Santee National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October 2008
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
SANTEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Clarendon County, South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
October 2008
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 19
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 20
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 20
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 21
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 22
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 22
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 24
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 24
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 25
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 25
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 26
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 26
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 27
Water Quality and Quanity ................................................................................................ 27
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 27
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 28
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 30
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 32
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 33
Fishing ............................................................................................................................... 34
Hunting .............................................................................................................................. 34
Wildlife Watching Activities ............................................................................................... 34
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 35
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 35
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 36
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 39
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 43
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 43
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ........................................................................ 43
Habitat Management ......................................................................................................... 43
Resource Protection .......................................................................................................... 44
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 44
ii Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 45
Summary of Refuge Wilderness Review .......................................................................... 45
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ....................................................................................................... 47
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 47
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 48
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 48
Wildlife and Habitat Management ..................................................................................... 48
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 70
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 101
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 101
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 101
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 101
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 101
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 102
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 102
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 103
Partnership/ Volunteers Opportunities ..................................................................................... 104
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 105
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 105
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 106
VI. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ................................................................................... 107
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 107
Planning Team ................................................................................................................ 107
Biological Review Team.................................................................................................. 107
Visitor Services Review Team ........................................................................................ 108
Other Contributors .......................................................................................................... 108
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 109
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS .................................................... 119
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS ............................. 121
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 135
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 135
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 138
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .............................................................. 143
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 155
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 181
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 185
Table of Contents iii
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 187
Birds ........................................................................................................................................ 187
Mammals ................................................................................................................................. 195
Amphibians ............................................................................................................................... 196
Reptiles .................................................................................................................................... 197
Fish .......................................................................................................................................... 198
Plants ....................................................................................................................................... 201
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 207
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 207
Maintenance Management System Needs ............................................................................... 208
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 209
APPENDIX L. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................................. 211
iv Santee National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Santee National Wildlife Refuge Location Map ................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Bluff Unit Forestland ............................................................................................................ 11
Figure 3. Bluff Unit Impounds ............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4. Cuddo Unit Forestland ......................................................................................................... 13
Figure 5. Cuddo Unit Impounds .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6. Dingle Pond Forestland ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7. Dingle Pond Habitats ........................................................................................................... 16
Figure 8. Pine Island Unit Forestland ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 9. Pine Island Unit Impounds ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10. Current organization chart for Santee NWR ...................................................................... 40
Figure 11. Proposed organizational chart for Santee NWR ................................................................ 41
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Monthly temperature and precipitation data for 2004 ........................................................... 25
Table 2. Three-year summary of primary public uses - Santee NWR ................................................ 37
Table 3. Summary of projects ........................................................................................................... 103
Table 4. Step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives of the CCP ................. 105
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Santee National Wildlife Refuge (Santee NWR)
was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife
conservation will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be
allowed and encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of
the refuge or the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this CCP,
along with an environmental assessment, was made available to state and federal government
agencies, non-governmental organizations, conservation partners, and the general public for review
and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development of this CCP,
describing the Service’s preferred plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to identify the role that Santee NWR will play in support of the mission of
the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), and to provide long-term guidance to the
refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The CCP will:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of people through federal programs relating to wild birds,
endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery and wildlife
research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges, covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest collection of
lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million acres, is in Alaska.
The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United States territories. In
addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national fish hatcheries, 64 fishery
resource offices, and 78 ecological services’ field stations. The Service enforces federal wildlife laws,
administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally
significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps foreign governments with their
conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program, which distributes hundreds of millions of
dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
CCPs for all refuges. These CCPs, which are completed with full public involvement, help guide the
future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and recreation/education programs.
Consistent with the Improvement Act, CCPs 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 National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge system; and
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s (i.e., Dust Bowl) severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection
of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife species
in their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent in 7
years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120 per
refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15 refuges in
the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois); Eufaula
(Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas); Mattamuskeet (North
Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna Atacosa (Texas);
Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River (Louisiana)—the
same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief that communities near
refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and transportation grew to $6.8 million per
refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each federal dollar spent on the Refuge System,
surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income
(Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that CCPs are to be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal,
state, and private landowners and that the Service develops and implements a process to ensure an
opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the CCPs.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will
guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The
CCP will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal
mandates, including compatibility standards, and other Service policies, guidelines, and
planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the Refuge System,
congressional legislation, presidential executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System and
management of the Santee NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources, research and recreation on refuge lands, and provide a framework for cooperation
between Santee NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Public Service Authority, South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources, and private landowners.
Lands within the 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: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As
priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports the following:
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations,
academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working
to ensure the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated
approach to bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national
bird initiatives include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is
an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is to
return waterfowl populations to their 1970s’ levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat. Canada
and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of waterfowl. Mexico
joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of federal, provincial/state
and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private companies and many individuals,
all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit of migratory birds, other wetland-associated
species and people. Plan projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional
levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and wildlife species across the North
American landscape.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners in Flight Plan, the
Southeastern Coastal Plain (Bird Conservation Region 27) physiographic area represents a
scientifically based land bird conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native land birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have
been vastly under-represented in conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines.
This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory, and focuses on relatively common species in areas where
conservation actions can be most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and
peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
6 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species in the State of South Carolina.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) developed a “Vision for the Future”
in 1994, when various state conservations agencies were merged. This vision guides management
actions of the SCDNR. The basic framework follows.
Mission of the SCDNR:
Our mission is to serve as the principal advocate for and steward of South Carolina’s natural
resources.
Vision of the SCDNR:
Our vision for South Carolina is an enhanced quality of life for present and future generations through
improved understanding, wise use, and safe enjoyment of healthy, diverse, sustainable, and
accessible natural resources.
Our vision for the SCDNR is to be a trusted and respected leader in natural resource protection and
management, by consistently making wise and balanced decisions for the benefit of the state’s
natural resources and its people.
Core Values of the SCDNR:
Our actions will be guided at all times by the following shared internal values:
􀁹􇤠 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 our mission, we will continuously strive to:
􀁹􇤠 Enhance public and private partnerships and open communications necessary to
cooperatively protect and manage the state’s natural resources;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that agency decisions and actions regarding the state’s natural resources are based
on a balance of scientific knowledge, strong conservation ethics, objectivity, fairness, and the
needs and interests of the public;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure the safety and well-being of the public in their use and enjoyment of the state’s natural
resources;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure the continuation and effective management of hunting, fishing, boating, and other
natural resources-related activities;
􀁹􇤠 Evaluate and improve agency functions and procedures to ensure efficiency, effectiveness,
and accountability, emphasizing quality service to all customers, internal and external; and
􀁹􇤠 Foster an organizational culture that emphasizes effective leadership at all levels; a diverse,
well-trained, and professional workforce; and an enjoyable and fulfilling work environment.
Strategy of the SCDNR:
To more effectively accomplish our mission and attain our vision, we will work diligently toward
achieving the following overarching goals and objectives during the next five years:
1. Enhance the effectiveness of the agency in addressing natural resource issues.
a. Broaden strategies to address the impacts of population growth, habitat loss,
environmental alterations, overuse and other challenges faced in protecting,
enhancing, and managing diverse natural resources;
b. More effectively develop, coordinate, and integrate resource-specific conservation and
management plans, research, and policies within the agency; and
c. Expand sound application of science for natural resource management and decision-making.
2. Improve the general operations of the agency.
a. Develop and implement department-wide operational plans that clearly connect all
agency activities to specific goals and annual accountability reports;
b. Fully develop the agency’s regional hub system;
c. Continue to develop and maintain modern, well-integrated information systems and
technology throughout the agency;
d. Enhance and maintain effective communications throughout all levels of the agency;
e. Maximize efficiency of internal operations and business procedures; and
f. Aggressively pursue increases in revenue, state and federal funding, and identify new
funding sources to support accomplishment of our mission.
3. Create an agency environment that supports a dedicated, professional workforce.
a. Implement comprehensive workforce planning that is consistent with agency priorities;
b. Expand consistent, agency-wide employee training, retention, and compensation
efforts;
c. Implement initiatives that improve employee morale and teamwork, instill a sense of
pride in the agency, and emphasize the importance of its mission.
8 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
4. Enhance public trust and confidence in the agency.
a. Foster more effective communications, outreach, and partnering with the public and
state legislature;
b. Develop strategies that address divergent public opinion and expectations concerning
issues related to accessibility, use, and protection of natural resources; and
c. Optimize our customer service through regular monitoring of constituent needs, public
opinion, and agency performance; and
d. Enhance natural resource education to provide the public with knowledge necessary in
making informed natural resource decisions.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of South Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Santee NWR was established in 1942, and is in Clarendon County, South Carolina (Figure 1). The
15,000-acre refuge lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and consists of mixed hardwoods, mixed pine
hardwoods, pine plantations, marsh, croplands, old fields, ponds, impoundments, and open water.
This tremendous diversity of habitats supports many kinds of wildlife.
A myriad of wildlife species inhabit the varied landscape of Santee NWR (Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5).
During the winter months, the bald eagle and occasionally the peregrine falcon can be seen. From
November through February, migrating waterfowl, such as mallards, pintails, teal, and wood ducks,
along with Canada geese, are a major attraction. Throughout the year, red-tailed and red-shouldered
hawks can be viewed soaring overhead, as can a variety of songbirds in the trees, and wild turkey.
Birds are not the only residents of Santee NWR. The forest provides a home for white-tailed deer
and other woodland creatures, such as raccoons, squirrels, and bobcats. The ponds and marshes
provide a home for alligators, plus a number of other reptiles and amphibians.
To support a large variety of wildlife species, intensive habitat management is a must. The habitat
management programs at Santee NWR range from the very basic to complex. One of the basic
programs is the wood duck nest box program, where nesting boxes are provided in areas that are
lacking in available tree cavities, thus “adding to” the natural habitat. The water and marsh
management program is more complex (Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9). Water levels are adjusted to provide
maximum benefits for wildlife. In the impoundments and marshes different levels are used to help
some types of vegetation to grow while controlling unwanted “pest plants.” Periodically flooded
woodlands containing nut-producing hardwoods are food-rich and very beneficial to waterfowl.
The management of forest and croplands is also critical. Refuge staff and contracted private farmers
plant corn, wheat, millet, nutgrass, or other small grain crops. These crops attract many species of
wildlife and provide an excellent source of high-energy foods for wintering waterfowl. Refuge forests
are maintained with management techniques, ranging from prescribed burning to selective thinning.
Habitat management is a complicated process but well worth the effort since it provides an abundant
amount of food, cover, and shelter for a wide range of animals.
Santee NWR also contains areas of cultural and local significance. The 420-acre Dingle Pond unit
consists primarily of a Carolina Bay and is a designated public use natural area. A historic site on the
refuge that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson
area. The mound itself is more than 3,000 years old and artifacts of the Santee NWR have been dated
to 3,500 years ago. During the Revolutionary War, the British kept a garrison of about 100 soldiers at
the mound. This gave them strategic control over the Santee River and a major road connecting
Charleston to Camden. The garrison was eventually captured by American revolutionary forces under
General Francis Marion.
10 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Santee NWR location map
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Figure 2. Bluff Unit forestland
12 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Bluff Unit impoundments
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. Cuddo Unit forestland
14 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Cuddo Unit impoundments
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Figure 6. Dingle Pond forestland
16 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 7. Dingle Pond habitats
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 8. Pine Island Unit forestland
18 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 9. Pine Island Unit impoundments
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
Santee NWR is located in Clarendon County in the upper coastal plain region of South Carolina. Total
refuge acreage is 15,095 acres. Except for approximately 4,400 acres of fee title land, the refuge is
superimposed on lands and waters of the 110,600-acre Lake Marion reservoir. The South Carolina
Public Service Authority (SCPSA) created Lake Marion from 1939 to 1942 as a hydroelectric project on
the Santee River. The Santee River begins at the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers,
approximately 11 miles upriver from Lake Marion. Most of the water coming into the lake is from
upstream drainage. The Catawba River becomes the Wateree River downstream of the Lake Wateree
reservoir, approximately 30 miles northeast of Columbia, South Carolina.
A new 50-year lease agreement between the Service and the SCPSA became effective in 1975. This
lease completely altered the water boundary and changed much of the land boundary from the
original lease. Provisions in the new lease permitted the posting of mutually agreed upon
boundaries, which would become official refuge boundaries after the lines were surveyed. Both land
and water boundary surveys were completed in 1985 and finalized approved maps were received
from SCPSA in 1986.
Recognizing the high migratory bird benefits and recreational opportunities served by the lands and
waters of Santee NWR, the Service administratively designated Santee NWR in 1941, under the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act and the Refuge Recreation Act, thus outlining the primary purposes
of these lands and waters:
”... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.”
16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“…to conserve and protect migratory birds…and other species of wildlife that are
listed…as endangered species or threatened species and to restore or develop
adequate wildlife habitat.”
16 U.S.C. 715i (Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
“... suitable for (1) incidental fish and wildlife-oriented recreational development, (2) the
protection of natural resources, (3) the conservation of endangered species or
threatened species ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-1 “... the Secretary ... may accept and use ...
real ... property. Such acceptance may be accomplished under the terms and
conditions of restrictive covenants imposed by donors ...” 16 U.S.C. 460k-2 (Refuge
Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4), as amended).
Management of wetland habitats is critical to achieving the refuge purposes of Santee NWR.
Wetlands on the refuge include freshwater marshes and swamps, flooded cypress, bottomland
hardwoods, open water, flooded agricultural fields and moist soil impoundments. Combined with the
contiguous upland habitats, this admixture of productive habitats and plant associations supports
diverse migratory bird communities. The refuge provides a complex of natural and managed wetland
habitats throughout the year that attracts multiple species of waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and
migratory songbirds. The refuge is the most significant inland migratory waterfowl area in South
Carolina. Refuge wetlands support the last remaining migratory population of Southern James Bay
Canada geese in South Carolina. Many priority avian species in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Region are found on the refuge, including the federal-listed wood stork (Endangered)
and nesting bald eagles. The refuge’s diversity of habitats also supports a wide range of resident
wildlife species including eight state-listed priority species of reptiles and amphibians.
20 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
􀁹􇤠 Audubon Designated Important Bird Area
􀁹􇤠 Refuge Designated Waterfowl Sanctuary
􀁹􇤠 Santee Indian Mound/Fort Watson is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (e.g., people, plants, animals,
and microorganisms), their physical surroundings (e.g., soil, water, and air), and the natural cycles
that sustain them. All of these elements are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the
others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems can be small (e.g., a single stand of aspen) or large (e.g., an
entire watershed, including hundreds of forest stands across many different ownerships).
The Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation. We realize that we are not going to
achieve conservation within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge; that we are not going to restore
aquatic resources within a national fish hatchery; and that listing an endangered species is not going to
conserve the ecosystem. All of these are interconnected. If we disturb or manage one, all of the others
will be affected. The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources
within a watershed and it considers the economic health of communities within that watershed. A
watershed is the total land area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean.
Comprising one of the 53 ecosystems around the country, the Service’s Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee
Ecosystem (SSPD Ecosystem) includes the entire State of South Carolina, as well as the
northeastern portion of Georgia, and the southwestern portion of North Carolina. The SSPD
Ecosystem encompasses approximately 52,500 square miles and is divided into four main
physiographic provinces, including the Blue Ridge Mountains, Piedmont, Carolina Sandhills, and
coastal plain provinces. Two major types of river systems traverse these provinces. Alluvial rivers
originate in the mountains and piedmont and include the Great Pee Dee, Savannah, Congaree,
Wateree, Catawba, and Santee. Blackwater rivers originate in the coastal plain and include the
Cooper, Ashley, Edisto, Salkahatchie, Combahee, Ashepoo, New, Four Holes, Little Pee Dee,
Wacammaw, Black, and Lumber. The SSPD Ecosystem includes several important areas with
protective designations, including 14 national wildlife refuges, 6 national forests, 4 national fish
hatcheries, 2 national estuarine research reserves, and more than 50 state parks.
A considerable acreage of tidal freshwater swamp and marsh are associated with the major river
systems. In addition, the SSPD Ecosystem contains numerous palustrine wetlands that are isolated
or contiguous with freshwater stream and river systems. The river basins drain into an extensive
estuarine network of saltwater marsh with tidal creeks, inlets, and sounds intermixed with barrier, sea,
and marsh islands. The estuarine system provides tremendous nursery grounds for commercially
important fish and shellfish and fuels the base of the marine food chain.
The SSPD Ecosystem supports large populations of wading birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, game and
non-game mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and anadromous fish. The habitats within the SSPD
Ecosystem fall within the Atlantic Flyway. Forage, refuge, cover, and staging areas for a variety of
migrating waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, raptors, and shorebirds are provided. The several
species of flora and fauna listed as federally threatened or endangered in the SSPD Ecosystem are
indicative of the development pressures and habitat losses incurred. Approximately 37 animal and 31
plant species are listed as federally threatened or endangered within the SSPD Ecosystem. Numerous
species of plants and animals are candidates for listing. Several federally protected species depend on
the SSPD Ecosystem for some portion of their life cycle (e.g., eastern cougar, West Indian manatee,
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
red wolf, five species of whales, Carolina northern flying squirrel, Virginia big-eared bat, Indiana bat,
wood stork, piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, Bachman's warbler, eastern indigo snake,
loggerhead and other sea turtles, shortnose sturgeon, Carolina heelsplitter, and many plant species).
The greatest problem facing the SSPD Ecosystem is the loss of habitat through direct destruction and
fragmentation, as well as through impacts from human activities. The predominant stresses for the
SSPD Ecosystem are: population growth, tourism, agriculture, silviculture, shipping ports, water
channelization, urbanization, aquifer depletion, fire suppression, exotic species, non-point source
pollution, and point source pollution. The actions of the SSPD Ecosystem Team are guided by two
categories: trust resources and management issues. The trust resources include: migratory birds,
anadromous fish, endangered species, and marine mammals. The management issues focus on:
habitat protection and management, habitat restoration, contaminants, regulatory compliance, law
enforcement, and biodiversity.
To address these threats, the management issues, and the needs of the trust resources, the SSPD
Ecosystem Team pursues a mix of objectives under the following seven goals.
1. To protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands, and their
associated habitats on a landscape scale.
2. To recover and enhance threatened and endangered species and species of special concern
and the habitats upon which they depend.
3. To protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they
depend.
4. To manage national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries to serve as models of
effective conservation of natural resources.
5. To increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation in carrying out the
Service’s mission through cooperative outreach efforts.
6. To protect, enhance, and manage interjurisdictional and diadromous fish populations and the
habitats upon which they depend.
7. To perpetuate healthy native plant and animal communities threatened by invasive native and
non-native plants and animals.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program began in Fiscal Year 2002. Under this new program, Congress
provided an historic opportunity for state fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to design and
implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife. A requirement of
SWG was that each state completes a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) by
October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and focus management on “species
in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds be used to manage and conserve
declining species and avoid their potential listing under the Endangered Species Act.
In May 2002, SCDNR began a process to develop the CWCS that was funded through the SWG
program. The SCDNR committed to developing the CWCS and begin implementing the conservation
actions by October 1, 2005. The goal of the CWCS was to emphasize a cooperative, proactive
approach to conservation, while working with federal, state and local governments; local businesses;
and conservation-minded individuals to join in the effort of maintaining the fish and wildlife resources
of South Carolina (SCDNR no date).
South Carolina’s 2005 CWCS deemed the following actions to be critical: (1) increase baseline biological
inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of native species; (2) increase
commitment by natural resource agencies, conservation organizations and academia toward establishing
22 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
effective conservation strategies; (3) increase financial support and technological resources for planning
and implementing these strategies; and (4) create public-private partnerships and educational outreach
programs for broad-scale conservation efforts (SCDNR 2006).
South Carolina possesses diverse wildlife. Its habitats range from the Appalachian Mountains to the
Atlantic Ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as
many of those groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, 12
taxonomic groups are included: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, diadromous
fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels, freshwater snails, and
insects (both freshwater and terrestrial).
The CWCS identified 1,240 species to include on the state’s priority species list. Reports were
prepared for each species, guild or indicator; in these reports, authors described the species, their
status, population and abundance, habitat needs, challenges, conservation accomplishments and
conservation actions. This approach allows for identification of both general conservation strategies
for wildlife and habitats in South Carolina, as well as development of species-based conservation
strategies. SCDNR also identified habitats critical for the priority species considered in the CWCS.
Both terrestrial and aquatic habitats were considered and reports were prepared for 38 habitats (e.g.,
terrestrial and marine) organized within 5 ecoregions, as well as 13 ecobasins, which characterize the
freshwater aquatic habitats of the state.
Eight categories of conservation strategies or conservation action areas were developed: Education and
Outreach; Habitat Protection; Invasive and Nonnative Species; Private Land Cooperation; Public Land
Management; Regulatory Actions; Survey and Research Needs; and Urban and Developing Lands.
Within each conservation action area, actions were condensed from the recommendations prepared for
each animal on the priority species list. Some of the actions identified will affect all species included in the
CWCS; others may affect only a few species. Each of these actions was prioritized and measures that
indicate success of implementing the action were identified.
The CWCS considers monitoring to be crucial. Project leaders are required to produce annual
progress reports for review by a steering committee and the CWCS coordination team. These reports
will be evaluated for insight into adaptive management needs and reassessments of the CWCS.
South Carolina’s CWCS also places strong emphasis on partnerships. Successful conservation
efforts are advanced through a strong collaborative involvement between all resource
stakeholders, whether private or public, governmental, or nongovernmental. Task forces were
convened to assist in determining important natural resource issues in South Carolina. Taxa
teams were assembled to determine challenges to species and conservation actions to address
those challenges. SCDNR also held public meetings to gather input from the citizens of the state.
Prior to submission of the CWCS, SCDNR began creating conservation action committees around
the conservation action areas identified above.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Threats to wildlife in South Carolina and the nation first began to be recognized a century ago in the
form of habitat destruction from unrestrained logging and the spread of agriculture, as well as
unregulated harvest for sporting and commercial purposes. After World War II, the challenges
associated with sustaining wildlife populations began to accelerate and change dramatically. Many
states, among them South Carolina, entered a period of rapid, sustained economic expansion and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
human population growth. During these “boom times,” South Carolina’s economy and workforce
began to shift away from agriculture. Migration into the state from other states (and later from other
countries) increased substantially and the urban populations began to dominate the rural population
demographically (SCDNR 2006).
Statewide, over 100,000 acres per year were converted from forests, farmland, and other open space
to urban uses from 1992 to 1997, making South Carolina the ninth-ranked state nationally in terms of
total land area developed annually (USDA 1997). According to the same report, the National
Resources Inventory, prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the growth rate from 1982 to 1992 was only 40,000 acres per year.
Thus, land conversion was accelerating during this 15-year period. These recent urban land
conversion rates represent a major burst of growth; this development trend and the conversion of rural
lands to urbanized uses, with their attendant impact on habitat for wildlife, continue unabated today.
Strong economic forces are also transforming South Carolina’s agricultural economy. Rising costs
and falling prices are creating hardships for many family farms. As of 1997, there were approximately
4.5 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina, representing an 18 percent drop since
1982. Long-term declines in farmland are even more dramatic: in 1954, 124,203 farms were
producing goods in South Carolina and 57 percent of the land in the state consisted of farms. By
1992, the number of farms in the state had been reduced to only 20,242, comprising 23 percent of
South Carolina’s land use (SCDNR 2006).
As South Carolina’s population continues to grow, placing even greater pressure on undeveloped lands in
the state, and driving conversion from rural to urban land uses, new challenges threaten the state’s fish
and wildlife. Additionally, long-standing downward trends in numbers of some species that previously had
been overlooked have become more evident. In a recent state-by-state analysis of biodiversity conducted
for The Nature Conservancy, South Carolina ranked 14th among all states in total number of native plant
and animal species and 15th in terms of risks to native species. In a planning exercise conducted in
1994, SCDNR biologists estimated that as many as one-third of the state’s vertebrate species were
already, or soon would be, experiencing serious declines (SCDNR 2006).
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Atlantic
Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in South Carolina. The species
most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special habitat.
Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species, primarily
through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 200 species of breeding migratory
songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species have
declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These species
need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
24 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there
have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel
modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire SSPD Ecosystem, in terms of both extent and duration of flooding, in
comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment of the flooding regime has had an
enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated wetland-dependent species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be
impacted due to atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater
inflow include erosion, sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe
weather disturbances.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of
native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to
movement prevent anadromous fish from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many
other aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from
land surface pollution runoff are exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural
wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes
to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and water hyacinth. Static water levels caused by the lack of
annual flooding and reduced water depths, resulting from excessive sedimentation, have created
conditions favorable for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic
plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further
threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural
aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often
prevents recreational use.
Various species of exotic wildlife and fish also flourish in this southern coastal climate. Animals like
feral hogs have caused extensive habitat damage and alterations.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
South Carolina has a humid subtropical climate. Average annual precipitation is about 49 inches
per year with the coast receiving 48 to 50 inches, while the area of the Blue Ridge Mountains
receives up to 80 inches per year (Table 1). Average January temperatures range from 50
degrees near the coast to 38 degrees in the mountains; July temperatures average 81 near the
coast and 71 in the mountains. The growing season ranges from 200 to 290 growing days.
During the winter months, the state is typically under a continental air mass that is cold and dry,
while during summer, the Bermuda high pressure cell in the Atlantic drives much of the weather.
Heat and humidity prevail when clockwise circulation around the Bermuda high brings a southerly
flow of air from the Gulf of Mexico, a pattern that becomes rather stable as the mountains in the
northwestern part of the state block any cool fronts which might arrive from the north.
Table 1. Monthly temperature and precipitation data for 2004
Month Temperature Precipitation (Inches)
High Low
January 78 19 3.28
February 76 25 7.50
March 84 28 0.79
April 92 31 1.94
May 96 42 5.38
June 98 64 8.79
July 100 67 4.73
August 98 53 7.81
September 92 54 5.72
October 88 37 2.07
November 85 29 2.42
December 80 19 2.03
TOTAL 52.46
26 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
The Santee Limestone underlies a large portion of the South Carolina Coastal Plain Region but is
exposed at the surface only along the Santee River valley and its surrounding counties. The
most spectacular example of Karst topography (the term given to landscapes which are sculpted
primarily by groundwater activity) is located in Santee State Park along the western shore of Lake
Marion. The park contains sinkholes, caves, disappearing streams, solution valleys, and sinkhole
lakes. Park naturalists conduct tours of the caves during times when visits will not bother the
native bat population. Rock samples, many of which contain fossils, may be found outside of the
park boundaries on both sides of Lake Marion. The limestone itself is composed of a mixture of
limey sands, lime muds, and shell-hash layers. Accumulations of oyster beds, from the shallow
continental shelf located here 40 million years ago, are found in several places within the major
sinkhole area of Santee State Park.
SOILS
Large portions of the refuge acquisition area are dominated by poorly drained, acidic soils with a
perched water table due to a subsurface clayey hard pan. The surface soils are generally sandy to
loamy and sub-surface soils silty to clayey. Nearly all of these soils are used for wildlife habitat.
The following soil types and series predominate in the refuge acquisition area:
􀁹􇤠 Levy – entisol, silty clay loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Hobonny – histosol, muck, very acidic, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Lakeland – entisol, sand, acidic, deep, excessively drained
􀁹􇤠 Rutlege – inceptisol, loamy sand, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Chastain – inceptisol, loam, acidic, very deep, poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Johnston – inceptisol, mucky loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained.
HYDROLOGY
The 110,600-acre Lake Marion was created from 1939-42 as a hydroelectric project by the SCPSA,
and is commonly known as "Santee Cooper." (All references to “Santee Cooper” in this CCP refer to
this hydroelectric project.) Being in the lower portion of the Santee River basin, it is one of the largest
drainages on the east coast. Lake Marion and its companion reservoir, Lake Moultrie, are collectively
called the Santee–Cooper Lake System. The Santee River begins at the confluence of the Congaree
and Wateree Rivers, approximately 11 miles upriver from the lake. Most of the water coming into the
lake is from upstream “blackwater” drainage (Tufford and Mckellar 1999) and from seasonal
precipitation patterns.
There is an average annual rainfall of 43 inches, which mostly occurs in June, July, August, and
September. With the creation of Lake Marion, the extensive flood-plain and bottomland forest that
existed along the Santee River were drowned. The lake is more shallow (average 7 feet) in the upper
stream (i.e., Santee Swamp) areas and deepens (average 16 feet) at the lower dam area of the lake.
The lake becomes wider and deeper below the I-95 Highway, having more lacusturine characteristics.
Santee Cooper manages the water levels in Lake Marion. Lake levels are typically high in summer to
provide for hydro-power and recreation, and low in winter to provide flood storage. These seasonal
levels are contrary to what is needed for good water management at the Santee NWR.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
The preferred hydrological management of managed impoundments during the summer would be to
have lower, drawn-down conditions to encourage moist-soil vegetation and also tree growth and
productivity in greentree reservoirs. Gravity drainage from the impoundments is slow or non-existent
when the lake levels are high during the summer months. Under these conditions, pumping must be
used to maintain lower water levels in the impoundments. Pumping costs and maintenance can be
high where permeable dikes allow water to seep back into the impoundments from the lake.
During the fall and winter, low lake levels are typical and may inhibit pumping when the water is
needed. Under these conditions, the existing pump for the Bluff Unit often cannot provide water for
late summer/early fall flooding of the units. If the elevation of the pump’s intake pipe is above the
lake level (often at such times) no water is available for pumping. Permeability of soils and dikes also
inhibit water retention, particularly at the Bluff Unit. However, lack of maintenance of the dike and
water control systems on the Cuddo, Pine Island, and Dingle Pond units will require the refuge to
conduct a comprehensive wetland management plan to upgrade and repair these systems.
AIR QUALITY
Clarendon County has generally good air quality and is considered to be in attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including lead, particulate matter below 2.5
microns in diameter (PM-2.5), particulate matter below 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), and sulfur
dioxide. In 2003, there were no exceedences of NAAQS for these parameters. Clarendon County
Air Quality Index in 2003 was considered very good and one of the best overall in the State of South
Carolina (Scorecard 2005).
WATER QUALITY AND QUANITY
Limestone, found in the coastal plain of South Carolina, is exposed in the Santee area near Lake
Marion, allowing the formation of features characteristic of Karst topography. This porous limestone
is the aquifer for much of the lower part of the state. Because of the rapid flow of groundwater
through the Karst system around Santee, the aquifer is highly susceptible to contamination. Quality
groundwater supplies for home use and farm irrigation could easily be lost if proper conservation
measures are not taken. Loss of water quality would also have a significant impact on the entire
Santee community, including Santee NWR and Santee State Park. As recreation and tourism
become an even greater economic resource to this region, a readily available source of groundwater
is a critical requirement. The public must become aware of the special properties of limestone rock
aquifers and protect such areas from pollution. Measures must be taken so that hazardous waste is
not placed in a location that could affect major underground water supplies.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The coastal plain is the largest ecoregion in South Carolina. Land elevation in this ecoregion begins at
270 to 300 feet at the inland boundary with the sandhills and reaches nearly to sea level at the coastal
zone boundary. From a land use standpoint, the coastal plain consists of two significantly different
landscapes. An inner belt is predominantly composed of cropland, with forests limited to small patches
and hardwood “stringers” along creeks. An outer belt, sometimes called the “flatwoods” is primarily pine-dominated
forest. Bisecting both belts are major floodplains, which are largely forested.
28 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Seven major habitat types are defined for the coastal plain, of which six are either unique to the
region or reach their greatest extent there. The predominant habitat types are: (1) grassland and
early successional habitats, (2) pine woodland, and (3) river bottoms. Although the remaining
types are less extensive, they provide habitat diversity that is important to a number of species,
especially wetland species.
Grasslands or early successional fields include those with cover provided by grasses and/or weeds
and with few, if any, trees. These sites also include managed open areas, such as meadows,
pastures, golf courses, or expansive lawns with or without damp depressions. These fields occur
throughout the region; more extensively in the inner “agriculture belt.” Pine woodlands include all
pine-dominated forests throughout the ecoregion. They include tracts that occupy a variety of soil
moisture characteristics except floodplains. The canopy is dominated by one or several species of
pine, generally loblolly (Pinus taeda), or longleaf (Pinus palustris), depending on elevation, soil type
and silvicultural history. Dense shrub thickets of hollies (Ilex sps.) and wax myrtle (Morella cerifera)
may be found throughout stands. Finally, the river bottoms of the coastal plain include a variety of
hardwood and hardwood-pine communities occupying the floodplains of small streams and
infrequently flooded flats in association with streams or rivers. These flats are often characterized by
the presence of American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and occur in scattered locations on sheltered
sites with moist soils, particularly on north-facing river bluffs and on slopes of drains and creeks.
At Santee NWR, forest cover comprises approximately 2,320 acres with 1,230 acres of mixed
hardwood forest and 1,090 acres of pine forest. The forest lands are divided between four
management units, namely Bluff, Cuddo, Pine Island, and Dingle Pond. The Bluff unit totals 130
acres of forest with 60 acres of mixed hardwoods and 70 acres of pine. The Cuddo unit contains
approximately 1,580 acres of forest lands comprised of 880 acres of mixed hardwoods and 700 acres
of pine. The Pine Island unit contains 510 acres of forest with 230 acres of hardwoods and 280 acres
of pine. Dingle Pond totals 100 acres with 60 acres of hardwoods and 40 acres of pine.
Natural pine stands are predominantly loblolly while plantation areas are primarily slash pine. Some
longleaf and shortleaf pine is scattered throughout the four units. Most of the pine stands were
previously farmed and were either planted with slash pine or regenerated naturally.
Mixed hardwood stands are primarily composed of sweet gum, willow oak, black gum, white oak,
maple, water oak, post oak, Southern red oak, swamp chestnut oak, hickory and blackjack oak.
Generally, hardwood stands are situated in and along coves. Most of the hardwood forests were
heavily harvested prior to the creation of Lake Marion.
HABITAT
Grassland, Early Successional, and Cropland Habitats
Grasslands include early successional fields, with cover provided by grasses and/or weeds, and few,
if any, trees. Also, managed open areas such as meadows, pastures, croplands, golf courses, or
expansive lawns with or without damp depressions are included. Grassland occurs throughout the
coastal plain region; but more extensively in the inner “agriculture belt.”
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Pine Woodland
Pine woodland includes all pine-dominated forests throughout the region, including those occupying a
variety of soil moisture characteristics except floodplains. The canopy is dominated by one or several
species of pine, generally loblolly (Pinus taeda), or longleaf (Pinus palustris), depending on elevation,
soil type, and silvicultural history. Dense shrub thickets of hollies (Ilex sps.) and wax myrtle (Morella
cerifera) may be evident. Higher elevation pine woodlands have abundant grasses and herbs,
particularly when burning is frequent.
Sandhill Pine Woodland
Sandhill pine woodland is a complex of xeric pine and pine-hardwood forest types adapted to sandy soils.
They occur principally in the Sandhills but also on fluvial sand ridges in the coastal plain. Absent frequent
fire, a canopy of longleaf pine and a subcanopy of turkey oak prevail interspersed with scrub oak species
and scrub/shrub cover. Frequent burning leads to development of longleaf pine-wiregrass communities.
Upland Forest
Upland forests are dominated by hardwoods, primarily with oaks and hickories, and typically on fire
suppressed upland slopes near river floodplains or between rivers and tributaries. Vegetation composition
is similar to oak-hickory forest in the Piedmont, where it is a major vegetation type. Upland forest is rare in
the Coastal Plain. It intergrades with river slopes and is lumped with this type for species treatments (see
below). Representative canopy trees are: white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus velutina), post oak
(Quercus stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
Ponds and Depressions
Ponds and depressions are a variety of permanently and semi-permanently flooded isolated freshwater
wetlands, with open or closed canopy forest cover, including depression meadows, pond cypress ponds,
swamp tupelo ponds, pocosins, limestone sinks, and pond pine woodlands. Landforms include natural
and artificial ponds dominated by cypress and/or swamp tupelo, limestone sinks, and Carolina Bays.
They occur extensively throughout the region, and more in the outer “Atlantic Coast Flatwoods” belt.
River Bottoms
River bottoms are hardwood-dominated woodlands with moist soils that are usually associated with
major river floodplains and creeks. They may contain small creeks or pools and may be seasonally
flooded. Characteristic trees include: sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda),
water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), cherrybark
oak (Quercus pagoda) and American holly (Ilex opaca). In the southern coastal counties on drier
sites, spruce pine (Pinus glabra) may be an associate. The cypress-tupelo swamp subtype occurs on
lower elevation sites as seasonally flooded swamps. It is usually transected by tannic-acid rivers and
creeks and contains oxbow lakes and pools. Dominant trees are bald cypress (Taxodium distichium),
water tupelo (Nyssa aquatica), swamp gum (Nyssa biflora), Carolina ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), water
elm (Planera aquatica), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
30 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
River Slopes and Stream Bottoms
River slopes and stream bottoms consist of a variety of hardwood and hardwood-pine communities,
occupying the floodplains of small streams and infrequently flooded flats in association with streams
or rivers. Several mixed mesophytic subtypes, characterized by the presence of American beech,
occur in scattered locations on sheltered sites with moist soils, particularly on north-facing river bluffs
and on slopes of drains and creeks. The calcareous cliff and marl forest subtype occurs on circum-neutral
soils derived from limestone or unconsolidated calcareous substrates, such as marl.
WILDLIFE
Mammals
The variety of habitats at Santee NWR provide for many species of mammals. Food and cover are
abundant and diverse, and a variety of mammalian species are present. About 40 species of
mammals potentially inhabit the refuge acquisition area (USFWS 1997). They include the black bear,
which is primarily associated with upland forests joined by extensive forested wetland corridors.
Seven species of bats may be found. Additionally, the refuge acquisition area contains roosting and
foraging habitat for at least two rare bats: the Rafinesque’s big-eared and the southeastern myotis.
Both species hold state-listed rankings of concern. Other mammals include forest wetland
inhabitants, such as deer, bobcat, raccoon, beaver, mink, river otter, marsh rabbit, and squirrel.
Amphibians and Reptiles
Many species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur within and adjacent to the refuge acquisition
area. Aquatic salamanders common to the area include the greater siren, eastern lesser siren, two-toed
amphiuma, dwarf water dog, and broken-striped newt. The most common terrestrial salamanders are the
marbled salamander and the South Carolina slimy salamander. The most commonly encountered frogs are
the bull frog, southern leopard frog, and green treefrog. The American alligator is the largest reptile in the
area. The brown water snake and eastern cottonmouth are probably the most widespread and abundant
snakes. The Florida cooter and the yellowbelly slider are the most commonly encountered turtles.
Fish
Lake Marion supports a wide diversity of freshwater fish. Several species of fish are associated with
the refuge acquisition area, including fresh water, anadromous (fish that move up the rivers from the
sea to spawn), and estuarine-dependent fish (USFWS 1997). Anadromous fish known to occur
include the striped bass, American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon, and
shortnose sturgeon. There is excellent year-round recreational fishing for freshwater fish, such as the
largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth, pumpkinseed, black crappie,
chain pickerel, redfin pickerel, bowfin, and numerous species of native catfish, as well as one
introduced species, the flathead catfish.
Birds
Colonial nesting birds, raptors, woodpeckers, shorebirds, and passerine birds all use bottomland
hardwood habitat. Some species are relatively restricted to bottomland hardwood habitat, including
barred owl; red-shouldered hawk; wood duck; yellow crowned night heron; yellow-billed cuckoo;
acadian flycatcher; American redstart; and prothonotary, Swainson’s, and northern parula warblers.
Other birds prefer bottomland hardwood sites because of food availability, such as woodpeckers that
use areas of dead or dying timber.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Floodplain forests of the South Atlantic Coastal Region support a rich assemblage of breeding birds,
over 50 percent of which are neotropical migratory birds. Baldcypress-tupelo forests provide
important breeding habitat for numerous insectivorous species of flycatchers, vireos, and warblers. A
large number of species are also dependent on mature southern pine forests, including northern
bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, wintering Henslow’s sparrow, southeastern American kestrel, brown-headed
nuthatch, and prairie warbler. The refuge acquisition area also provides habitat for wild
turkey. Approximately 200 species of birds have been recorded in the refuge acquisition area.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
The mosaic of wetland habitats on the refuge, along with a specialized flora composition associated
with each component, provide habitat for breeding neotropical migratory birds. This wetland and
upland habitat diversity is important to several high-priority species, such as painted buntings, indigo
buntings, and Swainson’s and prothonotary warblers. Additionally, the habitat mosaic represented
within Santee NWR serves as an important migration stop for transient neotropical migratory species,
as well as feeding, foraging, and nesting habitat for other temperate migratory and resident species.
Waterfowl
South Carolina’s coastal plain wetlands play an important role for many species of migrating waterfowl by
providing wintering grounds and staging areas for migrating waterfowl that winter elsewhere. From 1954
to 1987, South Carolina wintered an average of 30 percent of the dabbling ducks within the Atlantic
Flyway (USFWS 1997). Since 1970, South Carolina has wintered an average of 54 percent of American
green-winged teal, 50 percent of the northern shovelers, 35 percent of the mallards, 32 percent of the
northern pintails and American wigeon, and 31 percent of the gadwall in the flyway.
Santee NWR provides nesting and brood rearing habitat for wood ducks. There is an abundance of
wood ducks at the refuge and the wood duck banding program provides one of the best long-term
records for wood ducks in the southeast.
Marsh and Wading Birds
All of the priority marshbirds that are found in the refuge acquisition area require tall emergent
vegetation as part of their habitat. All are breeding species, except the American bittern. Breeding
populations of pied-billed grebe and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest.
Among the marshbirds of conservation interest, the king rail is of highest concern, followed by the
least bittern and purple gallinule.
Most waterfowl-oriented management, especially for wintering populations, is geared away from
promoting tall emergent vegetation. Most available habitat at Santee NWR is supported in managed
wetland impoundments, where management techniques can provide tall emergent habitat for
marshbirds along with providing for waterfowl.
Nesting long-legged wading birds have plenty of available habitats, but the issue remains of how
much disturbance these nesting birds can tolerate. Species of conservation interest in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain include little blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned
night heron, wood stork, and white ibis.
Shorebirds
Shorebirds suspected or known to occur on the refuge include the killdeer, greater and lesser
yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, common snipe, and American woodcock.
32 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Santee NWR used to be an important location for Native American culture and became strategically
important during the Revolutionary War. Built on the Santee Indian Mound overlooking the Santee
River, British Fort Watson controlled movement through this important transportation route. Its siege
and eventual capture by Francis Marion and his men highlights an interesting chapter of the
American Revolution.
The Santee Indian Mound is a well-preserved example of flat-topped Native American ceremonial
mounds that were once located throughout the southeastern United States. This particular mound
was a gathering place, serving much of the central coastal plain of South Carolina. It served as a
platform on which a temple could be built. The temple was constructed of upright posts through
which small sticks were woven and then plastered with mud. The roof was thatched with straw. The
mound probably served as a central distribution point for food and other supplies as well. These
mounds have sometimes been mistakenly identified as burial mounds, but their shape and function
were very different from those of burial mounds.
Temple mounds first appeared in the Mississippi River Valley about 1000 A.D., and shortly thereafter
became commonplace in the southeastern United States. Archaeologists theorize that the Santee
Indian Mound was built sometime between 1200 and 1400 A.D., because it occurs along the
easternmost extension of the region inhabited by the mound building culture. The spread of the
mound culture coincided with the spread of large scale agriculture and trade among the Native
American population.
It is highly probable that the Santee Indian Mound site was once a part of the Province of
Cofitachiqui, a Native American cultural region with its center near present-day Camden. Cofitachiqui
was visited between 1540 and 1542 by the Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto who wrote that the
people he found around the mound site were generally healthy and taller than Europeans. The
Province of Cofitachiqui was ruled at that time by a female priestess, a situation which was not
uncommon in that culture. Nobody really knows why the mound builders died out over the next
hundred years, but diseases introduced by Europeans, which are known to have killed thousands of
Native Americans, may have played a significant role.
During the Revolutionary War, General Francis Marion became a hero because of the unconventional
tactics he used to win battles. One of the most famous stories about his exploits is the capture of Fort
Watson, formerly the Santee Indian Mound, within what is now the Santee NWR. The British had
established a fort on the mound by building a high wall around it, and this fort guarded one of the
main roads from Charles Towne to Camden. They kept the fort closely guarded, and kept the bluff
surrounding Fort Watson bare of trees. Marion and his brigade of southern patriots had recently
been joined by General Light Horse Harry Lee and his Continental troops. After trying and failing to
penetrate the wall by force, Lee requested a cannon from General Nathanael Greene, the
commander of the southern army in Camden. The cannon was immediately dispatched, but
Greene's troops lost their way and wandered around for days before finally returning to Camden
without delivering the cannon.
Prior to the battle, the water for Fort Watson had been taken from a nearby oxbow lake. When Marion
and his troops arrived, their first objective was to cut off the British water supply. But while Marion and
Lee were waiting for the cannon, they noticed that the British were digging a well at the base of the Indian
mound. In the meantime, however, an epidemic of smallpox had broken out in Marion's camp, and many
of the militiamen began to desert. Marion, realizing that they could not take the fort by storm, considered
abandoning the siege. But Major Hezekiah Maham, a Continental officer, suggested building a tower
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
higher than the fort. Immediately, Marion sent his horsemen to scour the neighboring plantations for axes
so they could chop down pine saplings. Maham's tower was erected during the night. At daybreak on
April 15, 1781, the best riflemen climbed into the crow's nest to fire on the British as they went to their well
for water. The British immediately raised the white flag signifying surrender. Once again Francis Marion's
ragged guerrilla troops had defeated the British in a clever, fox like manner. This episode added even
more credence to Francis Marion's legendary nickname of "The Swamp Fox." His men, known for their
ability to hide themselves in trees, make plates out of bark, and live for days on nothing but sweet
potatoes and water, were greatly admired.
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
In 1790, South Carolina’s total resident population numbered 249,073 people. According to data
collected in 2003, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated the population of South Carolina to be
4,147,152 people, a 3.4 percent increase from 2000. South Carolina saw a 15.1 percent population
increase from 1990 to 2000. The average population density in this state is 133.2 people per square
mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Of the over 19 million acres of land in the state, seven percent (over 1.3 million acres) is publicly
owned, while 93 percent (17,912,789 acres) is privately owned. The vast majority of the state is
characterized as non-federal rural lands (non-federal referring to all lands in private, municipal, state
or tribal ownership). Land use on non-federal lands in the state, which total 18,115,500 acres, is
primarily forestland. South Carolina saw a twenty percent increase in developed lands between 1992
and 1997 (USDA 2000) and continues to see similar rates of conversion in land use.
As of 2002, there were approximately 4.85 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina
(USDA 2003). In 1982, there were approximately 5.5 million acres in agricultural production, which
amounts to a 12 percent drop in twenty years. The average farm in South Carolina was approximately
197 acres in size in 2002; up two percent from an average of 193 acres in 1997 (USDA 2003). The
market value of agricultural products sold in 2003 totaled over $1.6 billion with top outputs in poultry,
tobacco, and greenhouse/nursery production. Counties in South Carolina with the highest agricultural
yields in 2002 were Lexington, Kershaw, York, Dillon and Orangeburg (USDA 2003).
South Carolina is rich in non-fuel raw minerals with a total of over $506 million produced in 1997 (US
Department of the Interior 1998). The most common minerals produced in South Carolina are:
cement, clays, gemstones, peat, sand, gravel, and crushed stone. In 1997, South Carolina was the
top producer of vermiculite, ranked fourth in masonry cement, sixth in common clays, third in kaolin,
and fifth in crude mica. Portland cement and crushed stone were estimated at $193 and $155 million,
respectively, for 1997.
According to results of the USDA Forest Service Inventory Analysis (FIA) published in 2000, 12.3
million acres of land in South Carolina is forested (Conner and Sheffield 2000). Non-industrial private
owners, including individual and corporate timberland owners not associated with the forest product
industry, own 74 percent of these lands. Timberland ownership under corporate control has
increased in recent years to 19 percent or 2.0 million acres. The percentage of forests managed by
the forest products industry has decreased 14 percent, from 2.3 million to 2.0 million acres over the
FIA study period. Public land ownership increased to 1.2 million acres. Total softwood production
increased 14 percent to 9.2 billion cubic feet, while hardwood production increased just over 4
percent to 10.2 billion cubic feet.
34 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
FISHING
In 2001, 812,000 state residents and nonresidents, 16 years old and older, fished in South Carolina. Of
this total, 571,000 anglers (70 percent) were state residents and 241,000 anglers (30 percent) were
nonresidents. Anglers fished a total of 10.7 million days in South Carolina— an average of 13 days per
angler. State residents fished 9.8 million days, 91 percent of all fishing days within South Carolina
compared to nonresidents who fished 910,000 days—9 percent of all fishing days in the state.
Anglers, 16 years old and older, spent $559 million on fishing expenses in South Carolina in 2001.
Trip-related expenditures, including food and lodging, transportation, and other expenses, totaled
$318 million—57 percent of all their fishing expenditures. They spent $127 million on food and
lodging and $64 million on transportation. Other trip expenses, such as equipment rental, bait, and
cooking fuel, totaled $127 million. Each angler spent an average of $400 on trip-related costs
during 2001. Anglers spent $228 million on equipment in South Carolina in 2001, 41 percent of all
fishing expenditures. Fishing equipment (e.g., rods, reels, and line) totaled $79 million—35 percent
of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g., tents and special fishing clothes)
and special equipment expenditures (e.g., boats and pickups) amounted to $148 million, 65 percent
of the equipment total. Special and auxiliary equipment items are items that were purchased for
fishing, but could be used in activities other than fishing. The purchase of other items, such as
magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, stamps, and land leasing and ownership,
amounted to $13 million—2 percent of all fishing expenditures.
HUNTING
In 2001, there were 265,000 residents and nonresidents, 16 years old and older, who hunted in South
Carolina. Resident hunters numbered 221,000 accounting for 83 percent of the hunters in South
Carolina. There were 44,000 nonresidents who hunted in South Carolina—17 percent of the state's
hunters. Residents and nonresidents hunted 4.7 million days in 2001, an average of 18 days per hunter.
Residents hunted on 4.4 million days in South Carolina, or 94 percent of all hunting days, while
nonresidents spent 307 thousand days hunting in South Carolina, 6 percent of all hunting days.
Hunters 16 years old and older spent $305 million in South Carolina in 2001. Trip related expenses,
such as food and lodging, transportation, and other trip costs, totaled $96 million, 31 percent of their
total expenditures. They spent nearly $36 million on food and lodging and $42 million on
transportation. Other expenses, such as equipment rental, totaled $18 million for the year. The
average trip-related expenditure per hunter was $361. Hunters spent $158 million on equipment—52
percent of all hunting expenditures. Hunting equipment (e.g., guns and ammunition) totaled $108
million and comprised 68 percent of all equipment costs. Hunters spent $50 million on auxiliary
equipment (e.g., tents and special hunting clothes) and special equipment (e.g., boats and pickups),
accounting for 32 percent of total equipment expenditures for hunting. Special and auxiliary
equipment items are items that were purchased for hunting but could be used in activities other than
hunting. The purchase of other items, such as magazines, membership dues, licenses, permits, and
land leasing and ownership, costs hunters $52 million—17 percent of all hunting expenditures.
WILDLIFE WATCHING ACTIVITIES
In 2001, 1.2 million U.S. residents, 16 years old and older, fed, observed, or photographed wildlife in
South Carolina. Approximately 88 percent—1 million of the wildlife watchers—enjoyed their activities
close to home and are called "residential" participants. Those persons who enjoyed wildlife at least 1 mile
from home are called "nonresidential" participants. People participating in nonresidential activities in
South Carolina in 2001 numbered 331,000—28 percent of all wildlife watchers in South Carolina. Of the
331,000, 204,000 were state residents and 128,000 were nonresidents.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
South Carolinians, 16 years old and older, who enjoyed nonresidential wildlife watching within their
state totaled 204,000. Of this group, 195,000 participants observed wildlife, 100,000 participants
photographed wildlife, and 87,000 participants fed wildlife. Since some individuals engaged in more
than one of the three nonresidential activities during the year, the sum of wildlife observers, feeders,
and photographers exceeds the total number of nonresidential participants.
Bird watching attracted many wildlife enthusiasts in South Carolina. In 2001, 742,000 people observed
birds around the home and on trips. The majority, 78 percent (582,000), observed wild birds around the
home while 39 percent (291,000) took trips away from home to watch birds.
Participants, 16 years old and older, spent $256 million on wildlife-watching activities in South
Carolina in 2001. Trip related expenditures, including food and lodging ($56 million); transportation
($25 million); and other trip expenses, such as equipment rental ($8 million), amounted to $89 million.
This summation comprised 35 percent of all wildlife watching expenditures by participants. The
average trip-related expenditure for nonresidential participants was $269 per person in 2001.
Wildlife-watching participants spent $149 million on equipment—58 percent of all their
expenditures. Specifically, wildlife watching equipment (e.g., binoculars and special clothing)
totaled $113 million, 76 percent of the equipment total. Auxiliary equipment expenditures (e.g.,
tents and backpacking equipment) and special equipment expenditures (campers and trucks)
amounted to $36 million—24 percent of all equipment costs. Special and auxiliary equipment
items are items that were purchased for wildlife-watching recreation but could be used in
activities other than wildlife-watching activities. Other items purchased by wildlife watching
participants, such as magazines, membership dues, and contributions; land leasing and
ownership; and plantings totaled $18 million—7 percent of all wildlife-watching expenditures.
Further information regarding fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching activities can be found in the following
survey: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce,
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The increasing human population in the Clarendon County area brings a host of challenges to the
area in general and to the refuge in particular. Higher resident and tourist populations will require
more resorts, services, and commercial development, especially along the lake shore and major
rivers. Additional demands for housing, government services, and infrastructure will also be
required, including increasing demand for recreational areas, and more extensive transportation
systems. These demands, in turn, will exert greater pressures on the area’s natural environment.
Human population, real estate development, and economic growth are contributing factors to the
decline of wildlife and wildlife habitat, open space such as grassy fields and timber plantations,
and traditional lifestyles within local communities (e.g., farming). These factors are affecting land
use all around the refuge boundaries.
36 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
VISITOR SERVICES
Visitor use facilities on Santee NWR include:
􀁹􇤠 3,500+ square foot visitor center/office with interpretive panels and exhibits
􀁹􇤠 one improved hiking/nature trail on the Bluff Unit (0.9 miles) with 600 linear feet of
boardwalk and one viewing platform/observation tower
􀁹􇤠 one dirt and gravel auto tour route 7 1/2 miles in length on the Cuddo Unit
􀁹􇤠 one unimproved hiking trail (ca. 3/4-mile) on the Dingle Pond Unit
􀁹􇤠 two unimproved hiking trails (total length 3 1/2 miles) on the Cuddo Unit
􀁹􇤠 four miles of dirt and gravel roads on the Pine Island Unit suitable for hiking and/or
bicycle riding
In addition, the refuge is home to the Santee Indian Mound, the only such site in South Carolina open
to the public. An interpretive sign and refuge literature, along with stairs leading up to an observation
deck, are available to visitors to this site. The Indian Mound was also used as an outpost by the
British during the Revolutionary War. Its capture by Francis Marion's troops in April 1781 was an
important turning point for the war in South Carolina.
The refuge staff leads special presentations, programs and environmental education activities for
schools, civic organizations, and other special groups as requested when personnel are available.
Potential for increasing visitation and outreach efforts is high (see enclosed suggestions for
improvements to the primary visitor contact area – the Bluff Unit and the Visitor Center/Office
complex - submitted by Cheryl Simpson, former Chief of Visitor Services in the Service’s Regional
Office. With the transfer of a park ranger (public use) in January 2002, efforts began to improve
visitor services and accomplish as many of these recommendations as possible. Progress is slowly
being made to bring visitor services and facilities up to Service standards.
Annual visitation for the refuge averages 160,000 visits per year (Table 2), with the majority of the
non-consumptive visits recorded for activities related to wildlife observation and the use of refuge
trails and the auto tour route on the Cuddo Unit. Fishing tops the list of consumptive activities, with
hunting programs comprising less than three percent of the total.
Outreach and Environmental Education
A total of 1,418 participants were reached by sixteen outreach/environmental education events
conducted on-site during FY 2004. Groups and activities varied from the 1,000 adults and children
who enjoyed two days of Revolutionary War history and wildlife exhibits for the "Victory at Fort
Watson" celebration held in October 2003, to the 35 individuals on hand for a bird walk, scavenger
hunt, "natural" bird sculptures, and other activities celebrating Migratory Bird Day in May 2004.
Off-site outreach efforts in FY 2004 included exhibits and demonstrations set up at numerous events
(e.g., Palmetto Sportsman Class, Southeastern Wildlife Exposition, and National Tourism Day at the
South Carolina Welcome Center) along with special programs presented to retiree groups, civic groups,
and schools. Refuge staff also assisted with Orangeburg Fish Hatchery's annual fishing day that attracted
350-400 individuals. An estimated 70,000+ persons attended and/or viewed these events.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Table 2. Three-year summary of primary public uses - Santee NWR
Visitor Use Category
Number of Visits
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Average
Total Number of Visits 160,000 163,500 164,700 162,733
Talks/Tours 735 2,185 2,375 1,765
Visitor Center/Contact Stations 21,800 29175 30,600 27,192
Foot Trails 13,500 16,300 16,700 15,500
Boat/Canoe 42,000 50,400 51,300 47,900
Auto 26,000 33,400 35,000 31,466
Teacher Environmental Education
Workshops
0 0 0 0
Students Taught (on-site) 700 675 765 713
Students Taught (off-site) 450 530 230 403
Non-staff Conducted (students-on and off
site)
200 745 200 382
Hunting (Migratory Birds – Mourning Dove) 1,300 575 600 825
Hunting (Upland Game – Squirrel) 150 300 325 258
Hunting (Big Game – Deer) 2,600 2,000 2,400 2,333
Fishing (Freshwater) 40,000 52,300 54,200 48,833
Recreational Boating 9,000 7,250 5,000 7,083
Other (picnicking, camping, jogging, etc.) 700 500 600 600
Group Presentations 200 630 415 415
Exhibits 500 70,625 60,000 43,708
News Releases 8 15 12 12
Radio/TV Spots 4 0 1
Special Events (number of events shown) 10 8 9
38 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Santee NWR is host to one of the most popular Audubon Christmas Bird Counts in the Carolinas. With
recorded observations of 296 species, it is easy to understand why the refuge is considered one of the
best inland birding areas in the state. The 2003 count was conducted on December 27, 2003, with thirty-seven
participants logging 380 miles in 92 hours. Sightings of interest included grasshopper sparrow,
red-breasted nuthatch, peregrine falcon, LeConte's sparrow, and seventeen bald eagles.
Hunting and Fishing
It is difficult to estimate the number of visits made for recreational fishing each year. The public is
allowed to fish in refuge waters included within the boundaries of Lake Marion and from several
impoundments located within the interior of refuge units. All water areas of the refuge are open to
public fishing. An estimated 45,000 to 50,000 visits are made annually to fish these waters.
Hunting activities allowed on the refuge include:
􀁹􇤠 Raccoon and Opossum Hunt (10 days)
􀁹􇤠 Mourning Dove Hunt (13 days)
􀁹􇤠 Primitive Weapons Hunt for Deer (Pine Island Unit) (6 days)
􀁹􇤠 Archery Hunt for Deer (Cuddo Unit) (6 days)
􀁹􇤠 Primitive Weapons Hunt for Deer (Cuddo Unit) (6 days)
Refuge Volunteers
Ninety-one volunteers contributed a total of 4,364 hours of work during Fiscal Year 2004. The
number and variety of individuals interested in helping Santee NWR conduct management and public
use programs is indeed impressive. The potential for growing the volunteer program here is
substantial. Existing volunteers are energetic and are especially interested in improving the refuge's
public image and exposure. Volunteer activities range from assistance with special events to
maintenance of equipment, buildings, roads, and facilities.
Friends of Santee National Wildlife Refuge
On January 17, 2002, the refuge hosted an organizational meeting to gauge local interest in establishing
a refuge support group. After hearing pertinent details, the group of twenty individuals gathered for this
meeting decided to pursue organizing and officially establishing the Friends of Santee National Wildlife
Refuge. Their charter and articles of incorporation were approved in May 2002.
In October 2004, the group signed a Cooperating Association Agreement with Santee NWR. Since
its establishment, the group has been primarily involved in activities to improve visitor use facilities
and promote the refuge to local and regional audiences. However, a number of the members of this
group are active in refuge management activities (i.e., wood duck and winter waterfowl banding,
wood duck box maintenance, casual wildlife surveys, and office assistance). Accomplishments
include the highly successful annual "Victory at Fort Watson" events; partnering with Santee Cooper
Public Service Authority for purchase and erection of mounted binoculars on the visitor center deck;
encouraging the South Carolina Department of Transportation to erect three new signs directing
visitors from I-95 to the visitor center, and seven new signs directing visitors from the visitor center to
the Cuddo Unit; and allocation of a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to establish a
visitor contact station at the Cuddo Unit entrance and make other improvements to the wildlife drive.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
PERSONNEL, OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE
Most of the refuge uplands are owned in fee title, with the exception the water boundary of Lake Marion and
the Dingle Pond Unit, which is leased from Santee Cooper. Maintaining a partnership with Santee Cooper
is important to the refuge. Acquiring additional lands or leases in the future would benefit Santee NWR.
The refuge extends for 18 miles along the northern shore of Lake Marion. It protects 15,095 acres in four
distinct separate units. Unique natural and cultural resources found on the refuge include a Carolina Bay
and the Santee Indian Mound (used as both a ceremonial and burial mound). British troops erected Fort
Watson atop the mound during the Revolutionary War only to have it taken by Francis Marion’s colonial
troops in April 1781. The refuge is located in the largely rural/agricultural part of Clarendon County where
land interest and value are quickly increasing as the area becomes a resort area.
The size and complexity of the refuge are depicted in the infrastructure required to support the
refuge. The refuge has an inventory of over 33 miles of maintained roads, 4 miles of trails, and 6
miles of dikes; a 7-mile auto wildlife drive; 6 buildings; 2 boat ramps; unimproved parking lots; and 6
pumps. There are 13 pieces of heavy equipment; 9 motor vehicles, including 5 tractors, 3 bulldozers,
1 backhoe, 1 tracked-excavator, 1 dump truck, 1 tractor trailer, and 1 rollback transport truck. There
are 3 all-terrain vehicles; 3 boats; and 15 farm implements, such as disc, plows, planters, and rotary
cutters needed to manage refuge habitat and facilities.
The refuge currently has eight permanent staff members: one staff member is being transferred (refuge
officer) to the Refuge Complex headquarters and another position is targeted for abolishment (office
assistant) under Service’s regional work force plan. The remaining five positions are directed toward the
administration, biological, public use, and maintenance programs. Figure 10 outlines the current staffing
chart. Historically, the refuge supported as many as 16 seasonal and permanent staff members. There
are six regular volunteers who annually contribute 2,500 hours to the refuge. Another 90 volunteers only
work occasionally and can contribute an additional 2,200 hours. All staff members have office space in
the refuge visitor center except for the equipment operators, who use the maintenance shop office, and
the refuge officer, whose office is located at Waccamaw NWR. The refuge uses the District Fire
Management and Wildland Urban Interface staff members who are headquartered at the Savannah NWR
Complex. The district fire management staff serves refuges at both the Lowcountry and Savannah NWR
Complexes. All units of the refuge are currently open to public access with a 7-mile auto wildlife drive
located at the Cuddo Unit. Annual visitation to the refuge averages 130,000 to 160,000 visits per year,
with the majority of the non-consumptive visits recorded for activities related to wildlife observation and the
use of refuge trails, and the auto tour route on the Cuddo Unit. Fishing tops the list of consumptive
activities, with hunting programs comprising less than three percent of the total. Special use permits
govern research and other access into these refuges.
Primary refuge facilities and equipment are located on the Bluff Unit. The refuge shop consists of a
three-bay enclosed equipment/vehicle shop and one attached open bay; a wood working shop; a fire
cache; a small equipment storage shed; a chemical storage shed with one open (i.e., outside)
equipment bay attached; a fuel depot; a grain bin; and a fenced compound. There is an additional
open equipment storage shed, and a one-bay metal storage building on the western Bluff unit. There
is one fenced compound storage area on the Pine Island Unit.
There are 31 water control structures that facilitate water management and 6 permanent, diesel-operated
pumping stations. The control system services 18 managed impounded wetlands on the refuge.
This CCP recommends converting one park ranger position to one biological technician within five years
of CCP approval, restoring one full-time law enforcement officer and one administrative assistant, and
adding an additional biological technician and one temporary forester (Figure 11).
40 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 10. Current organization chart for Santee NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41
Figure 11. Proposed organizational chart for Santee NWR
42 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43
III. Plan Development
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, CONCERNS, AND OPPORTUNITIES
The planning team identified a number of issues, concerns, and opportunities related to fish and
wildlife protection, habitat restoration, recreation, and management of threatened and endangered
species. Additionally, the planning team considered federal and state mandates, as well as
applicable local ordinances, regulations, and plans. The team also directed the process of obtaining
public input through public scoping meetings, planning team meetings, and personal contacts. All
public and advisory team comments were considered; however, some issues important to the public
fall outside the scope of the decision to be made within this planning process. The team has
considered all issues identified through this planning process, and has developed a plan that
attempts to balance the competing opinions regarding important issues. The team identified those
issues that, in the team’s best professional judgment, are most significant to the refuge. A summary
of the significant issues follows.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATION MANAGEMENT
􀁹􇤠 Ensure wintering needs (e.g., forage and sanctuary) of migratory Southern James Bay
Canada Geese, with emphasis on high-caloric foods, green browse, improved agricultural
crops, and reduction of impact of deer/resident geese on available foods. This is to include a
partnership with the SCDNR to conduct a study of both migratory and resident geese to assist
the state in determining the impact of hunting on migratory geese and determine if an
expanded hunt on resident geese is feasible.
􀁹􇤠 Encourage and promote management and monitoring activities to increase wood duck
productivity.
􀁹􇤠 Evaluate ways to increase wintering waterfowl numbers.
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 (focus on
waterfowl, waterbirds, and marsh birds) and to include a comprehensive understanding of the
ecology of wetlands and enhanced health of the wetland vegetative communities for all
migratory birds. Monitor the impact of captive-reared mallards on food resources produced for
migratory waterfowl.
􀁹􇤠 Continue perpetuation of early successional grassland, scrub/shrub communities on the
abandoned agricultural fields, including emphasis on adapted management linked to ongoing
(i.e., off-site) and former old-field research studies. To include an evaluation of the number
and size of fields and determine the feasibility for reforestation of some fields in native,
desirable forest communities (e.g., carbon sequestration programs) if possible.
􀁹􇤠 Improve forest management to enhance under-story and mid-story vegetation densities for
several key groups of non-game birds (need an updated Forest Management Plan). Partnership
with the SCDNR to establish breeding bird surveys on the refuge; obtain technical assistance
through an existing memorandum of understanding, and on recommendations for management of
key species as identified in the CWCS and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
44 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 Control exotics and invasive non-desirable plant communities on upland and wetland sites.
Develop partnerships with Santee-Cooper and other agencies for the control of exotic species.
􀁹􇤠 Work with Santee-Cooper and state to explore possibility of encouraging native submerged
aquatic plants into main reservoir backwaters and coves associated with the refuge and
controlling grass carp impacts to native species. Work with SCDNR and others to establish
desirable, native wetland plant communities for enhanced migratory bird management.
􀁹􇤠 Update the existing Forest Management Plan. A critical need exists for a forester to update
the plan and provide direction for forest resource management, including harvesting and
mechanical thinning.
􀁹􇤠 Continue present work to evaluate the Wetland Management Plan on all units and develop an
updated, formal plan to include reconstruction and repair of dikes on the Cuddo Unit, to
replace and install additional water pumps to maintain adequate water flow capabilities on all
refuge units, and to evaluate the dike systems and water control structure locations on all
units for enhanced water management capability.
􀁹􇤠 Update the 2001 Fire Management Plan. The plan was well-prepared; however, it needs to
be updated to include current resource management objectives. The Biological Review Team
was concerned with the direction towards managing mixed hardwoods through mostly
dormant season burns. However, there was a split opinion on the frequency, season, and use
of fire in the mixed hardwood community. The present burn plan needs to have targeted
resource conservation objectives that are linked to state and national plans, such as the
Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, and SAMBI, such that the
resulting forest treatments will be providing habitat to identified key migratory bird species.
The practice of burning and/or mechanical manipulation needs to be clearly addressed
relative to habitat types, safe fuel reduction, migratory birds, and other native species.
RESOURCE PROTECTION
􀁹􇤠 Pursue acquisition of additional property around Dingle Pond and other units to provide a clearly
defined boundary and buffer from increasing local land development. Include working with
SCDNR and Santee-Cooper to promote environmental stewardship efforts and an understanding
of how future landscape changes (i.e., development) will impact adjacent refuge habitats.
Encourage Santee-Cooper to look at the potential of buffer zones that could be created by
reestablishing former refuge boundary lines. For example, a request has been made to Santee-
Cooper to reestablish the former water boundary line at the Dingle Pond, Polly-Cantey Bay area.
Additional buffers have also been requested along the Bluff Unit and Cantey Bay area.
􀁹􇤠 Develop an understanding of local demographic changes with respect to how increased human
population growth will impact user demand and also impact refuge programs and resources.
􀁹􇤠 Restore the hydrology of Dingle Pond so that it actually functions like a Carolina bay.
VISITOR SERVICES
􀁹􇤠 Develop a regional coalition of “outreach” partnerships that could link nearby conservation
areas and programs, assist with educational and interpretive programs, and enhance
local/regional awareness of the refuge. Include a coordinated effort to determine the
feasibility of developing a birding festival at Santee NWR that would bring together local and
regional partners.
􀁹􇤠 Determine the condition of existing public use trails and other facilities; determine needed
maintenance and improvements for safe, compatible, and appropriate uses.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain quality hunting and fishing opportunities.
􀁹􇤠 Maintain quality wildlife observation and wildlife photography opportunities.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION
􀁹􇤠 Develop the refuge volunteer program to include volunteers to assist with the biological
program, including bird monitoring, water quality monitoring, and/or other activities that
volunteers could do, depending on their levels of expertise.
Wilderness Review
Refuge planning policy requires a wilderness review as part of the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as an area of federal land
that retains its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human
habitation, and is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which:
􀁹􇤠 generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable;
􀁹􇤠 has outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined type of recreation;
􀁹􇤠 has at least 5,000 contiguous roadless acres or is of sufficient size to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired condition;
􀁹􇤠 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, education, scenic, or historic
value.
SUMMARY OF REFUGE WILDERNESS REVIEW
A proposal for wilderness designation of 163 acres of island habitat at Santee NWR was finalized on
March 25, 1975, and submitted for congressional approval. No official action was taken by Congress
at the time to include the islands as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. In 1993,
and again in 1999, official requests from Congress for information regarding the Santee NWR
wilderness proposal were made, thus indicating that the proposal was still viable for consideration.
However, no official legislative action has yet been taken by Congress.
The proposed Santee NWR Wilderness Area consists of 13 islands in Lake Marion. These islands
comprise 163 acres and are split between two of the four refuge management units. The Cuddo Unit
includes the Plantation Islands, and the Pine Island Unit includes Pine Island. The islands range in
size from the 22-acre Pine Island to less than one acre in the Plantation Islands.
Historically, the timber in the area was actively harvested and agricultural land was actively farmed
prior to the creation of Lake Marion when the hydroelectric dam was built. Natural regeneration had
restored much of the wilderness character of the islands in 1975, and presently the islands exhibit
even greater wilderness character because of nearly 70 years of forest growth. The islands contain a
mix of pine and hardwood forests.
The Wilderness Act specifies that proposed wilderness areas are to be managed as wilderness
pending congressional approval. The proposed Santee NWR Wilderness Area has been managed
as wilderness since 1975, and will continue to be treated as wildness in perpetuity.
The Service analyzed other refuge lands within the planning area and found no additional areas that
meet the eligibility criteria for a Wilderness Study Area as defined by the Wilderness Act.
46 Santee National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47
IV. Management Direction
INTRODUCTION
The Service manages fish and wildlife habitats 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.
Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation are therefore emphasized in this CCP.
This chapter describes the CCP 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 – CONTINUE CURRENT MANAGEMENT (NO ACTION)
ALTERNATIVE B – TARGETED HABITAT MANAGEMENT PRIMARILY FOR WATERFOWL
ALTERNATIVE C – WILDLIFE AND HABITAT DIVERSITY (PREFERRED)
Each of these alternatives was described in the Alternatives section of the Draft CCP/EA. The
Service chose 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 overall wildlife and habitat diversity. Waterfowl will remain a focus of management.
However, wetland habitat manipulations will also consider the needs of multiple species, such as
marsh and wading birds. Management of upland forests and fields for neotropical migratory birds will
be more actively managed, and landscape level consideration of habitat management will include a
diversity of open fields, upland and w