7 48.7
-Rock Hill,NC-SC PM2.5 Weighted Annual Mean 4 16.1 15.8 14.7 14.2 14.1 14.7 15.4 14.8 14.3
Pb qmax 1 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0
Columbia,SC NO2 Annual Mean 1 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.013 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.011 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.012 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.012 0.011
O3 4th Max 1 0.093 0.074 0.070 0.089 0.082 0.079 0.077 0.086 0.098 0.094 0.096 0.082 0.084 0.075 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.077
PM10 2nd Max 3 92.3 92.3 98.0 96.3 92.0 90.3 91.0 99.7 129.0 103.7 92.0 90.3 83.0 90.0 83.7 82.3 69.7 67.3
PM2.5 Weighted Annual Mean 3 15.9 15.9 13.8 13.2 12.7 14.2 14.6 14.5 13.4
Pb qmax 1 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0
SO2 Annual Mean 3 0.0027 0.0026 0.0028 0.0027 0.0021 0.0018 0.0026 0.0025 0.0032 0.0031 0.0030 0.0032 0.0028 0.0031 0.0028 0.0029 0.0026 0.0024
Florence,SC PM2.5 Weighted Annual Mean 1 14.4 14.4 13.1 12.2 12.1 12.6 13.0 12.6 12.4
O3 - The fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration measured must not exceed 0.075 ppm (Effective May 27, 2008).
PM10 - Maximum 24-hour concentration must not exceed 150 μg/m3 more than once per year.
Note: Data from exceptional events are not included. These trends are based on sites having an adequate record of monitoring data during the trend period.
The values shown are the composite averages among these trend sites.
Units for CO, NO2, O3, and SO2 are ppm. Units for PM2.5 and PM10.0 are ug/m3.
a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/factbook.html
SO2 - Maximum annual average concentration must not exceed 0.030 ppm.
NO2 - Maximum annual average concentration must not exceed 0.053 ppm.
Pb - Quarterly maximum concentration must not exceed 1.50 μg/m3.
Regional Air Quality Trends - Charlotte - Columbia - Florence MSA, 1990-2007a
PM2.5 - The weighted annual mean concentration must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3.
40 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
WATER QUALITY
The eastern portion of the Carolina Sandhills NWR is drained by Black Creek and its western
tributaries (Skipper Creek, Long Branch, Ham Creek, and Little Alligator Creek). Surface water in
these streams is clear but stained black due to the presence of organic acids. Black Creek originates
near the town of Pageland.
The western portion of the refuge is drained by Lynches River and its eastern tributaries (Rocky
Creek, Sandy Creek, and Swift Creek-North and South Prongs). The tributaries of Lynches River are
similar to those of Black Creek except that they are deeper and swifter. The Lynches River originates
in the Piedmont Plateau near the refuge and is characterized by slightly stained and turbid water with
predominantly clay banks (USFWS 2007a).
Very little water quality information has been collected or is available for the surface waters (streams,
ponds, etc.) of the refuge. Based on soil geology of the region and the natural setting, the streams
and ponds on the refuge are expected to be soft and poorly buffered with low alkalinities, low pH's,
and low conductivities. Nutrient concentrations (phosphorus and nitrogen) and dissolved
concentrations of ionic species (sulfates, chlorides, and metals) are thought to be low; while oxygen
demands are expected to be low with dissolved oxygen concentrations near saturation, at least 5.0
mg/l, or higher. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations are most likely low and as would be expected
in streams in a natural habitat.
Black Creek and its tributaries upstream of State Route 33, in the northern portion of the refuge, are
classified by the State of South Carolina as "FW" [or, freshwaters which are suitable for primary and
secondary contact recreation; as a source for drinking water supply (after conventional treatment);
suitable for fishing, and the survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous aquatic community of
fauna and flora; and, also suitable for industrial and agricultural uses]. Improvements in several
water quality characteristics have been noted in the upstream portions of Black Creek, prior to its
flowing onto the refuge. Higher dissolved oxygen concentrations and lower oxygen demands have
been noted, as well as lower phosphorus concentrations and higher pH levels. Downstream from
SR 33, Black Creek is classified as FW* (i.e., dissolved oxygen not less than 4.0 mg/l and pH
between 5.0 and 8.5), and the tributaries (Skipper Creek, Long Branch, Ham Creek, and Little
Alligator Creek) are classified FW. Monitoring data collected at three sites within the refuge by the
State of South Carolina (PD-670, PD-613, and PD-251) indicate that the water quality (DO, pH, and
toxins) of Black Creek supports aquatic life and recreational use. The water quality of Skipper Creek
(and most likely other tributaries to Black Creek) supports aquatic life (SCDHEC 2007a).
The Lynches River and its tributaries are also classified by the State of South Carolina as FW. Monitoring
data collected on the Lynches River at U.S. Highway 1 (PD-009), indicate that the water quality (DO, pH,
and toxins) supports aquatic life; however, recreational use is only partially supported due to occasionally
high fecal bacteria concentrations. Data also show small improvements in nutrients, with decreasing
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations (SCDHEC 2007a).
Sand mining activities in the headwaters of both Black Creek and Lynches River present a threat
to aquatic resources in the watersheds. Sand mining causes bank stability problems, loss of
riparian area, and altered in-stream habitats. Increased bedloads, higher turbidity, disturbed
substrates and changing stream morphology result in decreasing reproduction and survival of fish
and benthos (SCDNR 2005a).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Ecoregion Habitat
Because of the "Sandhills" location between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plains, the refuge offers a
great diversity of habitat and consequently a great diversity of flora and fauna not found in other parts
of the region. In particular, the Sandhills is one of the last great strongholds of the rare longleaf
pine/wiregrass habitat.
The Sandhills Region displays a unique assemblage of vegetation, classified as xerophytic, or
adapted to dry conditions. The dryness of the area is related to the extremely rapid drainage through
the predominantly sandy soils. Xerophytic vegetation is distinguished by a short broken canopy, a
dispersed distribution of plants, and in some cases, wide expanses of bare soil. The predominant
forest cover consists of longleaf pine and turkey oak, the latter usually in a stunted form when within
the driest uplands. Over time, large areas have been burned, cleared, and cultivated. Today, much of
the area surrounding the refuge is planted in loblolly or slash pine, neither of which is native to the
area. A number of shrubs and herbaceous plants, including species of sparkleberry, wild rosemary,
gopherweed, and sand myrtle, are distinctive elements of the region's vegetation (SCDNR 2000).
Sands deposited up to 10 million years ago form the top layer of the Sandhills. These sands are a
very pure and high-quality source of silica and are mined throughout the sandhills. These deep
sands have created a xeric environment that supports a distinctive type of vegetation dominated by
longleaf pine and turkey oak. This fire-adapted community burns with a frequency interval of 2 to 4
years and may be one of the oldest communities of this type in the southeast. Major brownwater
rivers cut their way through the sandhills on their way from the mountains and piedmont to the sea.
Deep sand ridges, ranging from 300 to over 600 feet above mean sea level, are one of the most
striking and dominant features of the Sandhills. Ridge tops of pure Lakeland and Kershaw Sands,
some up to 30 feet deep, support the most extreme xeric scrub communities of longleaf pine and
turkey oak. The sandy soils on the ridges, excessively drained with low available water capacity,
are low in fertility due to rapid leaching and possess little to no leaf litter. The drier sand ridges are
suitable for agriculture only when managed through fertilization and irrigation. These ridges can
support timber production, particularly of longleaf pine, which is well adapted to deep, dry sandy
soils. Fire is a dominant factor in the ecology of this region. Sandhills pine forests are a fire climax
community; as such, these forests depend on frequent ground fires to reduce hardwood
competition and to perpetuate pines and grasses. Sand ridges that have more clay and silt mixed
with sand support subxeric sandhill scrub vegetation and mesic pine flatwoods. Increased plant
diversity is a result of the more moderate growing conditions. Due to the increase in leaf litter, fire
is an important factor in the maintenance of the subxeric scrub forest and woodlands. These
subxeric to mesic communities can grade into oak-hickory forests or, in the absence of fire, they
may succeed to oak-hickory forests.
Rainwater rapidly percolates through the sand ridges until it reaches clay layers, at which point it
moves laterally until emerging at the surface on side slopes or near the base of sand ridges. These
natural seepage areas result in distinctive wetland habitats embedded within the xeric forests and
woodlands. The community type that develops is determined by the amount of water, the position on
the slope and, especially, by fire. In the absence of fire, this wetland habitat can be forested with
longleaf or pond pines growing over a dense evergreen pocosin-like shrub layer or, with frequent fire,
it can be an open hillside herb bog. Seepage accumulating at the base of the sand ridges results in a
saturated zone that supports a streamside pocosin forest.
42 Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge
The following is a summary and brief description of the six principle habitat types found in the
Sandhills (Level IV) Ecoregion (SCDNR 2005a). Each of these habitats supports a wide diversity of
flora and fauna found on the refuge, which are discussed in CHAPTER II.
 Grassland and early successional habitats -- Grasslands or early successional fields, with cover
provided by grasses, herbs, and shrubs and with few, if any, trees. Also managed open areas
such as meadows, pastures, with or without damp depressions.
 Sandhills Pine Woodland -- A complex of xeric pine and pine-hardwood forest types adapted to
sandy soils. Principally in the Sandhills but also on fluvial sand ridges in the Coastal Plain.
Absent frequent fire, a canopy of longleaf pine (Pinus paulustris) and a sub canopy of turkey oak
(Quercus cerris) prevails, interspersed with scrub oak species and scrub/shrub cover. Frequent
burning leads to development of longleaf pine/wiregrass (Aristida sp.) communities. On lower
slopes sufficiently protected from fire, succession can proceed to oak-hickory forests similar to
those of the Piedmont.
 Seepage Slopes -- Steep slopes with a hard clay pan or fragipan below the sandy soil. Water
percolating downhill is forced to the surface, which results in seasonally or permanently saturated
soils. Vegetation is variable, depending on position on the slope, the amount of peat
accumulation and fire history. Pond pine (Pinus serotina) shrubland is representative,
intergrading with fire-maintained hillside herb bogs on wetter seeps. Steeper slopes support a
mixture of pine species, including longleaf pine and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiania) and a
characteristic shrub layer of titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), sand myrtle (Leiophyllum buxifolium),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) and inkberry (Ilex glabra).
 Ponds and Depressions -- 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, and Pond Pine Woodlands. Landforms include natural and
artificial ponds dominated by cypress and/or swamp tupelo, and Carolina Bays.
 Blackwater Stream Systems -- Tributary streams rising in the sandhills and coastal plain are
commonly known as “blackwater streams” for the color of tannins leaching from decaying
vegetation. Forests on the narrow floodplains formed by these streams typically have a canopy
dominated by swamp tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora) and red maple (Acer rubrum). On
broader sites, bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) can become an important canopy species. Tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), pond pine, loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) are important associates. The shrub layer is open in
areas subjected to the most flooding, or it can be fairly dense and pocosin-like in areas subject to
infrequent flooding. Headwaters and wet flats immediately above the floodplain can support dense,
pocosin-like shrub thickets or, under suitable fire conditions, pure stands of Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyperus thyoides).
 River Bottoms -- Hardwood-dominated woodlands with moist soils that are usually associated with
the floodplains of major rivers that dissect sandhills strata and form a floodplain on underlying
sediments extending into the Coastal Plain. Characteristic trees include sweetgum, loblolly pine,
water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak, cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda), and American holly (Ilex opaca). 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 contain oxbow lakes and pools. Dominant trees are bald cypress and water tupelo
(Nyssa aquatica), swamp tupelo, water elm (Planera aquatica) and red maple.
Land cover changes within the Southeastern Plains (Level III) Ecoregion are very high compared with
most other eastern United States ecoregions, which have experienced deforestation and change.
Planted pine was rarely found in the region in 1950, but now comprises nearly 50 percent of pine
forests in the southeastern U.S. The primary land cover transition is "forest" to "mechanically
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
disturbed," a transition that primarily represents clear-cutting of forest lands. In 2000, the major land-use/
land-cover classes in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion were: forest – 51.8 percent; agriculture
and farmland – 21.5 percent; wetlands – 10.3 percent; urban and developed – 10.3 percent; and,
mechanically disturbed (unvegetated) – 4.9 percent (Griffeth et. al. 2003).
For the Sandhills Region, generally, agricultural production is low due to rapid loss of nutrients,
organic materials, and water from the soil. The loose sandy texture of the soil makes it almost
impossible to retain moisture near the surface. Only 8 percent of the soils in this region are
classified as prime farmland. About two-thirds of the area is forested, and one-third is planted in
crops or pasture (SCDNR 2000). Land use in the upper Black Creek watershed (above Lake
Robinson) which drains the refuge is 68.2 percent forested land, 18.3 percent agricultural land, 7.3
percent scrub/shrub land, 2.6 percent water, 1.5 percent urban, 1.3 percent barren land, and 0.8
percent forested wetland (SCDHEC 2007a).
Aquatic Habitats
Wadeable streams (generally, streams that can be waded comfortably throughout most of the year)
are the dominant aquatic habitat in the Southeastern Plains (Level III) Ecoregion and provide most of
the habitat for aquatic animals on South Carolina’s Priority Species List. These wadeable streams,
such as Black Creek, are often bordered with pondlike backwaters and swamps. Wadeable streams
in the Southeastern Plains are mostly low gradient, although some near the Fall Line have swifter
flows. In moderate flowing areas, the substrate is chiefly clean shifting sand with the absence of
rocks in most streams; logs and debris jams provide habitat for aquatic fauna. In slow flowing areas,
substrate is comprised of finer materials such as mud, clay, silt, and fine detritus. Most Southeastern
Plains streams that receive ample sunlight are well-vegetated with aquatic macrop