Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
September 2009
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ACE BASIN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Beaufort, Charleston, Colleton, and Hampton Counties, South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2009
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
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
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 14
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 14
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 15
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 15
Hydrology .......................................................................................................................... 15
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 16
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 16
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 16
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 16
Wildlife - Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................ 18
Waterfowl .......................................................................................................................... 19
Wading Birds and Shorebirds ........................................................................................... 19
Landbirds .......................................................................................................................... 19
Mammals ........................................................................................................................... 22
Reptiles and Amphibians .................................................................................................. 22
Fish .................................................................................................................................. 23
Nuisance Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 24
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 24
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 25
Fishing ............................................................................................................................... 29
Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 30
Wildlife Watching Activities ............................................................................................... 30
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 31
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 32
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 32
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................. 33
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 33
ii Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 33
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 34
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 34
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 35
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 35
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 35
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 37
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 37
Vision ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 38
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 39
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 62
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 63
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 68
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................ 73
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 73
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 73
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 73
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 74
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 74
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 74
Refuge Administration ....................................................................................................... 75
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 75
Partnership and Volunteer Opportunities ................................................................................... 79
Step-down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 79
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 80
Plan Review and Revision .......................................................................................................... 80
VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 81
Overview .................................................................................................................................... 81
CCP Planning Team ................................................................................................................... 81
Biological Review Team ............................................................................................................. 81
Visitor Services Review Team .................................................................................................... 82
Other Contributors ...................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................ 83
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED ............................................................... 91
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS................................ 95
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 109
Summary of Public Scoping Comments ................................................................................... 109
Summary of Comments on the Draft CCP/EA .......................................................................... 111
Charleston Ecological Services Field Office Comments ................................................. 111
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 115
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 127
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 151
APPENDIX H. REFUGE BIOTA ....................................................................................................... 161
APPENDIX I. BUDGET REQUESTS ................................................................................................ 173
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 173
APPENDIX J. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 175
APPENDIX K. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................ 177
iv Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Combahee Unit map. ........................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Edisto Unit map. .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3. Jehossee Island Wetland Management Units. .................................................................... 57
Figure 4. Current organizational chart, ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge. ..................................... 77
Figure 5. Proposed organizational chart, ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge. ................................. 78
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Bird species utilizing impoundments in the ACE Basin ......................................................... 20
Table 2. Some reptiles and amphibians in the ACE Basin ................................................................. 22
Table 3. ACE Basin NWR deer harvest for fiscal years 1998-2003 .................................................... 50
Table 4. Jehossee Island wetland management units (WMUs) with acreages ................................... 56
Table 5. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 75
Table 6. Refuge step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive conservation plan ......................................................................................... 79
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) developed this Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
for Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge (ACE Basin NWR) to guide the refuge’s
management actions and direction over the next 15 years. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive
first priority in refuge management, while wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the refuge
and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) described the Service’s proposed
plan, as well as the other alternatives considered and their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA
was made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general
public for review and comment. All comments were considered in the development of this final CCP.
Substantive comments and the Service responses are provided in Appendix IV, Public Involvement.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role that ACE Basin NWR will play in support of the mission
of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and to provide long-term guidance to the refuge’s
management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
Specifically, the CCP will:
 provide a clear statement of the refuge’s management direction;
 provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
 ensure that the Service’s management actions, including its land protection and
recreation/education programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife
Refuge System; and
 provide a basis for development of the refuge’s budget requests for operations, maintenance,
and capital improvement needs.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service traces its roots to 1871 through the establishment of the Commission
of Fisheries primarily 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 with 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 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin 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, 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 (Improvement Act) of 1997 established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System
(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;
 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
 retain the authority of refuge managers to determine compatible public uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following are just a few examples of the Service’s 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 overhunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated the
once-abundant herds. The drought conditions of the Dust Bowl during the 1930s severely depleted
breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges established during the Great Depression focused
on protecting waterfowl production areas such as the 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, economic benefits to local communities
similarly increase. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120
per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, providing more than $2.2 million to 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 2003).
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. Further, it states that the Service should
develop and implement a process to ensure opportunities 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 CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service
compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin 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. A selected number of legal treaties and laws relevant to the administration of the Refuge
System and management of ACE Basin NWR is summarized in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to natural, historical, and cultural resources; research and recreation on refuge lands;
and provide a framework for cooperation between ACE Basin NWR and other partners, such as the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, The Lowcountry
Open Land Trust, Nemours Wildlife Foundation, 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 within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, as well as
consultation with others both inside and outside the Service.
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 refuges 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 CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Partners in Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative 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 physiographic area (Bird Conservation Region 27) represents a
scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native land birds, primarily nongame land birds. Nongame land birds have
been vastly underrepresented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines.
This plan is voluntary and nonregulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations.
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 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The North American Waterbird Conservation
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
identify 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 cumulatively 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.
In South Carolina, the Service partners with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
(SCDNR). The SCDNR developed a “Vision for the Future” when various state conservation
agencies were merged in 1994. This “Vision” document guides the management actions of the
SCDNR. The basic framework is as follows:
Mission of the SCDNR: The mission is to serve as the principal advocate for and steward of South
Carolina’s natural resources.
Vision of the SCDNR: The 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. The 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: The SCDNR’s 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
Guiding Principles of the SCDNR: In carrying out its mission, the SCDNR 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.
Strategies of the SCDNR: To more effectively accomplish its mission and attain its vision, the
SCDNR will work diligently toward achieving the following overarching goals and objectives during the
next 5 years:
 Enhance the effectiveness of the agency in addressing natural resource issues.
 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;
 More effectively develop, coordinate, and integrate resource-specific conservation and
management plans, research, and policies within the agency;
 Expand sound application of science for natural resource management and decision-making;
 Improve the general operations of the agency;
 Develop and implement department-wide operational plans that clearly connect all agency
activities to specific goals and annual accountability reports;
 Fully develop the agency’s regional hub system;
 Continue to develop and maintain modern, well-integrated information systems and
technology throughout the agency;
 Enhance and maintain effective communications throughout all levels of the agency;
 Maximize efficiency of internal operations and business procedures;
 Aggressively pursue increases in revenue, state and federal funding, and identify new funding
sources to support accomplishment of our mission;
 Create an agency environment that supports a dedicated, professional workforce;
 Implement comprehensive workforce planning that is consistent with agency priorities;
 Expand consistent, agency-wide employee training, retention, and compensation efforts;
 Implement initiatives that improve employee morale and teamwork, instill a sense of pride in
the agency, and emphasize the importance of its mission;
 Enhance public trust and confidence in the agency;
 Foster more effective communications, outreach, and partnering with the public and State
Legislature;
 Develop strategies that address divergent public opinion and expectations concerning issues
related to accessibility, use, and protection of natural resources;
8 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
 Optimize our customer service through regular monitoring of constituent needs, public opinion,
and agency performance; and
 Enhance natural resource education to provide the public with knowledge necessary in
making informed natural resource decisions.
The SCDNR’s participation and contribution throughout the planning process for this CCP has
provided 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 the integration of common mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
ACE Basin NWR is located within the 350,000-acre Ashepoo–Combahee–Edisto (ACE) Basin
Project. The ACE Basin Project is widely recognized as a unique and critical environment marked by
a wide diversity of wildlife and plants and represents the largest estuarine resource in South Carolina.
The refuge is composed of two units, together comprising approximately 11,815 acres. The Edisto
Unit consists of 7,203 acres and is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the city of
Charleston, South Carolina in Charleston County (Figure 1). The Combahee Unit consists of 4,612
acres in Beaufort, Colleton, and Hampton Counties and is located approximately 20-25 miles
northwest of the city of Beaufort, South Carolina (Figure 2).
The refuge’s two units are drained by two significant river systems: the Combahee–Salkahatchie,
which flows through the Combahee Unit; and the South Edisto, which flows adjacent to the Edisto
Unit. Many broad, low-gradient interior drains are present as either extension of tidal streams and
rivers or flooded bays and swales. Within this diverse drainage system, the refuge contains
exceptionally diverse wildlife habitat including high-quality forested wetlands, forested uplands,
brackish natural marshes, freshwater natural marshes, managed marshes or wetland management
units, marsh islands, and pristine estuarine rivers.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
ACE Basin NWR was established on September 20, 1990. The refuge was renamed the Ernest F.
Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge on May 16, 2005, in honor of South Carolina’s retired
U.S. Senator Ernest F. Hollings. The refuge is a partner in the ACE Basin Task Force, a coalition
consisting of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources,
Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, The Low Country Open Land Trust, Mead Westvaco, and
private landowners of the ACE Basin system. The refuge’s two separate units (Edisto Unit and
Combahee Unit) are further broken down into subunits, with the Edisto Unit containing the Barrelville,
Grove and Jehossee subunits, and the Combahee Unit containing the Bonny Hall, Combahee Fields,
and Yemassee subunits. The refuge has been separated into nine management units or
compartments that range in size from 350 to 3,355 acres. The compartment boundaries are
established along geographic features that can be easily identified on the ground (i.e., rivers, roads,
trails, etc.).
Recognizing the importance of the ACE Basin system for wetland and habitat protection, migratory
bird benefits and conservation opportunities served by the lands and waters of the refuge, the Service
administratively designated ACE Basin NWR in 1990 under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
of 1986, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Migratory Bird Act, thus outlining the primary
purposes of these lands and waters:
"...the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits
they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird
treaties and conventions..." 16 U.S.C. 3901(b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986).
10 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Combahee Unit map
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Edisto Unit map
12 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
"... 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).
”... 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).
The natural character and diverse habitats of the ACE Basin system have been protected by historical
good fortune. From about 1750 to 1850, much of the basin was owned by a few people who
managed their wetlands primarily to grow rice. After the rice culture declined in the late 1800s,
wealthy sportsmen purchased many of the tidewater plantations as hunting retreats. The new owners
successfully managed the former rice fields and adjacent upland estates for a wide range of wildlife.
Presently, the area has enormous natural value precisely because private landowners have tended it
so wisely. Undeveloped, the area has not been polluted; the habitat remains diverse and extremely
productive. Particularly significant are the wetlands. These include 91,000 acres of fresh, brackish,
and saltwater tidal marshes. Included are about 26,000 acres of managed impoundments and more
than 55,000 acres of forested wetlands.
So important to waterfowl are these wetland areas that the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan identified the ACE Basin system as one of two "flagship" projects within the Atlantic Coast Joint
Venture. A task force consisting of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Carolina Department
of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, and private landowners in the
basin was established to coordinate efforts and identify the best options for accomplishing the overall
goal of protection of the area. The task force identified several options for accomplishing this, one of
which was that the establishment of a national wildlife refuge would be necessary for the success of
the joint venture project.
The refuge acquisition boundary currently includes approximately 18,000 acres. ACE Basin NWR
was established in accordance with the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 3582-
91) for “…the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they
provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and
conventions…” 16 U.S.C. 3901 (b) (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986). The primary
purpose of the refuge is to conserve a nationally significant wildlife ecosystem that will provide a
complex of habitats for wintering waterfowl, endangered species, other migratory and resident birds,
mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and plants.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
ACE Basin NWR is designated as an Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society. The ACE
Basin system is the largest undeveloped estuary in South Carolina. The Edisto River is the longest
free-flowing blackwater river on the east coast of North America.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (e.g., people, plants, animals,
and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (e.g., soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles
that sustain them. All of these components are interconnected and managing any one component
affects the others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (i.e., a single stand of aspen) or large
(i.e., an entire watershed including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships).
The Service adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because it cannot look at a single
animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that surrounds it. All of the components are
interconnected. If one is disturbed or managed, all of the others will be affected. The ecosystem
approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a watershed and it
considers the economic health of communities within that watershed. A watershed is the total land
area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean.
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—Blue Ridge Mountains, Piedmont, Carolina Sandhills, and Coastal Plain.
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; 6 national forests; 4 national fish hatcheries; 2 national
estuarine research reserves; and more than 50 state parks.
A considerable acreage of tidal freshwater swamp and marsh is 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
nongame mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and anadromous fish. The habitats within the SSPD
Ecosystem fall within the Atlantic migratory bird flyway. Forage, refuge, cover, and staging areas for a
variety of migrating waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, raptors, and shorebirds are provided. The
several species of flora and fauna that are federally listed as threatened or endangered in the SSPD
Ecosystem are indicative of the development pressures and habitat loss incurred. Approximately 37
species of animals and 31 species of plants are federally listed as 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 the eastern cougar, West Indian manatee, red wolf,
5 species of whales, 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.
14 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
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, nonpoint 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, threatened and 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 and endangered species 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
nonnative plants and animals.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The ACE Basin Project, of which the refuge is a part, was initiated in 1988 when Ducks Unlimited,
Inc., The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, and a number of private landowners came together and formed the ACE Basin
Task Force. “ACE” stands for the three major rivers in the basin—the Ashepoo, Combahee, and
Edisto. The 358,000-acre ACE Basin is one of the largest undeveloped estuarine-wetland
ecosystems remaining along the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Currently, approximately 190,000 acres of the
basin had been brought under various forms of conservation management.
The mission of the ACE Basin Project is to maintain the natural character of the basin by promoting
wise resource management on private lands and protecting strategic tracts by conservation agencies.
A major goal of the protection efforts is to ensure that traditional uses such as farming, forestry,
recreational and commercial fishing, and hunting will continue in the area.
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 are
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
60º/40º Fahrenheit (F) for January and 89º/73º F for July. Nearly 240 frost-free days are reported
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.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The refuge is part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province and consists of low-lying broad
sand ridges and terraces which are relic Pleistocene coastal deposits. The seaward edges of these
sand ridges and terraces are buried by coastal marshes which are from the middle to late Holocene
(less than 5,000 years old). The major river valleys are composed of broad floodplains containing
oxbow lakes, meander scroll or point bar deposits, natural levees, and sand dunes. During the
Wisconsin glacial event of the late Pleistocene, these rivers flowed into an ocean 100 to 200 meters
below its present level. A rising sea level during the late Wisconsin and early Holocene (15,000 to
10,000 years ago) resulted in the formation of the various river valley dune sheets and caused a shift
from wide, sandy, braided river beds to the present-day narrow, meandering channels.
SOILS
The refuge contains basically five major soil associations. These include the Coosaw–Williman and
Torhunta–Osier–Pickney associates, which are dominantly loamy soils; the Bladen–Argent–Wahee
association, which is dominantly loamy soil having a clayey subsoil; and the Pungo–Levy and Bohicket–
Capers–Hansboro associations, which are dominantly mucky and clayey soils that are flooded. Soil
characteristics are closely associated with natural drainage characteristics. Generally, these soils are
saturated or seasonally wet except on slight ridges where drainage is good. Most are acid to strongly
acid. The tidal marsh soils consist of a sediment layer deposited over an older sand layer. The
sediments contain a thin, dark brown, layer and a black, lower layer rich in reduced compounds
(sulfides of iron and other metals) resulting from anaerobic decomposition of organic matter.
The pH of the sediments in this anaerobic layer is generally neutral. However, if the sediments are
subjected to drying and consequent aeration, as occurs during impoundment construction or
management, the pH can be lowered to 2.0 as the sulfides are oxidized to form sulfates, including
sulfuric acid. The resulting soil, known as cat clay, can inhibit plant growth and impoundment
utilization for many years.
HYDROLOGY
The refuge is drained by two significant river systems: the Combahee–Salkahatchie and the South
Edisto. Many broad, low-gradient interior drains are present as either extensions of tidal streams and
rivers or flooded bays and swales. The major rivers’ combined average freshwater flow of
approximately 2,500 cubic feet per second empties into St. Helena Sound, a drowned river valley/bar-built
estuary. St. Helena Sound is relatively deep (15-30 ft.) except on large banks and flats and has
a mean tidal amplitude of 6.1 feet at the mount to 7.2 feet at the ocean reaches. Salinities range from
sea strength at the mouth to freshwater in the upper reaches.
The refuge’s mean tidal amplitude ranges from around 2 feet on the upper reaches of the Combahee
to 5 feet on the lower area along the South Edisto. Salinities range from freshwater in the upper
reaches to 6-7 ppt. on the lower reaches, with seasonal deviations dependent on precipitation.
16 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
AIR QUALITY
Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort, and Hampton Counties generally have good air quality and are
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
Water quality standards in the basin are designated as Class SA by the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control. Class SA waters are suitable for the harvest of shellfish and other
fishery resources, swimming and other water-body contact sports, and high-quality uses. The South
Edisto River is classified as SAA, the highest possible rating given to water bodies in South Carolina.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The ACE Basin system is one of the largest undeveloped estuaries on the east coast. Formed by the
convergence of three free-flowing rivers—the Ashepoo, Combahee and Edisto—the basin includes nine
marsh and barrier islands, upland pine forests, bottomland hardwoods, and freshwater marshes.
With its meandering blackwater rivers, dense cypress swamps and teeming estuary, the ACE Basin
system supports migratory waterfowl, wood storks, southern bald eagles, loggerhead turtles,
alligators, bobcats, and minks. During the early 1980s, the ACE Basin was a critical landscape in the
recovery of the then-endangered southern bald eagle.
Botany Bay Island, located in the ACE Basin system, is the yearly nesting site for approximately 50 to
100 sea turtles. The nests are screened to protect them from raccoon predation and produce from
3,000 to 10,000 sea turtle hatchlings annually.
HABITAT
The major vegetative communities on ACE Basin NWR include freshwater and brackish natural
marshes, managed marshes (impoundments), forested wetlands, and upland forests. These
habitats, although diverse in composition, are interrelated components of a dynamic system
through which organisms and materials constantly move. The general characteristics of each
community are described below.
Managed Marshes or Wetland Management Units - 2,726 acres
These habitat types are referred to as wetland management units on habitat maps. Management of
naturally occurring plant communities within these impoundments provides cover and food resources
required to meet the behavior and nutritional needs of waterfowl, as well as a broad spectrum of other
wildlife species. In freshwater impoundments managed by spring and summer drawdown, waterfowl
food plants include panic grasses, smartweeds, flat sedges, and wild millets. In freshwater
impoundments managed as semipermanently flooded marshes, food plants and cover include
watershield, white waterlily, pondweeds, and giant cutgrass. Important waterfowl food plants
encouraged in brackish impoundments include wigeongrass, saltwater bulrush, and dwarf spikerush.
Forested Wetlands - 2,768 acres
The refuge contains forested wetlands that occur primarily on old natural levees, floodplain terraces,
and flats that are relics from inland rice fields. Mixed pine/hardwood (1,270 acres) and bottomland
hardwood (1,498 acres) are the principal forest types represented. Within mixed pine/hardwoods, the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
hardwood component may exhibit dominance on certain sites which may be considered as
pine/hardwood stands. These forests are temporarily inundated or saturated with flooding occurring
periodically for up to one month of the growing season (Wharton et al. 1982). Another minor but
ecologically important additional forest wetland type occurring in the bottomlands is the
cypress/tupelo swamp forests. This forest type occupies deep sloughs, margins of oxbows and wet
flats, and is flooded for the major portion of the year. These occur primarily in the upper portion of the
floodplains of the Combahee Unit. Forested wetlands are extremely important for supporting healthy
populations of many vulnerable neotropical migratory land birds. These species include Swainson’s
and prothonotary warblers, as well as possibly the swallow-tailed kite.
a) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Type (PH) - This forest type, including Live Oak-Maritime, occurs on
higher flats and is composed of tree species that tolerate limited periods of moderately high
soil saturation and flooding (Wharton et al. 1982).
Dominant tree species include loblolly pine, swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, laurel oak,
and swamp red oak. Codominants species are represented by live oak, willow oak, water oak,
white oak, overcup oak, sweetgum, blackgum, and pignut hickory. A diverse associated shrub
layer is composed of horse sugar, wax myrtle, switch cane, sweet pepperbush, American holly,
fetterbush, persimmon, huckleberry, dwarf palmetto, gallberry, and blueberry. Vines present
include greenbriar, catbrier, cross vine, and Virginia creeper. The ground layer is comprised of
cinnamon fern, royal fern, marsh fern, nut rush sedge, partridge berry, panic grasses, and
rushes interspersed throughout the forest.
b) Bottomland Hardwood Type (BH) - While including a number of species found in the
pine/hardwood type, bottomland hardwood forests occur on lower flats and are dominated by
species tolerant of slightly longer periods of soil saturation and flooding (Wharton et. al 1982).
Dominant tree species include overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak and red maple.
Although loblolly pine is present, spruce pine is the principal codominant pine species found on
these wetter sites. Other codominants are water hickory, pignut hickory, American hornbeam,
and green ash. Shrubs and vines include switch cane, wax myrtle, fetterbush, dwarf palmetto,
catbrier, sawbrier, poison ivy, and Virginia creeper. The ground layer is less dense than that of
the pine/hardwood type and consists of a variety of herbs, grasses, and sedges including
netted chain fern, partridge berry, nut rush sedge, beak rush, sedges, plume grass, and panic
grass. The Bald Cypress/Water Tupelo Swamp community occurs in the wettest parts of
floodplains that have standing water for most of the year. As a result, few herbs are present
and bald cypress and water tupelo dominate the canopy. This forest type is commonly found
along the Combahee River.
Forested Uplands - 1,156 acres
Forested Uplands include the following forest types: natural pine (loblolly, longleaf and pond pine),
pine plantations, and upland hardwood. The natural pine type occurs on old fields that were left to
succeed into pine forests and are maintained by the regular influence of fire. On well-drained sites, a
mixture of loblolly and longleaf pines occur. On wetter sites, pond pines integrate into the stand.
Longleaf pine, also maintained by a regular fire regime, is found on dry flatwood sites. The upland
hardwood type occurs at sporadic localities adjacent to pine/hardwood sites.
a) Natural Pine (P) - This type occurs on somewhat poorly drained soils of broad, flat, low areas
and knolls. Dominant canopy species are loblolly pine, longleaf pine, and pond pine. Loblolly
is the dominant pine species on all pine sites with the exception of Stand 3 in Compartment 3
(Grove north) where longleaf dominates. The midstory is dominated by sweetgum, with
mockernut hickory, swamp red oak, laurel oak, and switch cane also occurring. Shrub species
18 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
include wax myrtle, sparkleberry, and persimmon. Yellow jessamine, greenbriar, and
blackberry are the principal vines. The ground layer is composed of begger’s ticks, sedges,
broom straw, goldenrod, and plume grass.
b) Pine Plantations (PL) - The pine plantations are located in the transitional zone between
forested wetlands and upland pine. Loblolly is the single tree species. Past logging and
agricultural practices, combined with present-day forestry management, has resulted in
monotype loblolly pine plantations being established on the Barrelville, Bonny Hall, and
Yemassee South Tracts. These plantations were established prior to refuge acquisition.
c) Upland Hardwood (UH) - This forest type occurs on slopes with moderately to poorly drained
soils and frequently in small bands adjacent to pine/hardwood and bottomland hardwood sites.
Dominant tree species include water oak, white oak, post oak, Southern red oak, sweetgum,
American beech, and Southern magnolia. Wax myrtle is the principal shrub.
Fields and Openings - 224 acres
Forest openings play a vital role in providing diversity for nesting, resting, and feeding requirements
for many wildlife species. Refuge fields are maintained as permanent openings through planting
(agricultural or cover crop) and periodic mowing or burning. Forest openings are upland areas that
are permanently or temporary maintained in the grass or early successional stage. Forest
regeneration areas provide temporary openings which are generally useful for 3 to 8 years depending
on species and regeneration method used. Permanent openings include food strips, permanent
firebreaks, road rights-of-way, utility rights-of-way, and loading areas created during timber harvest
operations. Rights-of-way and refuge roads traverse forested areas on the refuge, breaking up
blocks of homogenous habitat to provide edge. A combination of clearings and openings helps to
provide diversity to the variety of habitats necessary to meet multiple management objectives.
ACE Basin NWR inherited a large acreage of old fields in early successional stages. Most of this habitat
is located on the Grove Unit. Original plans were to reforest these sites, but the refuge recognized the
importance of these habitats for painted buntings, Henslow’s sparrows, and other grass/shrub mosaic or
early successional wildlife species. In addition, these sites could also be important for supporting local
American woodcock populations. Old pasture sites, especially where they grade to moist sites, could
provide good wintering woodcock habitat. Woodcocks are presently declining throughout the Atlantic and
Mississippi Flyways. This is thought to be due primarily to loss of early successional habitats.
WILDLIFE - THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Several threatened or endangered species are found on ACE Basin NWR. The wood stork is becoming
increasingly abundant within the ACE Basin project, partly due to the maintenance of water levels in
wetland units at optimum wood stork foraging depths. Several rookeries have become established in
close proximity to the refuge, and management is hoping to establish rookeries on refuge lands.
Nearly 50 percent of South Carolina’s nesting bald eagle population occurs in the Ace Basin project
area. Thirty active nesting territories were documented in 2005. Three nests are currently known on
the refuge; two are located on Jehossee Island and the other one is near the Grove Plantation House
where timber management activity is restricted. An additional nest is located immediately adjacent to
the refuge on private land. Bald eagles were removed from threatened species status in 2008, but
are still a species of concern protected by several state and federal laws. Several whooping cranes
from an experimental flock have repeatedly overwintered on the refuge’s rice fields and other wetland
areas in the ACE Basin project area since 2004.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
The South Edisto and Combahee Rivers provide habitat for the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
Neither of these riparian areas would normally be affected by timber management activities.
Occasionally, a West Indian manatee is reported in the river systems adjacent to the refuge.
Endangered plants or animals that have not been confirmed in the area but could be present include the
red-cockaded woodpecker, flatwoods salamander, Canby’s dropwort, American chaffseed and pondberry.
Currently, no active clusters of red-cockaded woodpeckers are documented within the refuge. The ACE
Basin project contains suitable habitat for this species, but the refuge proper has very little potentially
suitable habitat. Other listed species with historic ranges that include the refuge are: red wolf, eastern
cougar, Bachman’s warbler, ivory-billed woodpecker, and eastern indigo snake.
ACE Basin NWR provides habitat for a broad array of wildlife species which includes listed or
candidate species and species of concern to conservation partner organizations. Habitat needs,
protection, and management actions designated to enhance suitable habitat conditions for these
species must be considered, to the extent practical, in all management activities.
WATERFOWL
The refuge’s impoundments are heavily utilized by wintering ducks such as mallards, pintail, green-winged
teal, blue-winged teal, wigeon, wood duck, black duck, gadwall, and ring-necked ducks.
Mottled ducks and wood ducks also utilize these impoundments for nesting and brooding. The
bottomland hardwoods of the river systems are also used extensively by wood ducks and mallards
when these areas are seasonally flooded.
WADING BIRDS AND SHOREBIRDS
The refuge’s managed wetland units provide extensive foraging areas for wading birds, including
wood storks and various species of herons, egrets, ibis, and bitterns. Seventeen rookeries currently
are located adjacent to the refuge in the ACE Basin system and provide nesting habitat for 10 species
of wading birds. Refuge impoundments provide resting and feeding habitat for a variety of shorebird
species including sandpipers, plovers, yellowlegs, dowitchers, and dunlins. In recent years, the
black-necked stilt has been increasing in the refuge’s managed wetlands and has been observed to
successfully nest on impoundment berms.
Table 1 lists the species of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and other birds that use the
impoundments of the ACE Basin.
LANDBIRDS
Forested uplands are an important habitat type for birds, with many species associated with this habitat
type also using forested wetlands and open habitats. The principal bird group of upland forests includes
both resident and migratory songbirds (e.g., warblers, vireos, nuthatches, and tanagers) that occupy tree
canopies, as well as the ground story where they glean insects, seeds, and fruit.
The pine warbler is abundant and perhaps the most characteristic breeding species of the forest
canopy whereas the Bachman’s sparrow is characteristic of the grass-shrub forest floor. Other
common ground-dwelling species include the Carolina wren, hermit thrush, American robin, and gray
catbird. The northern bobwhite quail, an important game bird also characteristic of the forest
understory, feeds on various seeds, fruits, and invertebrates (Sandifer et al. 1980). A number of
hawks and owls feed, nest, and roost in upland forest.
20 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
Table 1. Bird species utilizing impoundments in the ACE Basin
Pied-billed grebe Redhead
Horned grebe Canvasback
Great blue heron Fulvous Whistling duck
Louisiana heron Canada Goose
Green heron Black-necked stilt
Little blue heron Bonaparte's gull
Yellow-crowned night heron Herring gull
Black-crowned night heron Ring-billed gull
Double-crested cormorant Laughing gull
Brown pelican Forester's tern
Great egret Least tern
Snowy egret Gull-billed tern
Least bittern Common tern
White ibis Royal tern
Glossy ibis Black tern
Osprey Semipalmated plover
Hooded merganser Dunlin
Red-breasted merganser Black skimmer
Mottled duck Bald eagle
Green-winged teal Wood Stork
Blue-winged teal American coot
Baldpate Clapper rail
Scaup Virginia rail
Bufflehead Sora rail
Mallard Common gallinule
Black duck Western sandpiper
Gadwall Spotted sandpiper
Pintail Least sandpiper
Shoveler Semipalmated sandpiper
Ringed-necked duck Willet
Ruddy duck Greater yellowlegs
Wood duck Lesser yellowlegs
Black-bellied plover Ruddy turnstone
Dowitcher American avocet
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
The Eastern screech owl, which nests in tree cavities and feeds on small birds, mice, and insects, is
perhaps the most characteristic of this habitat type (Sandifer et al. 1980).
Dominant woodpecker species include the red-bellied woodpecker, downy woodpecker, pileated
woodpecker, and northern flicker.
The Chuck-will’s-widow and common nighthawk are nocturnal birds that rest on limbs or on the
ground during the day and feed exclusively on insects while on the wing. Another species employing
specialized feeding habits is the ruby-throated hummingbird, which feeds primarily on the nectar of
flowering woodland plants.
Forested wetlands, characterized by a high variability of wet and dry sites and associated trees, shrubs,
and ground cover vegetation, are among the most productive habitats for bird species diversity. Two
distinctive birds of forested wetlands, the Mississippi kite and the American swallow-tailed kite, feed
almost exclusively in flight on large insects, but will also take snakes and frogs as food.
The red-eyed vireo, prothonotary warbler, Swainson’s warbler, magnolis warbler, blue-gray gnatcatcher,
Kentucky warbler, and hooded warbler are among the neotropical migratory birds that nest in forested
wetlands. Other songbirds that are typically permanent residents of forested wetlands include the
Carolina wren, northern cardinal, and Rufous-sided towhee. The red-winged blackbird and common
grackle also use forested wetlands as roost sites (Sandifer et al. 1980). The eastern wild turkey,
American woodcock, and wood duck are important game birds that similarly depend on forested wetlands.
Many species of neotropical migratory songbirds are experiencing long-term declines as a result of
widespread habitat loss and fragmentation. Bottomland hardwood forests and riparian woodlands have
been identified as a top habitat conservation priority throughout the southeast (Hunter et al. 1993).
Conservation and management of these critical bottomland forests on the refuge will enhance the
breeding, wintering, and transitional habitats for many species of migratory and resident songbirds.
The breeding landbird requiring the most management attention at ACE Basin NWR is the painted
bunting. Although the painted bunting is already listed as a Species of Continental Conservation
Interest, the eastern subspecies is among the highest ranking taxa in the southeast in need of
conservation attention. Some sizable populations presently occur in the Coastal Plain and extend to
the Fall Line. This species is declining within the South Atlantic Coastal Plain, not unlike most other
species associated with early successional habitats. ACE Basin NWR may represent an important
location for supporting the eastern painted bunting in the outer Coastal Plain habitat. Painted
buntings seem to be most closely associated with woodland edges and scrub/shrub with access to
grassy areas. The painted bunting is a priority bird species for Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 27,
which is the southeastern coastal plain. With regard to action level/code priority, it is listed as
needing immediate management to reverse significant population decline.
As of 2008, the refuge’s bird checklist included 291 total species of birds found with varying degrees
of regularity. Fifty-five of this total are considered accidentals, meaning they have been reported only
once or twice. A total of 96 species are known to nest on the refuge.
22 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
MAMMALS
The ACE Basin system is home to most mammalian species common to South Carolina. Large
populations of white-tailed deer are found in the area along with bobcat, gray fox, raccoon, river otter,
opossum, beaver, cottontail and marsh rabbit, gray and fox squirrel, and an assortment of small
rodents. Coyotes and armadillos have recently appeared. Many of these species utilize both upland
and wetland habitats.
The Rafinques big-eared bat and other forested wetland-dependent bats could possibly be located
within the ACE Basin system. Surveys for the Rafinques big-eared bat and other bats should be
conducted to determine their population status and the potential effects of fires on bats that may roost
in Spanish moss and pine needles.
REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS
The combination of a warm climate and interspersion of upland and aquatic habitat types provides
excellent conditions for a variety of reptiles and amphibians (Table 2).
Table 2. Some reptiles and amphibians in the ACE Basin
Crocodilians Toads and Frogs
American alligator Eastern spadefoot toad
Turtles Southern toad
Snapping turtles Southern cricket frog
Stinkpot Spring peeper
Eastern mud turtle Green treefrog
Eastern box turtle Squirrel treefrog
Chicken turtle Southern chorus frog
Carolina diamondback terrapin Bullfrog
Yellow-bellied turtle Pigfrog
Florida cooter Bronze frog
Florida softshell Southern leopard frog
Lizards Snakes
Green anole Brown water snake
Six-lined racerunner Banded water snake
Ground skink Eastern garter snake
Southeastern five-lined skink Eastern ribbon snake
Broad-headed skink Corn snake
Eastern glass lizard Mud snake
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Salamanders Snakes (Cont’d)
Dwarf waterdog Eastern hognose snake
Greater sirens Yellow rat snake
Two-toed amphiuma Southern hognose snake
Mabee's salamander Eastern kingsnake
Mole salamander Southern black racer
Spotted salamander Scarlet snake
Southern dusky salamander Eastern coachwhip
Slimy salamander Southeastern crowned snake
Eastern mud salamander Rough green snake
Southern two-lined salamander Scarlet kingsnake
Dwarf salamander Southern copperhead
Eastern cottonmouth
Eastern diamondback rattlesnake
Rainbow snake
FISH
The ACE Basin estuarine system, within which the refuge is located, is extremely valuable as habitat
and as a spawning and nursery ground for most of the commercial and recreational fish species
common to the South Atlantic Coast. Six species of anadromous fish utilize the tri-river system as
transients while passing from the marine environment to riverine ecosystems during their spawning
migrations. These anadromous fish are the American shad, hickory shad, blueblack herring, striped
bass, Atlantic sturgeon, and the endangered shortnose sturgeon. Other important freshwater fish
species include the largemouth bass, crappie, catfish, gar, and bream.
The ACE Basin marsh/estuarine system also provides valuable habitat and spawning and nursery
habitat for many species of saltwater fish, including the spotted sea trout, channel bass (redfish),
flounder, drum, bluefish, Spanish mackerel, and king whiting. Fish common in the subtidal areas
include mullet, menhaden, and bay anchovy, as well as young-of-the-year star drum, Atlantic croaker,
spot, silver perch, juvenile weakfish, flounder, hogchokers, tongue fish, catfish, and hake.
As an indicator of the productivity of this estuary/forested wetland ecosytem, the commercial fishery
harvest from this area is over 2.74 million pounds annually, or about 21 percent of the state's total
volume of fish and shellfish. The dockside value of this harvest is nearly $2,730,000. Recreational
fishing in the ACE Basin system is also a popular activity.
24 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
NUISANCE WILDLIFE
Feral pigs, coyote, and beaver are the most prevalent nuisance wildlife species within the ACE Basin,
with feral pigs contributing the most destructive impacts on native wildlife habitat. Feral pigs compete
with native wildlife for hard and soft mast, consume the eggs and chicks of ground-nesting birds,
destroy native vegetation, and consume native reptiles and amphibians. The effects of coyotes on
many native species and habitats have yet to be determined, but imperiled species, such as fox
squirrels, may experience population declines resulting from coyote predation. The rapidly expanding
beaver population has the potential to radically change wetlands and ecotonal landscapes.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
From the early 1700s to the mid-1800s, much of the ACE Basin was home to several large
plantations owned by a small number of individuals who managed their wetlands primarily to grow
rice. After the rice culture declined in the late 1800s, wealthy sportsmen purchased the plantations
for hunting retreats. The new owners successfully managed the former rice fields and adjacent
upland estates for a wide range of wildlife. The enormous natural values found on the refuge today
are largely due to the wise resource management practices of these past private landowners.
Largely undeveloped and unpolluted, these diverse habitats remain diverse and extremely productive.
Much of the historical values of the ACE Basin system have been protected and preserved. The
refuge office, a former rice plantation house built in 1828, is one of only three antebellum mansions
that survived the Civil War in the ACE Basin area. Former owners ensured that it would be preserved
by including it on the National Register of Historic Places.
The area now known as the Grove Plantation was originally a land grant to Robert Fenwick in 1694.
It has had many owners through the years, unlike most plantations which belonged to the same family
for numerous generations. From 1695 until 1825, the property changed hands nine times. In 1825,
George Washington Morris purchased the land and named it Grove Plantation.
George Washington Morris, son of Ann Barnett Elliott and Col. Lewis Morris, was born in 1796 and
married Maria Evans Whaley from Edisto. His parents owned large tracts of land, including a
plantation directly across the river from what is now known as Grove Plantation. He built the Grove
House about 1828. It is built in the late-Federal-period plantation style of architecture and has the
unusual feature of polygonal rooms and projecting symmetrical polygonal bays. George Washington
Morris died on August 22, 1834, leaving his wife, a son, and three daughters. After his death, his
wife, Maria, kept control of the Grove, and later purchased a schooner, with which she transported
freight for her neighbors. By 1837, she had not only paid off her husband’s debts, but she also had
the house plastered. In 1839, she installed a threshing machine and by 1841, she employed a
housekeeper and a governess in addition to her overseer.
G. W. Morris' son, George Jr., was not a good business manager, and from the time his mother
passed the management of the plantation to him until the time of his death, he built up huge debts.
After his death, the plantation was sold to John Berkely Grimball in 1857.
John Grimball was married to Margaret Ann (Meta) Morris, G. W. Morris' niece, and owned the adjacent
plantation, Pinebury. He combined Pinebury and the Grove into one large property and the family moved
into the Grove House early in 1858. During the War Between the States, John, Meta and the five younger
children went to Spartanburg. The five oldest boys were fighting in the war and John Grimball made
numerous trips to check on the plantation. Both Pinebury and the Grove were sites of military activity and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
the Grove House was at one time occupied by Confederate troops. By 1866, Meta had to sell clothes and
ornaments just to get food. Since the Grove was considered abandoned, it was confiscated. On
January 24, 1866, J. Berkeley Grimball made application to the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and
Abandoned Lands for restoration of his property. Because he took the amnesty oath of loyalty to the
United States, he was able to regain ownership of the Grove and Pinebury. After the war, John Grimball
was unable to make his mortgage payments on the Grove. Therefore the land reverted back to G. W.
Morris' heirs, Josephine M. Porter and Sabina Ann Morris in 1870.
After that, the property changed hands numerous times until it was purchased in early 1929 by the
president of Brooks Brothers, Owen Winston. Winston restored the house and is probably the owner
who had the outbuildings constructed.
Thompson Brown purchased the plantation in late 1930. The Brown family used the Grove as a
winter vacation residence and for hunting waterfowl and deer. The plantation was also a place where
Mr. Brown’s daughter recuperated from polio. Between 1934 and 1951, the Browns planted pecan,
persimmon, cedar, palmetto, magnolia, and azaleas around the house. In 1947, the South Carolina
Power Company ran power lines to the house.
R. Carter Henry purchased the Grove in 1964. Henry provided an extensive renovation on the house.
He changed the stairwell in the foyer to an open design and also put the duck tiles around the
fireplace in the conference room. In addition, he did extensive renovations to the outbuildings.
Mr. Henry sold the Grove to A. Leigh Baier in the early 1970s. During the Baier family's ownership,
numerous rice field trunks (water control structures) were rebuilt or replaced and many of the dikes
around the rice fields were repaired. Mr. Baier later sold the Grove to Margaret B. Hendricks, who
owned the plantation until The Nature Conservancy purchased it in 1991.
The Service purchased the Grove in 1992 and designated it as the ACE Basin National Wildlife
Refuge. Another extensive renovation was done on the house in 1996 and 1997. Today, the house
serves as the headquarters for ACE Basin NWR.
Archaeological sites recorded on the refuge occur primarily within the Edisto Unit and Jehossee
Island and include rice plantations (the Grove, Brisbane’s, Pineberry and Aiken’s Plantation). An
archaeological and historical investigation of Jehossee Island was conducted in 2002. A total of
16 archaeological sites were identified based on the survey conducted. Of these 16 sites, 13
were located on Jehossee proper; one in the waters between Jehossee and the island to the
north, and two on the northern island where yet another plantation—called the Brisbane
Plantation—was situated. The island itself has been assessed for eligibility both as a rural
historic landscape and also as a historic district. A description and location of these sites are
found in the publication entitled, Archaeological and Historical Investigations of Jehossee Island,
Charleston County, South Carolina (Trinkley et al. 2002). These areas will be provided full
protection as provided by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
The population of the ACE Basin is centered near the three incorporated municipalities of Walterboro,
Cottageville, and Edisto Beach. Presently, Walterboro is the only urban area in Colleton County with
public water and sewer facilities that can support an increase in the population (Colleton County Land
Use Planning Task Force 1997). In 1990, educational attainment was low in the ACE Basin and 24
percent of residents in the five incorporated areas lived in poverty. Low educational attainment
represents a potentially significant economic barrier for the region. The average income per job was
26 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
only $19,497 in 1996 for Colleton County (U.S. Department of Commerce 1998), with a racial gap in
the earnings (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). However, it is misleading to assume that these average
figures are representative of the whole region. The urban areas, and especially the pocket resort and
high-end residential communities, have higher relative wealth and educational backgrounds than is
apparent from the county or subdivision averages.
Nearly 27 percent of Colleton County residents travel to work outside the county, compared to
approximately 7 percent and 2 percent of the residents in Charleston and Beaufort Counties,
respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 1990). This difference highlights the need for more opportunities in
the Colleton area. It also highlights the potential for Colleton to become a bedroom community to
more prosperous areas and the increased threat of the subdivision of natural areas into residential
developments. Land use planning in the ACE Basin system will be an important tool to guide
development in a way that does not compromise the benefits and values of the area’s natural
resources. If the economic resources of the neighboring areas are used to support sustainable
economic development of the natural resources within the ACE Basin system, then the resulting
economic benefits can be returned to the ACE Basin area.
The primary industry-related activities in the ACE Basin include light manufacturing, the service
sector, forestry, and agriculture. Three key strategies were established by the ACE Basin Economic
Task Force to encourage economic growth while preserving the natural characteristics of the basin:
(1) create a framework for responsible growth; (2) enhance awareness, understanding, and
appreciation of the basin; and (3) promote environmentally compatible business development. In
particular, natural resource-based industries such as agriculture, forestry, seafood, and local crafts
have played a key role in the ACE Basin’s heritage, and recommendations were established for
exploring new ways to make these industries develop higher value-added products and operate in a
more sustainable fashion. New and increased nature-based tourism development is highly desirable
and environmentally compatible, thereby allowing the area to capitalize on and protect the region’s
character and natural assets (ACE Basin Economic Forum 1996).
The ACE Basin has a long tradition of hunting beginning with Native Americans and continuing to
present-day hunters. The primary wildlife hunted in the ACE Basin study area were white-tailed deer;
wild turkey; bobwhite quail; mourning dove; eastern gray squirrel; rabbit; terrestrial furbearers such as
raccoon, gray fox, and opossum; waterfowl; and American alligator. The white-tailed deer is the most
popular game species sought by hunters in South Carolina. The trends in deer harvest for Colleton
County have remained relatively stable since 1988. Harvest reports obtained from private and public
lands in the state represent the minimum number harvested, largely because reporting harvested
animals is not required and many harvested deer are unreported.
The other big game species sought by hunters in the ACE Basin is the wild turkey. In the coastal
plains of South Carolina, hunting for turkey occurs during the spring months. The hunting is restricted
to gobblers only, but bag limits are liberal with two birds per day or five per season. No special
permits are required to hunt turkey in South Carolina, and the mandatory turkey tags are issued free
to individuals with a license and big-game permit. The turkey harvest in Colleton County has
increased steadily since 1989.
One of the most striking changes that has occurred with hunting in the ACE Basin study area and other
parts of South Carolina has been the transition from small game, such as squirrels and rabbits, to big
game hunting for white-tailed deer and wild turkey. Squirrel hunting was once the most popular hunting
activity in South Carolina, but today squirrels are among the most underutilized game animals. Rabbit
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
hunting has also declined in popularity. The switch from small game to deer and turkey has increased the
demand for available hunting land. A score of hunting clubs that are tightly managed have been formed in
the ACE Basin area and are a popular means of gaining access to private land.
Waterfowl hunting has been a long-standing tradition in coastal South Carolina and the ACE Basin
study area. The impoundments of the ACE Basin offer ideal wintering habitat for waterfowl. Private
lands are not available to most hunters, but the state-managed wildlife management areas (WMAs),
such as Bear Island WMA and Donnelley WMA, provide hunting opportunities through the statewide
lottery. In Colleton County, the waterfowl harvest has been variable, with the greatest estimated
harvest occurring in 1995. The major species of interest to hunters statewide are wood duck, mallard,
and green-winged teal. Reports from band returns and surveys indicate that the primary species
harvested in Colleton County, over a 10-year period, were green-winged and blue-winged teals, wood
ducks, wigeons, and mallards. At the Bear Island WMA, the primary harvested species in 1996-97
were shoveler, green-winged and blue-winged teal, and wigeon, while at Donnelley WMA, green-winged
teal and wood duck constituted greater than 70 percent of the total harvest.
Management of wildlife is not only a state and federal activity, but is also undertaken by private
landowners, hunt clubs, and timber companies. Management for hunting emphasizes habitat
maintenance, in particular the creation of edge habitat, and the enhancement of hunting opportunities
for game species. Hunter-based conservation organizations have been instrumental in educating
landowners and sportsmen and in promoting sound management practices (Beasley et al. 1996). A
major factor in the future of hunting is the public's attitude. As the rural face of the landscape
surrounding the ACE Basin changes due to burgeoning population growth, fewer individuals are
viewing hunting as an acceptable tradition. The future of hunting in the ACE Basin study area will
depend on strict enforcement of laws and regulations along with increased educational efforts that
focus on hunter ethics, safety, and game management.
Commercial fisheries are important to the economic and social fabric of the ACE Basin. In particular,
Bennett’s Point and Edisto Beach are primary centers for shrimp and shellfish harvesting. Fishery
products landed in the ACE Basin are consumed locally, as well as transported to 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.
Blue crabs, shrimp, and oysters/clams are the three main fisheries in the ACE Basin. In addition,
there are smaller fisheries for shad, sturgeon, horseshoe crabs, and flathead catfish. Revenue from
commercial fisheries during 1996 was estimated to be almost 25 million dollars in South Carolina.
The total commercial landings for Colleton County, which largely encompasses the ACE Basin, have
an estimated value between $750,000 and $1,500,000 per year. More than 90 percent of this is
attributable to the shrimping industry. To date, no mechanism exists to accurately evaluate the
number of individuals active in the fishery industry of the ACE Basin system.
The shrimping industry is the most important commercial fishery in the ACE Basin. Shrimping is of
particular economic importance to a number of small coastal communities, including Bennett's Point,
Edisto Beach, and larger towns such as Beaufort. The fishing community not only contributes to
those directly involved in the fishery but also indirectly to the local tourism-based economy. In
addition to the commercial shrimp trawl fishery, a number of commercial companies farm-raise shrimp
in impoundments and ponds in South Carolina, with a few companies in the ACE Basin area (Hopkins
1991). Aquaculture landings range from 8 to 19 percent of the total harvest.
28 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin 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 the ACE Basin study area, in
habitats that range from black water streams and swamps to intertidal marshes, creeks, and the
ocean surf (Beasley et al. 1996).
The marine and freshwater recreational fishery resources of the ACE Basin have become very important
to the economics and aesthetics of the area. Most of the fishing activity is centered in the Edisto,
Ashepoo, and Combahee Rivers, but other small streams in the watershed do provide for similar
opportunities, especially for bank anglers. Most recreational fishing is from small boats, but bank anglers
utilize the areas around landings and bridges. Because of the remoteness of the area, travel upstream in
the rivers is often difficult due to obstruction by fallen trees. 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, but bank fishing does not require a license.
The estuarine waters in the ACE Basin study area 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 ACE Basin and St. Helena Sound. Shore-based fishermen catch a variety of species in the
marine waters of the ACE Basin, 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 only recreationally caught
crab. Though generally not targeted, silver perch are also frequently caught.
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.
The recreational freshwater fisheries in the ACE Basin study area were valued at almost $2 million
annually (Allen and Thomason 1993; Thomason et al. 1993). From free-flowing streams to the tidally
influenced sections of freshwater rivers and creeks, anglers target flathead catfish, largemouth bass,
striped bass, redbreast sunfish, and black crappie. In addition, several species of sunfish and catfish
are often caught, but not directly targeted.
The majority of freshwater angling is done from small- to medium-sized boats (3.0-4.6 meters or 10-
17 feet). Freshwater anglers are required to have a South Carolina fishing license to fish in public
waters. The following issues are currently influencing the management of freshwater fisheries in the
ACE Basin: (1) logging, (2) urban and industrial development, (3) introduction of foreign fish and plant
species, (4) water withdrawal and flows, (5) alterations to wetland habitat, (6) increases in nonpoint
source pollution, and (7) instream integrity. The future looks bright for the ACE Basin’s freshwater
fishery resources. Educational efforts to inform citizens of the importance of natural resource
protection are increasing. Because of governmental efforts that encourage best management
practices and monitor industrial pollution, water quality is not deteriorating drastically. Wetlands are
being conserved at an increased rate so that habitats vital for fish production will remain an integral
part of the ACE Basin landscape.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
In 1990, 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 (more than 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 nonfederal rural lands (“nonfederal” referring to all lands in private, municipal, state,
or tribal ownership). Land use on nonfederal 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, approximately 4.85 million acres were in agricultural production in South Carolina (U.S.
Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2003). In 1982, about 5.5 million acres were 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
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 the results of the USDA Forest Service’s 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, 812,000 state residents and nonresidents 16 years old and older fished in South Carolina.
Of this total, 571,000 anglers (70 percent) were state residents and 241,000 (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, or 91 percent of all fishing days within South Carolina
compared to nonresidents who fished 910,000 days or 9 percent of all fishing days in the state.
30 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
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, and line) totaled $79 million, or 35
percent of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., tents and special fishing
clothes) and special equipment expenditures (e.g., boats and pickups) amounted to $148 million, 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, or 2 percent of all fishing expenditures.
HUNTING
In 2001, 265,000 residents and nonresidents, 16 years old and older, hunted in South Carolina. Of
this total, 221,000 were resident hunters, accounting for 83 percent of the hunters in South Carolina.
The other 44,000 were nonresidents, 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 307,000 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
average trip-related expenditure per hunter was $361. Hunters spent $158 million on equipment, or
52 percent of all hunting expenditures. Hunting equipment (guns and ammunition) totaled $108
million and comprised 68 percent of all equipment costs. Hunters spent $50 million on auxiliary
equipment (tents and special hunting clothes) and special equipment (e.g., boats and pickups),
accounting for 32 percent of total equipment expenditures for hunting. Special and auxiliary
equipment 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 or more
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
that number, 204,000 were state residents and 127,000 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 observed wildlife, 100,000 photographed wildlife, and
87,000 fed wildlife. Because some individuals engaged in more than one of the three nonresidential
activities during the year, the sum of the wildlife observers, feeders, and photographers exceeds the
total number of nonresidential participants.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
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 and special clothing)
totaled $113 million, 76 percent of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g.,
tents and backpacking equipment) and special equipment expenditures (e.g., campers and
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 could be used in
activities other than wildlife-watching. 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 publication: 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. Washington, DC.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
ACE Basin NWR is currently comprised of 11,815 acres of fee title land ownership and has an
acquisition boundary exceeding 18,000 acres. Refuge lands are part of a cooperative partnership
among members of the ACE Basin Task Force to protect and conserve the resources, allowing
traditional land uses of the relatively pristine 358,000-acre Ashepoo–Edisto–Combahee River
Basin, known as the ACE Basin Project. The partnership includes private landowners, corporate
lands, non-governmental organization protected properties, and state and federal lands.
Currently, approximately 190,000 acres of the targeted 350,000 acres of land are under protective
ownership or easement.
The increasing human population in the coastal South Carolina Lowcountry area, including the ACE
Basin Project Area (portions of Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort, Dorchester, Orangeburg, Bamberg,
and Hampton Counties) 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 (Edisto Beach) 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.
32 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR SERVICES
The refuge is divided into two units. The Edisto Unit consists of the Grove Plantation and Jehossee
Island. The Combahee Unit is made up of the Bonnie Hall tract, the Combahee Fields tract and the
Upper Combahee Unit. It is 45 miles from the Edisto Unit to the Upper Combahee Unit.
Many visitors are coming to see the Grove Plantation and not a wildlife refuge. The Grove Plantation
area of ACE Basin NWR is unique because not only is it a wildlife refuge, it is one of the few
remaining historically significant plantations open to the public. It is estimated that 90 percent of the
visitors to the refuge are coming to the Grove and 60 percent of those are coming to see the house.
The Grove Plantation house itself is on the historical register along with the “viewscape” around the
house. This means that any changes to the view, such as directional signs, require consultation with
the Regional Archaeologist.
The hunt program is the largest public use program on the refuge with around 1,400 participants per
year. Fishing is also a popular on the refuge, with fishing opportunities available along most of the
impoundment perimeter canals, various ponds and impoundments, and river shorelines.
The refuge hosts a variety of environmental education and interpretation programs for grade schools
and college students.
Many good hiking trails and wildlife observation areas are on the Edisto Unit and on parts of the
Combahee Unit.
The refuge is currently providing the appropriate level of visitor services (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and off-site programs) relative to the staff size and positions. There
is a lot of opportunity for expanding the on- and off-site environmental education at the refuge.
Jehossee Island has extensive cultural resources and is closed to the public.
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
The refuge headquarters office is located near the town of Hollywood, South Carolina, a small
community with a population of approximately 4,600 people. The refuge units occur in four different
counties that include Charleston, Colleton, Beaufort, and Hampton. Refuge lands border Toogoodoo
Creek, Dawho River, Edisto River and the Combahee River and encompass a geographic area that is
approximately 25 miles in length. The refuge staff currently includes six funded positions and one
fire-funded position.
The refuge’s mechanized equipment includes numerous trucks, farm tractors, all-terrain vehicles,
excavators, bulldozer, skid-steer equipment and fire engine.
The SEWEE Association supports the refuge as a friends group, primarily on environmental
education- and interpretation-related activities.
Volunteers provide assistance with various refuge management and public use programs that include
a hunting program for hunters with disabilities, bird surveys, nest box maintenance, and gardening.
The refuge is currently developing two work-camper sites to expand volunteer administration and
maintenance support.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
III. Plan Development
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
The process of developing this CCP began in March 2004, with a biological review completed by a
team of 14 biologists representing the refuge, the Service, the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, Nemours Wildlife Foundation, 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. Also in 2004, a comprehensive visitor services review was conducted to
evaluate the refuge’s public use and environmental education and interpretation programs. This
review involved a team of four public use specialists from the Service’s Southeast Regional Office
and two other national wildlife refuges. The recommendations of both the biological review team
and visitor services review team helped determine the alternatives, goals, objectives, and strategies
that were included in this CCP. The members of the biological review team and visitor services
review team are identified in Chapter V.
The CCP planning team for ACE Basin NWR consisted of five staff members from the Service and
one representative from the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. This team was the
primary decision-making team for the CCP. 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 CCP. The CCP planning team members consisted of the following:
 Mark Purcell, Refuge Manager, ACE Basin NWR
 Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, South Carolina Lowcountry Refuge Complex
 Melissa Pope, Office Assistant, ACE Basin NWR
 Larry Hartis, Wildlife Biologist, ACE Basin NWR
 Bryan Woodward, Park Ranger, ACE Basin NWR
 Sam Chappelear, Wildlife Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
The planning team reviewed the recommendations of the biological review and visitor services 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 July 25, 2007, at the Meggett Town Hall in
Meggett, South Carolina. Public notices advertising the meeting in advance were posted at the
refuge office and published in local newspapers, and invitations were mailed to approximately 65
individuals and groups on the refuge’s mailing list. Three citizens attended the public scoping
meeting. Although the attendance was low, many useful comments were received. The comments
from this public scoping meeting are summarized in Appendix D, Public Involvement.
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
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through the public scoping meeting, open planning team meetings, comment packets,
34 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
and personal contacts. All public and advisory team comments were considered. However, some
issues that are important to the public are beyond the scope of the Service’s authority and cannot be
addressed within this planning process. The team did consider all issues that were raised throughout
the planning process, and has developed a plan that attempts to balance the competing opinions
regarding important issues. The team identified those issues that, in its best professional judgment,
are most significant to the refuge. The significant issues are summarized below.
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT MANAGEMENT
Ensure up-to-date maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement of the refuge’s water
management and water delivery capabilities to meet migratory bird objectives (with the focus on
waterfowl, waterbirds, and marsh birds). In order to address these objectives, appropriate
management actions will require a comprehensive understanding of the ecology of wetlands and
enhanced health of the wetland vegetative communities for all migratory birds. Maintenance of
peat composition dikes and wooden rice trunk-style water control structures requires atypical
maintenance needs that can conflict with the refuge’s existing Service Asset Maintenance
Management System (SAMMS)-based maintenance cycles.
Control of invasive exotic and nondesirable plant communities on upland and wetland sites and
associated funding needs will require cooperative partnerships with the South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies.
The refuge staff will aggressively pursue timber management options to restore industrial-type timber
lands to natural states.
Expand endangered and threatened species recovery efforts on the refuge that include habitat
management for whooping cranes.
Consider seasonal closure zones within wetland management units during peak wintering waterfowl
use periods.
Expand pre- and post-season waterfowl banding operations and summer mourning dove banding in
concert with the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
Implement appropriate and approved control measures targeting both plant and animal invasive
species.
Continue to utilize prescribed burning to maintain fire-dependent habitats.
Expand baseline biological inventories with an emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of
native species.
Conduct plant surveys of the refuge with an emphasis on rare native plants.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Develop an understanding of local demographic changes with respect to how increased human
population growth will impact user demand and impacts to refuge programs and resources (including
prescribed fire smoke management).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Reinvigorate efforts to acquire lands within the approved refuge acquisition boundary utilizing
partners such as the ACE Basin Task Force, The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, and
Charleston County (Greenbelt).
Seek to eliminate easements and out parcels on the refuge by mutual agreements and willing
buyer/seller opportunities.
Develop an effective cultural resources protection plan that considers permanently restricting public
access to Jehossee Island.
Stabilize the bank/shoreline of Jehossee Island (south end) along the Edisto River.
Restore or stabilize the house on Jehossee Island so that it does not collapse.
VISITOR SERVICES
Expand the refuge��s volunteer program to include volunteer assistance with biological programs such
as bird monitoring, water quality monitoring, and other resource-related activities.
Develop a regional coalition of “outreach” partnerships that could link nearby conservation areas and
programs together, to help with educational and interpretive programs, and enhance local/regional
awareness of the refuge, especially pertaining to youth.
Make a determination of the condition of existing public use trails and other facilities and determine
needed maintenance and improvements for safe, compatible, and appropriate uses. Develop
additional passive recreational uses on the refuge including the development of a canoe/kayak launch
on the Toogoodoo River in concert with Charleston County “Greenbelt Conservation Funds.”
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
Achieve a full complement of staffing at the refuge.
Seek long-term funding mechanisms and partnerships to adequately operate and maintain the historic
Grove House Office and Jehossee Island caretaker’s house.
Increase the commitment of natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, and academia to
establish effective conservation strategies.
Create public and private partnerships and educational outreach programs for broad-scale
conservation efforts.
WILDERNESS REVIEW
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land
that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
inhabitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which:
 generally appears to have been influenced primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable;
36 Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge
 has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation;
 has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpeded condition; or is a roadless island, regardless of size;
 does not substantially exhibit the effects of logging, farming, grazing, or other extensive
development or alteration of the landscape, or its wilderness character could be restored
through appropriate management at the time of review; and
 may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historic value.
The lands within ACE Basin NWR were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for
wilderness, as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. None of the refuge lands were found to meet
these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further
analyzed in this CCP.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats while considering the needs of all resources in
decision-making. But first and foremost, fish and wildlife conservation assumes priority in refuge
management. A requirement of the Improvement Act is for the Service to maintain the ecological
health, diversity, and integrity of refuges. Public uses are allowed if they are appropriate and
compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation. The Service has identified six priority wildlife-dependent
public uses and these are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Described below is the comprehensive conservation plan for managing the refuge over the next 15
years. This management direction contains the goals, objectives, and strategies that will be used to
achieve the refuge vision.
Three alternatives for managing the refuge were considered: Alternative A, Current Management (No
Action); Alternative B, Protection of Trust Resources and State-listed Species; and Alternative C,
Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Preferred Alternative). Each of these alternatives were described in the
Environmental Assessment, which was Section B of the Draft CCP. The Service has chosen
Alternative C as the preferred management direction.
Implementing the preferred alternative will result in a greater amount of effort to manage the refuge to
increase its overall wildlife and habitat diversity, and will be consistent with the founding principles of
the refuge as follows:
 Ecosystem Management: Assist in protection and enhancement of the 350,000-acre ACE
Basin area, an ecosystem of national significance.
 Migratory Bird Management: Manage for migratory birds with emphasis on providing
optimum habitat for wintering waterfowl; providing nesting and brooding habitat for wood
ducks and mottled ducks; and providing habitat for neotropical migratory birds.
 Endangered Species: Conserve, protect, and manage refuge habitats for threatened and
endangered species of wildlife.
 Native Wildlife: Manage the refuge for native wildlife species and their habitats.
 Wildlife-dependent Recreation and Environmental Education and Interpretation:
Provide opportunities for compatible public environmental education and interpretation and
recreational opportunitie