Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CAPE ROMAIN NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Charleston County, South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
April 2010
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service ....................................................................................................... 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
Climate Change ............................................................................................................................ 8
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 13
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 13
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 15
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 15
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 16
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 18
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 18
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 19
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 19
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 20
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 20
Climate Change and Global Warming ............................................................................... 20
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 21
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 21
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 21
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 22
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 22
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 22
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 22
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 24
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 27
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 27
Fishing ............................................................................................................................... 29
Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 29
Wildlife Watching Activities ............................................................................................... 30
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 31
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 33
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 35
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 35
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 35
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 36
ii Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 36
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 36
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 37
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 37
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 39
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 39
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 39
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 42
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 42
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 53
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 57
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 64
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 78
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 83
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 83
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 83
Wildlife and habitat Management...................................................................................... 83
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 84
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 84
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 85
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 86
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 88
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 88
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 88
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 89
Section B. Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................... 91
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 91
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 91
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 91
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 92
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 92
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 92
Compatibility ..................................................................................................................... 92
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 93
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 95
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 97
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 97
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 97
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ........................................................... 97
Alternative B ..................................................................................................................... 98
Alternative C - (Proposed Alternative) .............................................................................. 98
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 99
Table of Contents iii
Comparison of Alternatives By Issue .......................................................................................... 99
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 101
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...................................................................................... 117
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 117
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 117
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 117
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 117
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 118
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 118
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 118
Soils ............................................................................................................................... 119
Water Quality, Wetlands, and Flood Plains ..................................................................... 119
Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 119
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 119
Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................................... 119
Public Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 119
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 120
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 133
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 133
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 133
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 134
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 134
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 134
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 134
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 135
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 135
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 136
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 137
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 137
CCP Planning Team ................................................................................................................. 137
Biological Review Team ........................................................................................................... 137
Visitor Services Review Team .................................................................................................. 138
Other Contributors .................................................................................................................... 138
APENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 139
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 149
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 155
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 169
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 169
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 171
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 181
iv Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 197
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 205
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 207
BIRDS ............................................................................................................................. 207
MAMMALS ...................................................................................................................... 213
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES ....................................................................................... 214
FISHES ........................................................................................................................... 216
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS .............................................................................................. 219
(To be included in Final CCP) .................................................................................................. 219
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 220
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Boundary and Location ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2. Wetland Impoundments ....................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3. Cape Island shoreline changes between 1954 and 2006 ..................................................... 41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 86
Table 2. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive conservation plan ......................................................................................... 88
Table 3. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Cape Romain NWR ...................... 101
Table 4. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Cape Romain NWR ............................. 121
vi Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was prepared to guide management actions and
direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in management;
wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and
does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 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 this Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
 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.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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 Cape Romain 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 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 over
95 million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77
million acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several United States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small
wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field
stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act,
manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and
restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also
oversees the Federal Aid program that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes
on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), as defined by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the 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;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection
of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service 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 findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002, volunteers
contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (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
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).
4 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Cape Romain 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 Cape Romain NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources, Ducks Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy, and private landowners.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
 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 their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources and role of refuge within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, 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
Southeastern Coastal Plain (Bird Conservation Region 27) physiographic area represents a
scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have
been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines.
This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
6 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
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
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of South Carolina.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) developed a “Vision for the Future”
when various state conservations agencies were merged together in 1994. This “Vision” guides
management actions of the SCDNR. The basic framework follows.
Mission of the SCDNR:
Our mission is to serve as the principal advocate for and steward of South Carolina’s natural
resources.
Vision of the SCDNR:
Our vision for South Carolina is an enhanced quality of life for present and future generations through
improved understanding, wise use, and safe enjoyment of healthy, diverse, sustainable and
accessible natural resources.
Our vision for the SCDNR is to be a trusted and respected leader in natural resources protection and
management, by consistently making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state’s
natural resources and its people.
Core Values of the SCDNR:
Our actions will be guided at all times by the following shared internal values:
 Teamwork - We will accomplish our mission and achieve our vision through goal-focused,
cooperative efforts that rely on effective internal and external communication and partnering.
 Integrity - We will lead by example, ensuring that our standards are high, and our actions are
fair, accountable and above reproach.
 Dedication - We will maintain a steadfast commitment to the state’s natural resources and our
agency’s mission.
 Excellence - We will always do our best, and continuously strive to improve our processes,
activities, policies, operations, and products.
 Service - We will provide quality service that meets the needs and exceeds the expectations
of the public and our own employees.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Guiding Principles of the SCDNR:
In carrying out our mission, we will continuously strive to:
 Enhance public and private partnerships and open communications necessary to
cooperatively protect and manage the state’s natural resources;
 Ensure that agency decisions and actions regarding the state’s natural resources are based
on a balance of scientific knowledge, strong conservation ethics, objectivity, fairness, and the
needs and interests of the public;
 Ensure the safety and well-being of the public in their use and enjoyment of the state’s natural
resources;
 Ensure the continuation and effective management of hunting, fishing, boating, and other
natural resources-related activities;
 Evaluate and improve agency functions and procedures to ensure efficiency, effectiveness,
and accountability, emphasizing quality service to all customers, internal and external; and
 Foster an organizational culture that emphasizes effective leadership at all levels, a diverse,
well-trained, and professional workforce, and an enjoyable and fulfilling work environment.
Strategy of the SCDNR:
To more effectively accomplish our mission and attain our vision, the SCDNR will work diligently
toward achieving the following overarching goals and objectives during the next 5 years:
1. Enhance the effectiveness of the agency in addressing natural resource issues.
a. Broaden strategies to address the impacts of population growth, habitat loss,
environmental alterations, overuse and other challenges faced in protecting,
enhancing and managing diverse natural resources;
b. More effectively develop, coordinate, and integrate resource-specific conservation and
management plans, research and policies within the agency; and
c. Expand sound application of science for natural resource management and decision-making.
2. Improve the general operations of the agency.
a. Develop and implement department-wide operational plans that clearly connect all
agency activities to specific goals and annual accountability reports;
b. Fully develop the agency’s regional hub system;
c. Continue to develop and maintain modern, well-integrated information systems and
technology throughout the agency;
d. Enhance and maintain effective communications throughout all levels of the agency;
e. Maximize efficiency of internal operations and business procedures; and
f. Aggressively pursue increases in revenue, state and federal funding, and identify new
funding sources to support accomplishment of our mission.
3. Create an agency environment that supports a dedicated, professional workforce.
a. Implement comprehensive workforce planning that is consistent with agency priorities;
b. Expand consistent, agency-wide employee training, retention, and compensation
efforts;
c. Implement initiatives that improve employee morale and teamwork, instill a sense of
pride in the agency, and emphasize the importance of its mission.
4. Enhance public trust and confidence in the agency.
a. Foster more effective communications, outreach, and partnering with the public and
State Legislature;
b. Develop strategies that address divergent public opinion and expectations concerning
issues related to accessibility, use, and protection of natural resources; and
8 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
c. Optimize our customer service through regular monitoring of constituent needs, public
opinion, and agency performance; and
5. Enhance natural resource education to provide the public with knowledge necessary in
making informed natural resource decisions.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of South Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Climate change is the most compelling conservation challenge of our time. Accelerating climate
change will amplify current resource management challenges involving habitat fragmentation,
degradation, and loss, as well as urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water
management. As rising temperatures affect the dynamics of complex natural systems, the potential
exists for mass species extinctions and disruptions. Fortunately, the Service is in a unique position to
help wildlife and ecosystems adapt to a rapidly changing climate.
Facing the climate change challenge requires working on a landscape level to integrate Service
efforts with those of partners such as other federal, state and tribal agencies, conservation groups,
and academic institutions. Moving forward, the Service will engage partners in a dialogue about
working together to apply our resources with the best science to ensure landscapes are capable of
sustaining America’s fish and wildlife for generations to come.
Some of the most challenging climate change management issues include changes in the timing,
location, and intensity of wildfires; changes in rain and snowfall patterns; changes in access to water
resources; altered hydrology in rivers and wetlands; increased frequency of extreme weather events;
and rising sea levels. Further, climate change will amplify existing management challenges involving
habitat fragmentation, urbanization, invasive species, disease, parasites, and water management, all
of which require an emphasis on large areas with interconnected and ecologically functional habitats
capable of sustaining many species rather than single species or isolated or remnant habitats.
A team of Service employees embraced these climate change challenges and developed a Draft
Climate Change Strategic Plan to guide the Service’s climate change efforts. The draft plan
emphasizes adaptation, mitigation, and education, and provides flexibility for resource managers to
be responsive to evolving science, technology, and implementation.
Adaptation refers to management actions the Service and our partners take to reduce the impacts of
climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, and habitats. The two recognized types of adaptive response
to climate change are reactive and anticipatory. Mitigation is human intervention to reduce the
sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. The Service must demonstrate leadership using
carbon sequestration, best practices in natural resource management, and facility, fleet, travel, and
other management strategies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2020. Education involves creating an
essential understanding among Service employees, our partners, and our constituencies that climate
change is real and happening now; climate change threatens fish and wildlife resources that we have
come to value and are entrusted to protect; the Service and our partners need to develop achievable
and effective goals and activities to address rapid, fundamental change in the natural world; and,
perhaps most important, every member of the Service, regardless of position, can do something
meaningful to reduce the threats to fish and wildlife resources from climate change.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Along with this draft plan, the team developed a series of short-term actions, which are already
beginning to be implemented, and a Draft Five-Year Action Plan detailing longer-term actions to
implement the draft plan when it is finalized. While the draft plan and draft action plan are finalized,
the Service will move quickly to begin identifying and filling knowledge gaps, expanding capability to
plan and work with partners, identifying habitats and corridors most important across landscapes, and
effectively anticipating and addressing climate change.
The Draft Five-Year Action Plan establishes a basic framework within which the Service will work to
help ensure the sustainability of fish, wildlife, and habitats in the face of accelerating climate change.
The plan looks broadly at how climate change is affecting fish, wildlife, and habitats; what role the
Service holds in the conservation community as it addresses climate change; and what the Service
will contribute to that community and its campaign to ensure the future of fish and wildlife.
The draft action plan goals listed below expand on the broad categories of adaptation, mitigation, and
education.
 Goal 1 – We will develop and apply capacity for biological planning and conservation design
to drive conservation at broad landscape scales.
 Goal2 – We will plan and deliver landscape conservation that supports climate change
adaptations by fish, wildlife, plants and habitats of ecological and societal significance.
 Goal 3 – We will develop monitoring and research partnerships that will provide complete and
objective information to plan, deliver, evaluate and improve actions that help fish and wildlife
adapt to accelerating climate change.
 Goal 4 – We will achieve carbon neutrality by 2020.
 Goal 5 – We will build capacity to understand, apply and share biological carbon sequestration
science and work with partners to sequester atmospheric GHGs in strategic locations.
 Goal 6 – We will engage Service employees, our public and private partners, our key
constituencies and stakeholders, and everyday citizens in a new era of collaborative
conservation to seek solutions to the impacts of climate change and other 21st century
stressors to fish, wildlife, and habitats.
During FY 2009, the Service began to take key first steps to prepare the agency for ambitious efforts
to adapt to accelerated climate change in 2010 and beyond. The Directorate approved these first
steps and many are being implemented in some of the Service’s regions and programs. These steps
are included in the Draft Five-Year Action Plan.
The 2009 actions build on the Service’s commitment to implement landscape conservation through
the Strategic Habitat Conservation framework and support the FY 2010 climate change budget
proposal, the Service’s transition strategy, the climate change strategic plan, and the short- and long-term
actions now being considered. A summary of the FY 2009 actions follow below.
Develop a national adaptation strategy and inventory and monitoring program.
The Service will work with conservation organizations to address accelerated climate change more
effectively by ensuring actions are coordinated across landscapes and political boundaries. In FY
2010, the Service will conduct feasibility studies for the Inventory and Monitoring Program and
National Adaptation Strategy, supporting a national “blueprint” for these efforts.
Build regional and field technical capacity for climate change adaptation.
Working with our partners, the Service will create and enhance field-level capacity to provide cutting
edge science and information that will help managers in making decisions related to changing
climate. This includes conducting a needs assessment for establishing “regional climate science
10 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
partnerships” that will boost regional capacity for science. This capacity will be housed in regionally
based partnerships called Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which provide field-level capacity
for landscape-scale biological planning and conservation design.
Build climate change leadership and management capacities.
Within the next 2 to 3 years, policy and political decisions of enormous consequence will be made at
national, regional, and state levels. The Service will build capacity to affect these decisions and
capitalize on the talents of its employees by establishing several key professional positions and a
National Climate Change Team.
Identify priority water needs.
The Service will identify and assess priority issues related to water quality and water quantity,
reflecting the best available climate change predictions and estimating the anticipated biological
outcomes.
Address habitat fragmentation.
The Service will provide a report of recommendations and agency progress in promoting habitat
connectivity to achieve species population objectives.
Facilitate international leadership on climate change and wildlife.
The Service will produce a framework and strategy for engaging key countries to share and acquire
knowledge of climate change adaptation, mitigation, and education strategies; facilitate international
exchange of personnel; and identify ways to engage the Service more effectively in the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and other appropriate international forums.
Identify, prioritize, and adjust Service activities to consider the effects of climate change.
The Service will begin looking at areas where climate change can be incorporated into planning both
our agency’s planning efforts and those of state wildlife agencies.
Educate and communicate.
The Service will engage and educate our employees, partners, and stakeholders regarding the
significance of climate change for fish and wildlife. We will also pursue an aggressive internal and
external communications effort to support our climate change and landscape conservation work with
employees, partners, and others.
Reduce the Service’s carbon footprint.
By thoroughly documenting the Service’s carbon footprint, we can begin immediately instituting
practices to avoid global greenhouse gas emissions, minimize unavoidable emissions, and offset
remaining emissions. Our goal is to be a “carbon neutral” organization by 2025.
Expand carbon sequestration for wildlife.
The Service will work with conservation partners to expand terrestrial carbon sequestration
techniques, restore habitat, and conserve wildlife. We will use landscape conservation planning
approaches to determine where, when, how much, and what habitat types should be conserved to
achieve population, habitat, and carbon sequestration objectives.
Review legal, regulatory, and policy issues.
The Service response to climate change must consider necessary and appropriate changes to the
legal, regulatory, and policy frameworks within which we operate. The Service will coordinate a
review of these frameworks to recommend priority changes in the legal, regulatory, or policy
framework that are necessary to encourage and support effective response to climate change.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Assess species vulnerability to guide conservation.
Vulnerability assessments will help identify the species and landscapes at greatest risk from accelerated
climate change, and therefore constitute a crucial initial investment. The Service will develop and test
climate change risk and vulnerability assessment methodologies for fish and wildlife species.
Consider climate change in grant criteria.
Service programs that administer grant programs, as appropriate, will review, evaluate, and develop
new criteria that will direct appropriate funding to projects that specifically address climate change.
Assist in shaping energy policy.
Solutions to global warming are likely to focus on clean energy development. The Service will
exercise its responsibility as a stakeholder in America’s energy future by helping to shape energy
policy that considers conservation and energy development objectives.
The Service believes that immediate action regarding climate change is critical because:
 climate change is the single greatest conservation challenge of the 21st century;
 climate change is increasingly a determinant of mission success for the Service and our
partners;
 climate change reinforces our current direction of change and efforts to build partnership-based
capacities for landscape-level conservation; and
 climate change requires immediate re-evaluation of near-term conservation priorities and
approaches, and an alignment of our work to ensure we are investing limited resources wisely
to achieve the most important conservation outcomes on landscapes impacted by climate
change.
12 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Established in 1932 as a migratory bird refuge, Cape Romain NWR encompasses a 22-mile segment
of the southeast Atlantic coast. The refuge consists of 66,267 acres which include barrier islands,
salt marshes, intricate coastal waterways, long sandy beaches, fresh and brackish water
impoundments, and maritime forest. Points of interest include Bulls Island, Cape Island, and
Lighthouse Island where two lighthouses, no longer operational, still stand.
The refuge's original objectives were to conserve in public ownership habitat for waterfowl,
shorebirds, and resident species. In recent years, objectives have expanded to include: managing
endangered species, protecting the 29,000 acre Class 1 Wilderness Area, and preserving the Bulls
Island and Cape Island forests and associated diverse plant communities. Currently, the refuge is
actively working to aid the recovery of the threatened loggerhead sea turtle.
Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits and recreational opportunities served by the lands and
waters of the refuge, Cape Romain NWR was established under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act,
the Fish and Wildlife Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act, thus outlining the primary purposes of these
lands and waters:
“for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“to conserve and protect migratory birds…and other species of wildlife that
are listed…as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or
develop adequate wildlife habitat.” 16 U.S.C. 715i (Migratory Bird
Conservation Act)
“for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and
protection of fish and wildlife resources." 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) "for the benefit
of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or
affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude." 16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1) (Fish
and Wildlife Act of 1956)
“suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development,
(2) the protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered
species or threatened species.” 16 U.S.C. 406k-2 (Refuge Recreation Act
(16 U.S.C. 406k-406k-4), as amended)
“so as to provide protection of these areas…and to ensure…the preservation
of their wilderness character.” (Wilderness Act of 1964, Public Law 88-577.)
14 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Boundary and Location
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
 Cape Romain NWR is designated a Class 1 Wilderness Area for 29,000 acres.
 Cape Romain NWR is designated critical habitat for the federally listed piping plover.
 Cape Romain NWR is a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site of
International Importance.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (people, plants, animals, and
microorganisms), their physical surroundings (such as soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles that
sustain them. All of these components are interconnected and managing any one component affects
the others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (a single stand of aspen) or large (an entire
watershed including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships).
The Service adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because we can't just look at a single
animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that surrounds it. We all realize that we are not
going to achieve total conservation within the boundaries of a refuge; that we are not going to restore
aquatic resources with a national fish hatchery; and that listing an endangered species is not going to
conserve the entire ecosystem. All of the components are interconnected. If we disturb or manage
one, all of the others will be affected. The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all
of the biological resources within a watershed and it considers the economic health of communities
within that watershed. A watershed is the total land area from which water drains into a single
stream, lake, or ocean.
Comprising one of the 53 ecosystems around the country, the Service’s Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee
Ecosystem (SSPD Ecosystem) includes the entire State of South Carolina, as well as the
northeastern portion of Georgia, and the southwestern portion of North Carolina. The SSPD
Ecosystem encompasses approximately 52,500 square miles and is divided into four main
physiographic provinces including the Blue Ridge Mountains, Piedmont, Carolina Sandhills, and
Coastal Plain provinces. Two major types of river systems traverse these provinces. Alluvial rivers
originate in the mountains and piedmont and include the Great Pee Dee, Savannah, Congaree,
Wateree, Catawba, and Santee rivers. Blackwater rivers originate in the coastal plain and include the
Cooper, Ashley, Edisto, Salkahatchie, Combahee, Ashepoo, New, Four Holes, Little Pee Dee,
Waccamaw, Black, and Lumber rivers. The SSPD Ecosystem includes several important areas with
protective designations, including 14 national wildlife refuges, six national forests, four national fish
hatcheries, two national estuarine research reserves, and more than 50 state parks.
A considerable acreage of tidal freshwater swamp and marsh are associated with the major river
systems. In addition, the SSPD Ecosystem contains numerous palustrine wetlands that are isolated
or contiguous with freshwater stream and river systems. The river basins drain into an extensive
estuarine network of saltwater marsh with tidal creeks, inlets, and sounds intermixed with barrier, sea,
and marsh islands. The estuarine system fuels the base of the marine food chain and provides
tremendous nursery grounds for commercially important fish and shellfish.
The SSPD Ecosystem supports large populations of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, game and non-game
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and anadromous fish. The habitats within the SSPD Ecosystem
fall within the Atlantic Flyway. Forage, refuge, cover, and staging areas for a variety of migrating
waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, raptors, and shorebirds is provided. The several species of flora
and fauna listed as federally threatened or endangered in the SSPD Ecosystem are indicative of the
development pressures and habitat loss incurred. Approximately 37 animal and 31 plant species are
16 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
listed as federally threatened or endangered within the SSPD Ecosystem. Numerous species of plants
and animals are candidates for listing but are not currently receiving federal protection. Several federally
protected species depend on the SSPD Ecosystem for some portion of their life cycle, such as eastern
cougar, West Indian manatee, red wolf, five species of whales, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia
big-eared bat, Indiana bat, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, wood stork, piping plover, red-cockaded
woodpecker, Bachman's warbler, eastern indigo snake, loggerhead and other sea turtles, shortnose
sturgeon, Carolina heelsplitter, and many plant species.
The biggest problem facing the SSPD Ecosystem is the loss of habitat through direct destruction and
fragmentation, or from other impacts from human activities. The predominant stresses for the SSPD
Ecosystem are: population growth, tourism, agriculture, silviculture, shipping ports, water
channelization, urbanization, aquifer depletion, fire suppression, invasive species, non-point source
pollution, and point source pollution. The actions of the SSPD Ecosystem Team are guided by two
categories: trust resources and management issues. The trust resources include: migratory birds,
anadromous fish, endangered species, and marine mammals. The management issues focus on:
habitat protection and management, habitat restoration, contaminants, regulatory compliance, law
enforcement, and biodiversity.
To address these threats, the management issues, and the needs of the trust resources, the SSPD
Ecosystem Team pursues a mix of objectives under the following seven goals.
 To protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands and their
associated habitats on a landscape scale.
 To recover and enhance threatened, endangered, and species of special concern and the
habitats upon which they depend.
 To protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they
depend.
 To manage national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries to serve as models of
effective conservation of natural resources.
 To increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation in carrying out the
Service’s mission through cooperative outreach efforts.
 To protect, enhance, and manage interjurisdictional and diadromous fish populations and the
habitats upon which they depend.
 To perpetuate healthy native plant and animal communities threatened by invasive native and
non-native plants and animals.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in FY 2002. Under this new program, Congress
provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and
implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement of
SWG was that each state completes a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by
October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and focus management on “species
in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds be used to manage and conserve
declining species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.
In May 2002, the SCDNR began a process to develop the CWCS that was funded through the SWG
program. The SCDNR committed to developing the strategy and began implementing the
conservation actions on October 1, 2005. The goal of the strategy was to emphasize a cooperative,
proactive approach to conservation while working with federal, state, and local governments; local
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
businesses; and conservation-minded individuals to join in the effort of maintaining the fish and
wildlife resources of South Carolina (SCDNR, no date).
South Carolina’s 2005 CWCS deemed the following actions to be critical: (1) Increase baseline biological
inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of native species; (2) increase
commitment by natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, and academia toward establishing
effective conservation strategies; (3) increase financial support and technological resources for planning
and implementation of these strategies; and (4) create public-private partnerships and educational
outreach programs for broad-scale conservation efforts (SCDNR, 2006).
South Carolina possesses diverse wildlife. Its habitats range from the Appalachian Mountains to the
Atlantic Ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as
many of those groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, 12
taxonomic groups are included in the strategy: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater
fishes, diadromous fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels,
freshwater snails, and insects (both freshwater and terrestrial).
The CWCS identified 1,240 species to include on the state’s Priority Species List. Reports were
prepared for each species, guild or indicator; in these reports, authors described the species, their
status, population and abundance, habitat needs, challenges, conservation accomplishments, and
conservation actions. This approach allows for identification of both general conservation strategies
for wildlife and habitats in South Carolina, as well as development of species-based conservation
strategies. SCDNR also identified habitats critical for the priority species considered in the CWCS.
Both terrestrial and aquatic habitats were considered and reports were prepared for 38 habitats
(terrestrial and marine) organized within 5 ecoregions, as well as 13 ecobasins, which characterize
the freshwater aquatic habitats of the state.
Eight categories of conservation strategies (Conservation Action Areas, or CAAs) were developed:
Education and Outreach; Habitat Protection; Invasive and Nonnative Species; Private Land Cooperation;
Public Land Management; Regulatory Actions; Survey and Research Needs; and Urban and Developing
Lands. Within each CAA, conservation actions were condensed from the recommendations prepared for
each animal on the Priority Species List. Some of the actions identified will affect all species included in
the CWCS; others may affect only a few species. Each of these actions was prioritized and measures
that indicate success of implementing the action were identified.
The CWCS considers monitoring to be crucial. Project leaders are required to produce annual
progress reports for review by a steering committee and the CWCS coordination team. These reports
will be evaluated for insight into adaptive management needs and reassessments of the CWCS.
South Carolina’s CWCS also places strong emphasis on partnerships. Successful conservation
efforts are advanced through a strong collaborative involvement between all resource stakeholders,
whether private or public, governmental or nongovernmental. Task forces were convened to assist in
determining important natural resource issues in South Carolina. Taxa teams were assembled to
determine challenges to species and conservation actions to address those challenges. SCDNR also
held public meetings to gather input from the citizens of the state. Prior to submission of the CWCS,
SCDNR began creating Conservation Action Committees around the CAAs identified above.
18 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Threats to wildlife in South Carolina and the nation first began to be recognized a century ago in the
form of habitat destruction from unrestrained logging and the spread of agriculture as well as
unregulated harvest for sporting and commercial purposes. After World War II, the challenges
associated with sustaining wildlife populations began to accelerate and change dramatically. Many
states, among them South Carolina, entered a period of rapid, sustained economic expansion and
human population growth. During these “boom times,” South Carolina’s economy and workforce
began to shift away from ones based primarily on agriculture. Migration into the state from other
states (and later from other countries) increased substantially and the urban populations began to
dominate the rural population demographically (SCDNR 2006).
Statewide, over 100,000 acres per year were converted from forests, farmland and other open space to
urban uses from 1992 to 1997, making South Carolina the ninth-ranked state nationally in terms of total
land area developed annually (USDA 1997). According to the same report, the National Resources
Inventory, prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the growth rate from 1982 to 1992 was only 40,000 acres per year. Thus, land
conversion was accelerating during this 15-year period. These recent urban land conversion rates
represent a major burst of growth; this development trend and the conversion of rural lands to
urbanized uses – with their attendant impact on habitat for wildlife – continue unabated today.
Strong economic forces are also transforming South Carolina’s agricultural economy. Rising costs
and falling prices are creating hardships for many family farms. As of 1997, there were approximately
4.5 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina, representing an 18 percent drop since
1982. Long-term declines in farmland are even more dramatic: in 1954, 124,203 farms were
producing goods in South Carolina and 57 percent of the land in the state consisted of farms. By
1992, the number of farms in the state had been reduced to only 20,242, comprising 23 percent of
South Carolina’s land use (SCDNR 2006).
As South Carolina’s population continues to grow, placing ever greater pressure on undeveloped lands in
the state, and driving conversion from rural to urban land uses, new challenges threaten the state’s fish
and wildlife. Additionally, long-standing downward trends in numbers of some species that previously had
been overlooked have become more evident. In a recent state-by-state analysis of biodiversity conducted
for the Nature Conservancy, South Carolina ranked 14th among all states in total number of native plant
and animal species and 15th in terms of risks to native species. In a planning exercise conducted in
1994, SCDNR biologists estimated that as many as one-third of the state’s vertebrate species were
already then, or soon would be, experiencing serious declines (SCDNR 2006).
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Atlantic
Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in South Carolina. The species
most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special habitat.
Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species, primarily
through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 200 species of breeding migratory
songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species have
declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These species
need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of wetlands and
indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography
and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to wetlands
and habitat relationships.
Extensive alterations to the region’s hydrology occurred related to development, river channel
modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns
of flooding throughout the entire Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem, in terms of both
extent and duration of flooding, in comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment
of the flooding regime has had an enormous impact on wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent
species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge changes based
on atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include
erosion, sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather
disturbances.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of
native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to
movement prevent anadromous fish from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many
other aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from
land surface pollution runoff are exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural
wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes
to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and water hyacinth. Static water levels caused by the lack of
annual flooding and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created
conditions favorable for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic
plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive
growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species
threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a
degree that often prevents recreational use.
20 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Various species of non-native wildlife and fish also flourish in this southern coastal climate. Animals
like feral hogs have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The refuge is characterized by generally pleasant weather. The southerly latitude, proximity of the
ocean, and sea level elevation are the determining climatic factors which produce warm, humid
summers and relatively mild temperate winters. The average maximum/minimum temperatures for
July and January respectively are 89 F/73 F and 60 F/40 F and nearly 240 frost-free days are
reportedly annually. Roughly 15 percent of the area’s rainfall is associated with tropical storms. The
coastal area of South Carolina is a moderately high-risk zone with respect to hurricane occurrences
and destruction. Rainfall averages about 50 inches per year.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently concluded that warming of the
climate is undeniable and could cause changes in our stewardship of land. Examples of potential
changes are altered fire regimes, rain and snowfall patterns, access to water resources, hydrology in
rivers and wetlands, frequency of extreme weather events, and rising sea level at coastal refuges.
Global climate change poses risks to human health and to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Important economic resources, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and water, also may be
affected. Warmer temperatures, more severe droughts and floods, and sea-level rise could have a
wide range of impacts. All these stresses can add to existing stresses on resources caused by other
influences such as population growth, land-use changes, and pollution (IPCC 2007).
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about
1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The 10 warmest years in the 20th century have all occurred within the past
15 years, with the warmest 2 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. Increases in
atmospheric CO2 are attributed largely to human activities, which have grown rapidly since 1945. The
burning of fossil fuels adds 5.6 billion tons of carbon, and deforestation contributes another 0.4 to 2.5
billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year.
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets, will cause sea levels to rise. Globally,
sea level has risen 4 to 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. Considering that land less than 10 meters
above sea level contains 2 percent of the world's land surface but 10 percent of its population, major
impacts could be felt by large numbers of people living on the low-lying coastlands, particularly the
Gulf and east coast states.
Changes in coastal wetlands due to sea-level rise were modeled for Cape Romain NWR using the Sea
Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM). This model simulates the dominant processes involved in
wetland conversions and shoreline modifications during long-term sea-level rise (Clough and Park 2006,
www.warrenpinnacle.com/prof/SLAMM). Dramatic changes are projected for Cape Romain NWR’s
marshes and other near-shore habitats under the 1-meter sea-level rise scenario.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Salt marshes throughout the refuge would likely convert to open water, and barrier islands shrink in size.
In addition to the rising seas, the effects of climate change and global warming will be changes in
weather/rainfall patterns, decreases in snow and ice cover, rising sea levels, and stressed
ecosystems. For the southeastern United States this can mean extreme precipitation events; greater
likelihood of warmer/dryer summers and wetter/reduced winter cold; and, alterations of ecosystems
and habitats due to these changes in weather patterns–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.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The refuge consists primarily of barrier islands and salt marsh. The barrier islands are low elevation
and have beaches and dunes on the ocean side with a mix of forest and wetlands toward the interior
depending on elevations.
SOILS
The refuge contains basically three major soil associations. These include the Crevasse-Dawhoo
complex; Rolling, Coastal beaches and Dune land; and Tidal marsh, Soft. Soil characteristics are
closely associated with natural drainage characteristics. Crevasse soils are excessively drained,
sandy soils on long narrow ridges. Ridges are 25 to 60 feet in width, 5 to 15 feet in height, and 200 to
over 1,000 feet in length. Dawhoo soils are level to depressional, very poorly drained, sandy soils in
narrow troughs between ridges. Troughs are 10 to 40 feet in width and from 300 to 1,000 feet in
length. Coastal beaches and Dune land consist of sandy shoreline and sand dunes that border the
Atlantic Ocean. Shoreline areas are nearly level fine sand beaches that are flooded twice daily by
ocean tides. Dunes, which are formed by wind, are mounded areas of dry, loose sand. Tidal marsh,
soft consists of broad, level tidal flats that are covered by 6 to 24 inches of saltwater at high tide. The
surface layer is a dark colored soft clay, clay loam, muck, or peat and is saturated. It is underlain by
gray to dark-gray, soft, fine-textured clayey material that is permanently saturated. The tidal marsh
soils contain sulfide and if the soil becomes drained or aerated, the sulfide oxidizes and creates
sulfuric acid (Miller 1971).
HYDROLOGY
The barrier islands of Cape Romain NWR are part of a dynamic coastal system that are continually
shaped by erosion, sedimentation, storms, sea level rise, and surrounding development (Daniels et al
1993, Sexton 1995, Pilkey and Dixon 1996). Historically, the Santee River delta supplied sediment
that maintained the beaches and land mass of refuge islands. However, the construction of dams
and diversion canals in the 1940s stopped the supply of sediment and altered the hydrology and
geomorphology of the system (Brown 1977, Lennon 1996, Hockensmith 2004). The loss of sediment
supplied by the Santee River resulted in widespread massive erosion that will continue to occur
(Lennon 1996). The loss of sediments coupled with sea-level rise is likely to accelerate the loss of
beaches and habitats on refuge islands (Titus and Richman 2001).
22 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
AIR QUALITY
Charleston County generally has good air quality and is considered to be in attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including lead, particulate matter below 2.5
microns in diameter (PM-2.5), particulate matter below 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), and sulfur
dioxide (Scorecard 2005).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Prior to the dams constructed in the 1940s, the Santee River was the fourth largest river system in
terms of streamflow on the east coast (Hockensmith 2004). The annual mean discharge of the river
below the dams dropped from 18,500 cubic feet per second to 2,600 cubic feet per second
(Hockensmith 2004). In 1985, flows to the Cooper River were rediverted to the Santee River, which
brought the mean annual streamflow to 10,900 cubic feet per second (Hockensmith 2004). Periodic
releases of freshwater through the Santee River dam influences water quality in the refuge, especially
in the northern section (Kracker and Meaburn 2006). Timing and release of water through the dam
likely has an effect on biota and warrants further study (Kracker and Meaburn 2006). Overall, water
quality was good and exhibited normal variation typical of a marine influenced salt marsh ecosystem
(Kracker and Meaburn 2006).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Estuarine Emergent Wetlands
Cape Romain is primarily (75 percent) composed of estuarine emergent wetlands dominated by
smooth cordgrass. During high tide, the wetlands can be completely inundated. As the water level
rises in the marsh, it carries with it aquatic organisms including fish, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates. Estuarine wetlands are very important as nursery habitat for juvenile fish, crabs, and
shrimp that take rRefuge among the vegetation for protection from predators. When the tide recedes,
these organisms often remain in the marsh trapped in pools of water at lower elevations until the next
high tide. Such pools provide excellent foraging opportunities for birds as the aquatic organisms may
be highly concentrated within these refugia. The wide variety of organisms supported by estuarine
marshes is linked to the range of salinities that occur there. When rain falls upstream in the Santee
River drainage, it flows downstream and discharges into the estuaries surrounding Wolf and Egg
Islands. This freshwater temporarily lowers the salinity in the estuaries, making them habitable for
organisms that prefer fresher water. Alternatively, when rainfall is limited and salinity levels rise in the
estuaries, more saline tolerant species can move in from the Atlantic Ocean and those intolerant of
high salinity migrate upstream into the river system.
Beaches, Dunes, and Sand Bars
Because of dredging operations up the coast in the Santee River delta, the barrier islands in the
Santee delta are sand starved. Littoral drift occurs from north to south, therefore, sand that
historically came out of the Santee River harbor drifted south to deposit along the barrier islands,
including Cape Romain. This sand is now dredged from the river and deposited on upland disposal
sites, robbing the system of its sand supply. Cape Romain NWR has been eroding for the past 70-80
years, changing in size and shape.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Figure 2. Wetland Impoundments
24 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Dunes, beaches, and sand bars are critical for migratory birds as loafing and roosting habitat. Even
more critical for shorebirds are the invertebrate prey populations these habitats support. Horseshoe
crabs spawn in the intertidal zone during high tides in May. The eggs produced by this effort provide
excellent, high-quality food resources for migrating shorebirds including red knot, short-billed
dowitcher, marbled godwit, ruddy turnstone, and American oystercatcher. In addition, burrowing
benthic organisms such as Donax sp., surf clam Mulina, angelwing, arc, and other small bivalves are
eaten, providing additional critically important food resources. Crustaceans including fiddler crabs,
ghost shrimp, and other small shrimp are utilized by Wilson’s plover, gull-billed tern, whimbrel,
marbled godwit, long-billed curlew, and American oystercatcher.
Maritime Forest
Cape Romain NWR contains 2,109 acres of maritime forest located mostly on Bulls Island. The
maritime forest is dominated by live and southern magnolia and cabbage palm. The dominant
understory species are red bay, yaupon, American holly, wax myrtle, and saw palmetto. There are
loblollies and slash pines interspersed throughout and on the fringes (younger portion) of Bulls Island.
A disruptive event (i.e., severe storm or wild fire) would shift the dominant overstory to the faster
growing pine species. The frequency of such events would dictate the climax community. Frequent
storms and/or wildfire would result in the maintenance of a “fire climax” pine dominated community.
This could be controlled, to an extent, by using prescribed fire during winter months resulting in
reduced fuel loads and far less severe wild fire potential. However, the remoteness of the island,
difficulty of accessing the forest and small size of this forest community would not make prescribed
fire economically feasible. In addition, wild fire could not escape the island to cause damage to
private property, currently the frequency of wild fire and/or severe storm events would not maintain
the forest in a fire climax community and the desirable state is a naturally functioning wilderness
maritime forest community.
Maritime Scrub-Shrub
Maritime scrub-shrub habitat forms on the margins and within the maritime forest, especially on Bulls
Island. This scrub-shrub habitat is utilized by neotropical migratory and resident songbirds, and is
excellent nesting habitat for painted buntings.
WILDLIFE
Sea Turtles
Cape Island is home to the largest nesting population of turtles within the northern subpopulation of
the southeastern loggerhead sea turtle. The northern subpopulation, or nesting aggregation, consists
of those loggerheads that nest from North Carolina to around Cape Canaveral, Florida. These turtles
are isolated from all other nesting turtles in the southeast based on genetic studies involving
mitochondrial DNA. With an average of 1,000 nests per year, Cape Island is the most significant
loggerhead nesting beach north of Cape Canaveral.
During the 2008 nesting season, approximately 1,431 loggerhead sea turtle nests were laid on the Cape
Romain NWR. Of these, 1,325 nests were laid on Cape Island (1,114) and Lighthouse Island (211)
between May 12 and August 16. The 2008 nesting season total is the second highest nesting year since
1979. In addition, two leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) nests were laid on the refuge. On June 17 a
nest was laid on Cape Island, and on August 14 a second nest was laid on Bulls Island. This is the
second year of recorded leatherback sea turtle nesting on the refuge.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Nesting Shorebirds
Cape Romain NWR is one of 500 Important Bird Areas by the American Bird Conservancy due to its
importance for nesting shorebird and colonial beach nesting birds. The refuge provides nesting habitat
for Wilson's plovers, American oystercatchers, willets, and black-necked stilts. Wilson's plovers and
American oystercatchers are both species of significant conservation concern, listed as high and
extremely high priority species, respectively, in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al.
2000). Both species nest on beach fronts and washed shell rakes that accrete on the edge of marshes
and form small islands in bays. Willets and black-necked stilts are both listed as moderate priority in
the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000) but are still worthy of consideration.
Reproductive success of American oystercatchers is low and the primary cause of loss of eggs is
overwash in all habitats (Thibault 2008 and report). Predators such as raccoons and mink are present
and may also be a major cause of loss. The highest density of American oystercatchers in South
Carolina can be found on Cape Romain NWR, with as many as 184 pairs of oystercatchers. In 2009,
approximately 50 pairs of Wilson’s plovers were counted in Cape Romain NWR, which also may be the
highest density of nesting in South Carolina (SCDNR unpublished data).
Non-breeding, Migrating, and Over-wintering Shorebirds
Cape Romain NWR provides important stopover habitat for a variety of shorebirds that are of
conservation concern. The Cape Romain Region, Cape Romain NWR and marshes and beaches
south to Dewees Inlet supports almost 2,000 American oystercatchers in the winter (Sanders et al.
2004). This is almost 1/5 of the estimated American oystercatcher population on the Atlantic and Gulf
coasts of the United States (Brown et al. 2005). Individuals wintering here represent every nesting
population on the Atlantic coast from South Carolina north and flocks move regularly in and out of the
refuge. American oystercatchers are listed as an extremely high-priority species in the regional
shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Marbled godwits are identified as a species of high priority for conservation in the regional shorebird
conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
The subspecies rufa, which winters in TDF and potentially on the southeastern coast of the United
States, is of special concern as the population has experienced a precipitous decline from 30,000 to
17,000 individuals between 2004 and 2005. Recently, the Service received a proposal for
emergency listing of this subspecies due to these population declines. Red knots are considered to
be an extremely high priority in the regional shorebird conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Other species of importance using the refuge during migration include long-billed curlew, short-billed
dowitcher, and whimbrel. These species use beaches for roosting and forage in the
shallow water surrounding the refuge as well as exposed mudflats during low tides. These
three species are all identified as high conservation priority species in the regional shorebird
conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2000).
Nesting and Foraging Colonial Beach Nesting Waterbirds
Cape Romain NWR does not support high levels of beach nesting colonial waterbirds presently.
However, a large colony of brown pelicans, royal terns, black skimmers with small numbers of least,
sandwich, gull-billed, Forster, and common terns exists. However, Cape Romain NWR supports the
largest number of natural nesting least terns in the state as development has forced them to rooftops.
The royal tern colony on Cape Romain NWR fluctuates between 600 and 2,500 nests per year. The
beaches of the refuge provide important roosting habitat for nesting and post-fledging birds. In
26 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
addition, these birds use the waters within and around the refuge for foraging. Cape Romain NWR is
a very important region of the southeastern United States due to its ability to support large numbers
of nesting and foraging waterbirds.
Nesting and Foraging Long-legged Wading Birds
The estuaries and marshes of Cape Romain NWR and the surrounding area provide important
foraging habitat for long-legged wading birds, and potentially could become nesting sites for the
roseate spoonbill and wood stork. A variety of wading birds use the entire Santee River Delta
and its associated wetlands to forage on small fish and estuarine invertebrates. Notably, there
has been an increasing number (~15) of reddish egrets in the area post-breeding, the highest
number in South Carolina. These are primarily dark plumaged adults. Nesting has been
documented in the state only on Cape Romain NWR (1-2 pairs in recent years). This species has
been expanding its range northward in Florida. It is reasonable to expect that nesting may
increase at Cape Romain NWR in the near future.
There is some concern that food resources for these species have been impacted and could suffer
greater impacts in the future. The introduction of flathead catfish into the Santee River system has
caused a severe reduction in the abundance of sunfish and bullhead catfish species (preferred forage
for wood storks and other wading birds). In addition, reduction in water quality and/or quantity would
have negative impacts on forage species.
Wintering and Breeding Secretive Marshbirds and Sparrows
There are nearly 30,000 acres of wetlands inside the boundary of Cape Romain NWR. These
wetlands are primarily emergent estuarine marshes dominated by Spartina alterniflora (smooth
cordgrass). Other wetland types include a small amount of higher marsh and open salt marsh panne
habitat. During winter (August through May), coastal cordgrass marsh is critically important for the
saltmarsh sharp-tailed and Nelson's sharp-tailed sparrow. These species typically forage on insects
and cordgrass seeds during winter. These birds are extremely secretive and limited to this specific
estuarine salt marsh habitat. Other secretive marshbirds such as seaside sparrow, least bittern, and
clapper rail utilize the refuge's salt marshes for nesting. Black rails nest in high salt marsh which is
characterized by infrequent tidal inundation and dominated by cordgrass (Spartina patens, S.
alterniflora, S. cynosuroides, S. bakeri), pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), and saltgrass (Distichlis
spicata). This species has been identified as a species of very high concern in the regional waterbird
conservation plan (Hunter et al. 2006). A specific monitoring protocol has been developed for
secretive marshbirds as part of the National Marshbird Monitoring Program. There is also a
centralized database where survey results are compiled and stored.
Reptiles
Very little is known about the herpetofauna on the refuge. The Coastal Plain is a very important
region overall for herpetofauna in South Carolina with high species diversity, habitat diversity, and
several rare, threatened, and endangered species occurring there. Of the approximately 142+
species of amphibians and reptiles found in the state, 113 occur in the Coastal Plain and 50 of these
are endemic to this province, in South Carolina. With the complete inundation of Little Egg Island,
reptiles are probably nonexistent there. Cape Romain NWR has hammocks of scrub-shrub habitat
and reptiles may be present, especially on Bulls Island.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Diamondback terrapins are abundant in the waters adjacent to the refuge and we suspect high
numbers are nesting on Egg and Cape Romain Islands. Presently, the two largest threats to the
species at Cape Romain NWR are depredation of nests by raccoons and crab pot mortality from
drowning. The University of Georgia’s Marine Extension Service (MAREX) recently completed a
study examining the effectiveness of several terrapin excluder devices on crab traps. Funded by the
Environmental Resources Network (T.E.R.N.), MAREX personnel examined five excluder devices in
St. Simons and St. Andrew estuaries during the summers of 2003 and 2004 (see
http://www.dtwg.org/Regional/GA%20BRD%20synopsis.pdf). A serious problem could occur to the
population if a fishery was initiated as had occurred in the Chesapeake Bay years ago almost causing
a total loss of the local population. Currently, it is illegal to sell diamondback terrapins and there is a
two per person limit, therefore, there should be no danger of a “legal” fishery beginning that could
result in total loss of the local population.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The refuge is rich in the history of South Carolina. Sewee Indians inhabited the area before the
arrival of the settlers. The tidal creeks and bays provided the natives with ample supplies of fish,
oysters, and clams. Several native middens are located on the refuge. English settlers in South
Carolina made their first landing in the New World on Bulls Island to replenish their stocks of wood,
water, and food before proceeding further south. They eventually established the first permanent
European settlement in South Carolina at the present city of Charleston.
Bulls Bay and the creeks behind Bulls Island were reputed hideouts for pirates plundering ships along
the coast. The remains of the Old Fort on Bulls Island are believed to have been a martello tower built
in the early 1700s. Stories of retreating British warships restocking supplies on Bulls Island during
the Revolutionary War, Confederate blockade runners using refuge tidal creeks, and the Union troops
destruction of the martello tower, used as a Confederate powder magazine, are documented.
In 1925, Gayer Dominick, a banker and broker from New York, purchased Bulls Island with the intent
of making it a private hunting preserve. He had the Dominick House built and made improvements to
the existing impoundments to attract waterfowl. In 1936, Mr. Dominick conveyed the island to the
Service to become part of the refuge.
Two lighthouses, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, still stand on Lighthouse Island.
The first was built in 1827 and is the oldest of its kind still standing in the United States. The second,
built in 1857, stood watch over the coastal area until 1947. Although neither is operational, they are
still used as daytime landmarks for ships and fishermen.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Cape Romain NWR is located offshore in Charleston County, South Carolina, with Awendaw and
McClellanville as the two closest towns. The primary industry related activities in the area include
commercial fishing and forestry.
Commercial fisheries are important to the economic and social fabric of Awendaw and McClellanville.
In particular, McClellanville is a primary center for shrimp harvesting and processing. Fishery
products serve local markets as well as other larger regional markets. In addition to the direct
economic impacts of the fisheries, fishing communities also serve as focal points for other residents
not directly supported by the fisheries.
28 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Recreational fishing in freshwater and saltwater is an activity that attracts people without regard to
race, sex, or income level and can often influence the economy of an area (Hammond and Cupka
1977; Smith and Moore 1981). A variety of fishing opportunities exist in and around Cape Romain
NWR, in habitats that range from rivers to intertidal marshes, creeks, and the ocean surf.
Marine recreational fishery resources at the refuge have become very important to the economics of
the area. Most recreational fishing is from small boats, but bank anglers utilize the areas around
landings and bridges. In general, boating anglers undertake fishing for specific fish species, while
bank anglers simply catch what they can and keep most everything. Fishing licenses are required to
fish from a boat and for bank fishing.
Estuarine waters around Cape Romain NWR are considered to be among the best inshore saltwater
fishing locations in the state. Inshore anglers may fish in the surf along the beaches of the barrier
islands as well as from bridges, piers, and boats throughout the many rivers and tidal creeks in the
surrounding area. Shore-based fishermen catch a variety of species in the marine waters including
spot, Atlantic croaker, bluefish, summer and southern flounders, spotted seatrout, red drum, black
drum, pinfish, southern and gulf kingfish, and sheepshead. White and brown shrimp are the species
most sought by recreational shrimpers, as well as several different types of small sharks and rays.
The blue crab is the primary recreationally caught crab with some incidentally caught stone crab.
High levels of exploitation by fishermen coupled with the loss of productive habitat due to coastal
development and pollution have a major impact on estuarine recreational finfish stocks. For some
species such as red drum, a gradual reduction in the recreational harvest has been implemented by
measures such as size limits and bag limits. Assessments are regularly done to determine if such
measures result in reduced mortality of highly sought recreational species throughout the region.
In 1790, South Carolina’s total resident population numbered 249,073 people. According to data
collected in 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of South Carolina to be
4,147,152 people, a 3.4 percent increase from 2000. South Carolina saw a 15.1 percent population
increase from 1990 to 2000. The average population density in this state is 133.2 people per square
mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Of the over 19 million acres of land in the state, seven percent (over 1.3 million acres) is publicly
owned, while 93 percent (17,912,789 acres) is privately owned. The vast majority of the state is
characterized as non-federal rural lands (non-federal referring to all lands in private, municipal, state
or tribal ownership). Land use on non-federal lands in the state, which total 18,115,500 acres, is
primarily forestland. South Carolina saw a 20 percent increase in developed lands between 1992
and 1997 (USDA 2000) and continues to see similar rates of conversion in land use.
As of 2002, there were approximately 4.85 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina
(USDA 2003). In 1982, there were approximately 5.5 million acres in agricultural production which
amounts to a 12 percent drop in 20 years. The average farm in South Carolina was approximately
197 acres in size in 2002; up 2 percent from an average of 193 acres in 1997 (USDA 2003). The
market value of agricultural products sold in 2003 totaled over $1.6 billion with top outputs in poultry,
tobacco, and greenhouse/nursery production. Counties in South Carolina with the highest
agricultural yields in 2002 were Lexington, Kershaw, York, Dillon and Orangeburg (USDA 2003).
South Carolina is rich in non-fuel raw minerals with a total of over $506 million produced in 1997 (U.S.
Department of the Interior 1998). The most common minerals produced in South Carolina are:
cement, clays, gemstones, peat, sand, gravel, and crushed stone. In 1997, South Carolina was the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
top producer of vermiculite, ranked fourth in masonry cement, sixth in common clays, third in kaolin,
and fifth in crude mica. Portland cement and crushed stone was estimated at $193 and $155 million
respectively for 1997.
According to results of the USDA Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) published in 2000,
12.3 million acres of land in South Carolina is forested (Conner and Sheffield 2000). Non-industrial
private owners, including individual and corporate timberland owners not associated with the forest
product industry, own 74 percent of these lands. Timberland ownership under corporate control has
increased in recent years to 19 percent or 2.0 million acres. The percentage of forests managed by
the forest products industry has decreased 14 percent, from 2.3 million to 2.0 million acres over the
FIA study period. Public land ownership increased to 1.2 million acres. Total softwood production
increased 14 percent to 9.2 billion cubic feet while hardwood production increased just over 4 percent
to 10.2 billion cubic feet.
FISHING
In 2001, 812 thousand state residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older fished in South
Carolina. Of this total, 571 thousand anglers (70 percent) were state residents and 241 thousand
anglers (30 percent) were nonresidents. Anglers fished a total of 10.7 million days in South
Carolina— an average of 13 days per angler. State residents fished 9.8 million days, 91 percent of
all fishing days within South Carolina compared to nonresidents who fished 910 thousand days—9
percent of all fishing days in the state.
Anglers 16 years old and older spent $559 million on fishing expenses in South Carolina in 2001.
Trip-related expenditures including food and lodging, transportation, and other expenses totaled $318
million, or 57 percent of all their fishing expenditures. They spent $127 million on food and lodging
and $64 million on transportation. Other trip expenses such as equipment rental, bait, and cooking
fuel totaled $127 million. Each angler spent an average of $400 on trip-related costs during 2001.
Anglers spent $228 million on equipment in South Carolina in 2001, or 41 percent of all fishing
expenditures. Fishing equipment (e.g., rods, reels, line) totaled $79 million, or 35 percent of the
equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., tents, special fishing clothes) and special
equipment expenditures (e.g., boats, pickups) amounted to $148 million, or 65 percent of the
equipment total. Special and auxiliary equipment are items that were purchased for fishing, but could
be used in activities other than fishing. The purchase of other items such as magazines, membership
dues, licenses, permits, stamps, and land leasing and ownership amounted to $13 million—2 percent
of all fishing expenditures.
HUNTING
In 2001, there were 265 thousand residents and nonresidents, 16 years old and older, who hunted in
South Carolina. Resident hunters numbered 221,000 accounting for 83 percent of the hunters in
South Carolina. There were 44,000 nonresidents who hunted in South Carolina, or 17 percent of the
state's hunters. Residents and nonresidents hunted 4.7 million days in 2001, for an average of 18
days per hunter. Residents hunted on 4.4 million days in South Carolina or 94 percent of all hunting
days, while nonresidents spent 307 thousand days hunting in South Carolina, or 6 percent of all
hunting days.
Hunters 16 years old and older spent $305 million in South Carolina in 2001. Trip related expenses
such as food and lodging, transportation, and other trip costs totaled $96 million, or 31 percent of
their total expenditures. They spent nearly $36 million on food and lodging and $42 million on
transportation. Other expenses such as equipment rental totaled $18 million for the year. The
30 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
average trip-related expenditure per hunter was $361. Hunters spent $158 million on equipment, or
52 percent of all hunting expenditures. Hunting equipment (e.g., guns, ammunition) totaled $108
million and comprised 68 percent of all equipment costs. Hunters spent $50 million on auxiliary
equipment (e.g., tents, special hunting clothes) and special equipment (e.g., boats, pickups),
accounting for 32 percent of total equipment expenditures for hunting. Special and auxiliary
equipment are items that were purchased for hunting but could be used in activities other than
hunting. The purchase of other items such as magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, and
land leasing and ownership cost hunters $52 million, or 17 percent of all hunting expenditures.
WILDLIFE WATCHING ACTIVITIES
In 2001, 1.2 million U.S. residents 16 years old and older fed, observed, or photographed wildlife in
South Carolina. Approximately 88 percent or 1 million of the wildlife watchers enjoyed their activities
close to home and are called "residential" participants. Those persons who enjoyed wildlife at least 1
mile from home are called "nonresidential" participants. People participating in nonresidential
activities in South Carolina in 2001 numbered 331,000, or 28 percent of all wildlife watchers in South
Carolina. Of the 331,000, 204,000 were state residents and 128,000 were nonresidents.
South Carolinians 16 years old and older who enjoyed nonresidential wildlife watching within their
state totaled 204,000. Of this group, 195,000 participants observed wildlife, 100,000 photographed
wildlife, and 87,000 thousand fed wildlife. Since some individuals engaged in more than one of the
three nonresidential activities during the year, the sum of wildlife observers, feeders, and
photographers exceeds the total number of nonresidential participants.
Bird watching attracted many wildlife enthusiasts in South Carolina. In 2001, 742,000 people
observed birds around the home and on trips. The majority, 78 percent, or 582,000, observed wild
birds around the home while 39 percent (291,000) took trips away from home to watch birds.
Participants 16 years old and older spent $256 million on wildlife-watching activities in South Carolina
in 2001. Trip related expenditures, including food and lodging ($56 million), transportation ($25
million), and other trip expenses such as equipment rental ($8 million) amounted to $89 million. This
summation comprised 35 percent of all wildlife watching expenditures by participants. The average
trip-related expenditure for nonresidential participants was $269 per person in 2001.
Wildlife-watching participants spent $149 million on equipment, or 58 percent of all their expenditures.
Specifically, wildlife watching equipment (e.g., binoculars, special clothing) totaled $113 million, 76
percent of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., tents, backpacking
equipment) and special equipment expenditures (e.g., campers, trucks) amounted to $36 million, or
24 percent of all equipment costs. Special and auxiliary equipment are items that were purchased for
wildlife-watching recreation but can be used in activities other than wildlife-watching activities. Other
items purchased by wildlife watching participants such as magazines, membership dues and
contributions, land leasing and ownership, and plantings totaled $18 million, or 7 percent of all
wildlife-watching expenditures.
Further information regarding fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching activities can be found in the following
survey: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The increasing human population in the coastal South Carolina Lowcountry area, including the
Cape Romain NWR, brings a host of challenges to the area in general and to the refuge in
particular. Higher resident and tourist populations will require more resorts, services, and
commercial development, especially along the Atlantic seaboard and major rivers. Additional
demands will likely occur for housing, government services, and infrastructure features such as
recreational areas and additional transportation systems. These demands, in turn, will exert
greater pressures on the area’s natural environment. Human population, real estate
development, and economic growth are contributing factors to the decline of wildlife and suitable
habitats, open space such as grassy fields and timber plantations, and traditional lifestyles within
local communities. These demands affect land use all around the refuge boundaries.
The refuge has a management agreement with South Carolina that provided jurisdiction over most of
the waterways within the refuge acquisition boundary, with the exception of the regulation of the take
of fin fish and shell fish. The waterways contend with a variety of wildlife disturbances, including
motor boats, personal watercraft, houseboats, and associated dumping, and other recreational
pressures. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, which borders the refuge, serves as an important
route for commercial and recreational boat traffic.
Land Acquisition
The Service acquires lands and interest in lands, such as easements, and management rights in
lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other congressional
guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlife-dependent
public use for recreational and educational purposes.
The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means,
such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available or effective. When land
is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the
minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full
consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the
impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.
The Service, like all federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of
condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however,
requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing
sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the
property’s appraised market value, as established by an approved appraisal that meets professional
standards and federal requirements.
Wildland Fire Management
It is the policy of the Service to use fire when it is the most appropriate management tool for reaching
habitat objectives. Wildfires, however, would be aggressively suppressed unless such natural fires
are a part of an approved fire management plan. Protection of people and property is the top priority
within the fire management program.
32 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Opportunities to use prescribed fire as a management tool on the refuge are limited. However,
emergent wetlands and upland forest habitat types are most likely to benefit from the use of
prescribed fire as a management tool. Management of emergent wetlands can be accomplished
through some combination of prescribed burning on 3-year cycles or managing water levels.
Burning, mowing, and removal are used on some wetlands to manipulate vegetation or to control
shrub encroachment. Burning is an important management tool in some managed wetland areas to
reduce tree and shrub encroachment for the establishment of moist-soil plants that provide food for
wintering waterfowl. A program of prescribed fire is used on maritime sandhills and longleaf pine
communities as a management tool for reducing fuel loadings and manipulating vegetation to meet
refuge objectives.
VISITOR SERVICES
Presidential Executive Order 12996 and the Improvement Act recognized six priority public uses on
national wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was
established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, which “have been and are expected to continue to be
generally compatible uses.” However, these six uses are by no means the only permitted public uses
of national wildlife refuges; other uses have been and can continue to be permitted, provided that
they are determined to be compatible with the refuge purposes, including hiking, biking dirt roads,
canoeing, kayaking, fishing, and general boating.
Environmental Education and Interpretation
Environmental education and interpretation programs are regularly scheduled at the Sewee Visitor
and Environmental Education Center, which is jointly operated by Cape Romain NWR and Francis
Marion National Forest. Coastal Expeditions, the special use permit holder for the refuge, conducts
guided interpretive tours on Bulls Island.
Wildlife Observation and Photography
With over 277 species of migratory and resident birds recorded on the refuge, bird watching
opportunities are good throughout the year. (See the bird checklist.) Other wildlife you may
encounter on Bulls Island include the black fox squirrel, white-tailed deer, alligator, and other reptiles.
With its beautiful vistas and diversity of wildlife, the refuge offers endless opportunities for nature
photography.
Hiking Trails
There are two hiking trails located on Bulls Island. The forested 1-mile Middens Trail takes one past
the remains of Native American shell mounds. The 2-mile Turkey Walk Trail, designated a National
Recreation Trail, meanders through forest, along salt marsh, and over dikes separating freshwater
impoundments. A wildlife viewing platform is located at one of the impoundments. There are also 16
miles of roads open for hiking and biking. Bicycles are not allowed on the hiking trails or beach.
Fishing
Fish the saltwater bays and creeks found within the refuge and surf-fish off of the beaches, catching
spottail bass, spotted seatrout, flounder, sheepshead and black drum year-round. Go shrimping and
crabbing and harvest oysters and clams when in season, which is typically September through May.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
You may also fish and crab on the Garris Landing pier. All activities are allowed in accordance with
state regulations. Fishing inside Bulls Island impoundments is prohibited.
Hunting
The harvest of surplus animals is a tool used to manage wildlife populations. Managed hunts
maintain wildlife populations at a level compatible with the environment and provide recreational
opportunities. Two annual 6-day archery hunts for white-tailed deer are offered at Bulls Island, with
each scheduled hunt beginning the second Monday of November and December. Refuge rail hunts
are the same as the state season.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
The refuge and the South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex Headquarters office is located in the
town of Awendaw, South Carolina, a small community with a population of approximately 1,100
people. Refuge lands border lie east of the Intracoastal Waterway and encompass a geographic
area that is approximately 22 miles of coast line. The refuge facilities include the headquarters
building, the Sewee Visitor Center, Dominick House, Garris Landing pier and boat ramp,
Maintenance shop, and Bulls Island equipment storage area. The refuge’s mechanized equipment
includes numerous trucks, farm tractors, all-terrain vehicles, a loader/backhoe, bulldozer, several
small boats, a transport barge, and a fire engine. The refuge staff currently includes five funded
positions and a seasonal position. The refuge receives additional support from the South Carolina
Lowcountry Refuge Complex staff.
Position Status % of time on
Cape Romain
% of time on SC
Low Country
Complex
Project Leader GS-0485-14 FTE 25 75
Refuge Manager GS-0485-12 FTE 100 0
Refuge Biologist GS -0401-11 FTE 100 0
Supervisory Park Ranger GS-0025-12 FTE 60 40
Administrative Officer GS-0341-9 FTE 75 25
Natural Resource Planner GS-0401-12 FTE 25 75
Park Ranger GS-0025-07 FTE 100 0
LE Officer GS-0025-09 FTE 40 60
Maintenance Worker WG-4749-08 FTE 100 0
Maintenance Worker WG-4749-08 FTE 100 0
Biological Technician GS-404-05 PPT 50-95 0
34 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
The process of developing this Draft CCP/EA began in August 2004, with a comprehensive visitor
services review conducted to evaluate the refuge’s public use and environmental education and
interpretation programs. This review involved a team of four visitor services specialists, including two
from the Service’s Southeast Regional Office and two from other national wildlife refuges. In
November 2004, a biological review conducted by a team of 15 biologists representing the refuge, the
Service, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, and
Ducks Unlimited. The team conducted a review of the refuge’s existing biological programs and
developed a set of recommendations for future desired conditions. In February 2007, a team of 11
biologists representing the refuge, the Service, SCDNR, the Nature Conservancy, and Ducks
Unlimited conducted a Wetland Habitat Management Review of Bulls Island. The review team
evaluated current management of the Bulls Island impoundments and provided recommendations for
future management. The recommendations of the visitor services review, biological review, and
wetland management review teams helped determine the alternatives, goals, objectives, and
strategies that are included in this Draft CCP/EA. The participants of the visitor services review team,
biological review team, and wetland management review team are identified in Section B, Chapter V.
The core CCP planning team for Cape Romain NWR consisted of six staff members from the Service.
This team was the primary decision-making team for the plan. The key tasks of this group involved
defining the vision for the refuge; identifying, reviewing, and filtering the issues; defining the goals;
outlining the alternatives; and drafting the plan. The CCP planning team members are:
 Kevin Godsea, Refuge Manager, Cape Romain NWR
 Raye Nilius, Project Leader, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex
 Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex
 Sarah Dawsey, Wildlife Biologist, Cape Romain NWR
 Ray Paterra, Supervisory Park Ranger, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex
 Patricia Lynch, Park Ranger, Cape Romain NWR
The planning team reviewed the recommendations of the visitor services, biological review, and
wetland management review teams and conducted a comprehensive review of the refuge’s overall
natural resource management and public use programs. It also conducted additional internal scoping
and prepared a preliminary schedule, a mailing list, and plans for public involvement. A notice of
intent to prepare a CCP for the refuge was published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2007.
The planning team held a public scoping meeting on December 17, 2008, at the Sewee Visitor and
Environmental Education Center in Awendaw, South Carolina. Meeting notices were published in the
local newspapers; meeting notices were posted at the refuge; and invitations were mailed to
approximately 65 individuals and groups. A total of 35 members of the public attended the meeting.
The comments from this public scoping meeting are summarized in Appendix D.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection; habitat restoration; public recreation; and management of threatened and
endangered species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates and
36 Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge
applicable local ordinances, regulation