Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment Savannah Coastal Refuge Complex Blackbeard Island, Harris Neck, Pinckney Island, Savannah, Tybee and Wassaw National Wildlife Refuges

              DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SAVANNAH COASTAL REFUGE COMPLEX
Blackbeard Island, Harris Neck, Pinckney Island, Savannah,
Tybee and Wassaw National Wildlife Refuges
Located in Chatham, Effingham, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia, and Jasper and Beaufort
Counties, South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
September 2010
Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 1
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 1
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 2
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 11
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 15
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 23
Ecological Threats and Problems ...............................................................................................32
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 38
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 38
Climate Change and Global Warming ............................................................................... 38
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 45
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 47
Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 47
Surface Water ................................................................................................................... 48
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 49
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 49
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 53
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 53
Wildlife..............................................................................................................................66
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 73
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 77
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 82
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 82
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 91
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ....................................................................... 102
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................ 107
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ................................................................... 107
Fish and Wildlife Population Management ...................................................................... 108
Habitat Management ....................................................................................................... 112
Resource Protection ........................................................................................................ 115
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 115
Refuge Administration ..................................................................................................... 116
ii Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ..................................................................................................... 117
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 117
Vision ...................................................................................................................................... 117
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ............................................................................................ 118
Fish and Wildlife Population Management...................................................................... 118
Habitat Management....................................................................................................... 132
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 162
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 182
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 189
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................................... 195
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 195
Proposed Projects .................................................................................................................... 195
Funding and Personnel ............................................................................................................ 199
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ...................................................................................... 200
Step-Down Management Plans ................................................................................................ 203
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................................................... 204
Plan Review and Revision........................................................................................................ 204
SECTION B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 205
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 205
Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................... 205
Decision Framework................................................................................................................. 206
Planning Study Area ................................................................................................................ 206
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ....................................................................... 208
Compatibility ................................................................................................................... 208
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ......................................................................... 208
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................ 211
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................... 213
Formulation of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 213
Description of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 213
Alternative A - (Current Management - No Action) ......................................................... 213
Alternative B - (Increased Management - Proposed alternative) .................................... 213
Alternative C - (Minimal Intervention) .............................................................................. 213
Features Common to all Alternatives ....................................................................................... 217
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 219
Alternative Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ................................................ 274
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................... 275
Overview ................................................................................................................................. 275
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 275
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 275
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 275
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 276
Table of Contents iii
Land Acquisition ..............................................................................................................276
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 276
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 277
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 277
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 278
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 290
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 403
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance and Use of Herbicides ........................................... 403
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 403
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 403
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 404
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 404
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 404
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 404
Anticipated Impacts of hunting on Wildlife Species ......................................................... 405
Anticipated Impacts of Hunting on refuge Programs, Facilities, Cultural resources,
Environmental Justice, Environmental Resources, and Surrounding Communities ....... 408
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 410
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 411
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION .................................................................................... 413
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 413
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................. 417
APPENDIX B. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ..................................................... 429
APPENDIX C. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .............................. 439
APPENDIX D. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 453
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 453
APPENDIX E. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS............................................................... 459
APPENDIX F. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ..................................................................... 471
APPENDIX G. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION .................................. 513
APPENDIX H. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................... 521
APPENDIX I. REFUGE BIOTA ........................................................................................................ 523
APPENDIX J. BUDGET REQUESTS ............................................................................................... 543
Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS) ............................................................................... 543
Maintenance Management System Needs ............................................................................... 544
APPENDIX K. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................. 545
iv Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Savannah Coastal Refuges – National Wildlife Refuge Complex ..................................... 10
Figure 2. Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................... 16
Figure 3. Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................ 17
Figure 4. Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................................... 18
Figure 5. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................... 19
Figure 6. Tybee National Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 7. Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 8. Ecoregions of South Carolina Level III and IV ................................................................... 25
Figure 9. Ecoregions of Georgia Level III and IV .............................................................................. 26
Figures 10 and 11. 1971 - 2000 Temperature and Precipitation ........................................................ 44
Figure 12. Barrier Islands of the Lower Coastal Plain ........................................................................ 46
Figure 13. General Habitat Types on Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge ............................. 56
Figure 14. General Habitat Types on Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge ...................................... 58
Figure 15. General Habitat Types on Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge ................................ 62
Figure 16. General Habitat Types on Savannah National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 65
Figure 17. General Habitat Types on Tybee National Wildlife Refuge ............................................... 67
Figure 18. General Habitat Types on Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 69
Figure 19. Protected Lands of Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge ....................................... 84
Figure 20. Protected Lands of Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge ................................................. 85
Figure 21. Protected Lands of Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge ........................................... 86
Figure 22. Protected Lands of Savannah National Wildlife Refuge .................................................... 87
Figure 23. Savannah Island National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary ...................................... 88
Figure 24. Protected Lands of Tybee National Wildlife Refuge .......................................................... 89
Figure 25. Protected Lands of Wassaw Island National Wildlife Refuge ............................................ 90
Figure 26. Location of Public Use Areas on Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge. ................. 92
Figure 27. Location of Public Use Areas on Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge ............................ 93
Figure 28. Location of Public Use Areas on Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge ...................... 95
Figure 29. Location of Public Use Areas on Savannah National Wildlife Refuge (South) .................. 98
Figure 30. Location of Public Use Areas on Savannah National Wildlife Refuge (North) ................... 99
Figure 31. Location of Public Use Areas on Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge. .............................. 101
Figure 32. Proposed organization structure for the management of the
Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex--current and proposed positions ......................... 201
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Climatological Normals ........................................................................................................ 43
Table 2. Air Quality by County ........................................................................................................... 51
Table 3. Air Quality by City ................................................................................................................ 52
Table 4. Land Cover Classifications .................................................................................................. 55
Table 5. Land Cover Classifications .................................................................................................. 57
Table 6. Acreages of Habitat Types on Pinckney Island NWR .......................................................... 60
Table 7. Land Cover Classifications .................................................................................................. 61
Table 8. Acreages of Habitat Types on Savannah NWR. .................................................................. 64
Table 9. Land Cover Classifications .................................................................................................. 64
Table 10. Land Cover Classifications .................................................................................................. 68
Table 11. Demographics and Socioeconomics for the Savannah Coastal Refuges ............................ 79
Table 12. Activities in Georgia and South Carolina by U.S. Residents ................................................ 81
Table 13. Summary of projects for SCRC .......................................................................................... 202
Table 14. National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans related to the
goals and objectives of the comprehensive conservation plan ........................................ 203
Table 15. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Blackbeard Island
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 219
Table 16. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Harris Neck
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 229
Table 17. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Pinckney Island
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 239
Table 18. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Savannah
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 248
Table 19. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Tybee
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 259
Table 20. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wassaw
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 265
Table 21. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Blackbeard Island
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 290
Table 22. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Harris Neck
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 312
Table 23. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Pinckney Island
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 332
Table 24. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Savannah
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 349
Table 25. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Tybee
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 371
Table 26. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Wassaw
National Wildlife Refuge ................................................................................................... 382
vi Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Savannah, Tybee, Pinckney Island, Wassaw, Harris Neck, and Blackbeard Island National Wildlife
Refuges, located within the Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex (Savannah Coastal NWR Complex)
was prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuges. 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
refuges and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) proposed plan, as well as other alternatives
considered and their effects on the environment. The Draft CCP/EA will be made available to state
and federal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, conservation partners, and the
general public for review and comment. Comments from each entity will be considered in the
development of the final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuges’
purposes; attains the vision and goals developed for the Savanah Coastal NWR Complex; contributes to
the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues and
relevant mandates; and is consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuges;
 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
2 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and
enhancing fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people
through Federal programs relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and
marine mammals, and inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 550 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 Ecological Services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources
and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) established, for the
first time, a clear legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with the Improvement Act, approved plans will serve as
the guidelines for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Improvement Act states that each
refuge shall be managed to:
 Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas” (i.e., protection
of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 35 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2006, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2006, 87 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $120 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland 2003).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2006, over
36,000 volunteers contributed nearly 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide. The value of their labor
was more than $26 million; their in-kind services the equivalent of 696 full-time employees.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The Improvement Act stipulates that comprehensive conservation plans be prepared in consultation
with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the Service develop and implement a
process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in the preparation and revision (every
15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved comprehensive
conservation plan that will guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge
unit purposes. The plan will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices,
and legal mandates, including Service compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines,
and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
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 Savannah Coastal NWR Complex 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 the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex and other partners, such as the Georgia and South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (GADNR and SCDNR), The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and private landowners, etc.
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 appropriate and compatible as defined in the
Service Manual (603 FW 1&2). All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set
forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates are to:
 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses benefit the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, refuge role within an
ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this Draft CCP/EA.
This Draft CCP/EA supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
Southern Coastal Plain 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.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
6 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
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 states of Georgia and South Carolina.
GADNR and SCDNR are state-partnering agencies with the Service, charged with enforcement
responsibilities relating to migratory birds and endangered species, as well as managing state natural
resources, coastal marshes, and wildlife management areas. These agencies direct each state’s
wildlife conservation program and provide public recreation opportunities on state wildlife
management areas. The participation of the GADNR/SCDNR throughout this Draft CCP/EA planning
process provides ongoing opportunities for an open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainability
of fish and wildlife in Georgia and South Carolina. A key aspect of the planning process is the
integration of common objectives between the Service and the state agency, where appropriate. An
essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common mission objectives
where appropriate. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies for the states of Georgia and
South Carolina are summarized below.
Georgia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy:
In December 2002, the Wildlife Resources Division (WRD) of GADNR began a process to develop a
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS). Through the Wildlife Conservation and
Reinvestment Program, WRD made a commitment to develop and begin implementation of this
CWCS by October 1, 2005. Funding for this planning effort came from a federal grant to WRD
through the State Wildlife Grant program and matching funds were provided through Georgia’s
Nongame Wildlife Conservation Fund. The goal of the CWCS strategy is to conserve Georgia’s
animals, plants, and natural habitats through proactive measures emphasizing voluntary and
incentive-based programs on private lands; habitat restoration and management by public agencies
and private conservation organizations; rare species survey and recovery efforts; and environmental
education and public outreach activities.
Components of this planning effort included: 1) development of databases on rare species and
natural communities; 2) identification of high-priority species and habitats; 3) identification of high-priority
research and biological inventory needs; 4) surveys for rare species on public and private
lands; 5) development of databases of conservation lands and high-priority watersheds and
landscapes; 6) prioritization of conservation, education, and habitat protection needs; 7) collaboration
with state and Federal agencies on habitat protection/restoration plans; 8) technical assistance to
private conservation organizations and local governments; 9) review of existing conservation laws,
rules, and policies; and 10) public input and educational outreach.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
The following goals represent important themes in the CWCS:
 Maintain known viable populations of all high-priority species and functional examples of all high-priority
habitats through voluntary land protection and incentive-based habitat management
programs on private lands, and habitat restoration and management on public lands.
 Increase public awareness of high-priority species and habitats by developing educational
messages and lesson plans for use in environmental education facilities, local schools, and
other facilities.
 Facilitate restoration of important wildlife habitats through reintroduction of prescribed fire,
hydrologic enhancements, and vegetation restoration.
 Conduct statewide assessments of rare natural communities and habitats that support species
of conservation concern.
 Improve efforts to protect vulnerable and ecologically important habitats such as isolated
wetlands, headwater streams, and caves.
 Combat the spread of invasive/noxious species in high-priority natural habitats by identifying
problem areas; providing technical and financial assistance; developing specific educational
messages; and managing invasive/noxious species populations on public lands.
 Minimize impacts from development and other activities on high-priority species and habitats
by improving environmental review procedures and facilitating training for and compliance with
best management practices.
 Update the state protected species list and work with conservation partners to improve
management of these species and their habitats.
 Conduct targeted field inventories of neglected taxonomic groups including invertebrates and
nonvascular plants.
 Continue efforts to recover federally listed species through implementation of recovery plans,
and restore populations of other high-priority species.
 Establish a consistent source of state funding for land protection to support wildlife
conservation, and increase availability and use of federal funds for land acquisition and
management.
 Continue efforts to monitor land use changes statewide and in each ecoregion, and use
predictive models to assess impacts to high-priority species and habitats.
South Carolina’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy:
In May 2002, the SCDNR began a process to develop the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (CWCS) that was funded through the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program. The SCDNR
committed to developing the Strategy and begin implementing the conservation actions by October 1,
2005. The goal of the Strategy is 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.
The actions considered critical in this planning effort included: increasing baseline biological
inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of native species; increasing
commitment by natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, and academia toward
establishing effective conservation strategies; increasing financial support and technological
resources for planning and implementation of these strategies; and creating public-private
partnerships and educational outreach programs for broad-scale conservation efforts.
8 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
The following are the required elements in South Carolina’s CWCS:
 Information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, including low and
declining populations as the state fish and wildlife agency deems appropriate, that are
indicative of the diversity and health of the State’s wildlife.
 Descriptions of locations and relative condition of key habitats and community types essential
to conservation of species identified in the first element (above).
 Descriptions of problems, which may adversely affect species identified in the first element
(above) or their habitats, and priority research and survey efforts needed to identify factors,
which may assist in restoration and improved conservation of these species and habitats.
 Descriptions of conservation actions determined to be necessary to conserve the identified
species and habitats and priorities for implementing such actions.
 Descriptions of the proposed plans for monitoring species identified in the first element
(above) and their habitats, for monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed conservation
actions, and for adapting these conservation actions to respond appropriately to new
information or changing conditions.
 Descriptions of procedures to review the Strategy/Plan at intervals not to exceed ten years.
 Descriptions of the plans for coordinating, to the extent feasible, the development,
implementation, review, and revision of the Plan/Strategy with Federal, State, and local
agencies and Indian tribes that manage significant land and water areas within the state or
administer programs that significantly affect the conservation of identified species and habitats.
 Descriptions of the necessary public participation in the development, revision, and
implementation of the Plan/Strategy.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
A chain of seven national wildlife refuges forms the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex that extends
from Pinckney Island NWR near Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, to Wolf Island NWR near Darien,
Georgia. Between these two refuges lie five additional national wildlife refuges: Savannah (the
largest unit in the Complex), Wassaw, Tybee, Harris Neck, and Blackbeard Island NWRs. These
seven refuges – referred to as the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex – total 56,949 acres, span about
100 miles of the Atlantic Ocean coastline, and are administered from their headquarters at the
Savannah NWR Visitor Center, Figure 1.
These refuges are located in an ecosystem characterized by coastal marsh and barrier islands and
locally referred to as "Lowcountry," bordered on the west by sandhill ridges and on the east by the
Atlantic Ocean and extending from Georgetown, South Carolina, to St. Mary's, Georgia.
The variety of birdlife within the Lowcountry is enhanced by its location on the Atlantic Flyway. During
the winter months, thousands of mallards, pintails, teal and many other species of ducks migrate into
the area, joining resident wood ducks on the coastal refuges. In the spring and fall, transient
songbirds and shorebirds stop briefly on their journeys to and from northern nesting grounds. Among
these casual visitors are the diminutive warblers (magnolia, prairie, blackpoll) and sandpipers (buff-breasted,
white-rumped, pectoral). Many migratory songbirds and shorebirds terminate their
southern journeys and spend the winter. The hermit thrush, rubycrowned kinglet, yellow-rumped
warbler, black-bellied plover, and sanderling are a few of the winter residents.
The barrier islands provide ideal habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals, including species of
concern such as the American alligator, piping plover, wood stork, loggerhead sea turtle, and
southern bald eagle. The saltwater marshes that lie behind the barrier islands are nurseries for
countless marine organisms, including shrimp, oysters, crabs, striped bass, and other commercial
and sport species that are particularly important to the coastal economy. Such an abundance of life
in the salt marsh invites other animals to rest, feed, or nest -- promoting the diversity of flora and
fauna found in the lowcountry coastal plain and the barrier islands habitats.
With the exception of Wolf Island NWR, the development of this Draft CCP/EA for the remaining
six refuges comprising the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex was initiated in 2008. The Wolf
Island NWR CCP was initiated in 2006 and completed in 2008. This Draft CCP/EA contains
concepts to guide further development and implementation of land use and management
programs and associated facilities and management structures for the next 15 years.
Consideration of physical, biological, and cultural resources, along with the socioeconomic
environment and refuge management and administration, is taken into account and analyzed to
produce an overview of each refuge and the challenges it faces. The EA is being prepared in
compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) guidelines. In addition to
documenting the existing natural environmental and socioeconomic setting, the EA evaluates the
impact of the proposed and alternative actions and no action in order to facilitate selection of the
alternative most suitable for implementation.
10 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Figure 1. Savannah Coastal NWR Complex
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
By various estimates, man has inhabited the North American continent for 10,000-40,000 years.
There is increasing evidence that human occupancy of what is now the coastal region of the
southeastern United States extends at least 10,000 years into the past. This is difficult to prove
because archaeological evidence in coastal areas is quickly destroyed by changing sea levels with
constant erosion and deposition so that many early sites are probably located under the water on the
continental shelf and visible traces of human occupation date back only about 4,000 years. Sites on
the barrier islands dating from A.D. 500 to 1300 reveal that the inhabitants cultivated corn, beans,
pumpkins, and other crops before contact with Europeans. Shell heaps and middens attest to the
importance of shellfish in the diet of the original inhabitants.
European influence began in 1568 with the establishment of the first Spanish missions. Although
periodically destroyed or otherwise interrupted, these missions tenaciously clung to survival for over
100 years. During their tenure, the Spaniards enriched the native fare by the introduction of exotic
plants (figs, oranges, other fruits) and domesticated animals (hogs, goats). In 1685, the English and
their native allies invaded from the north and destroyed the missions and the island natives. For
about 50 years, the islands remained uninhabited and, except for occasional visits by pirates and
Indians, undisturbed.
In 1732, King George I of England granted the region to General James Oglethorpe as a buffer
against the Spanish in Florida. Oglethorpe landed in Savannah in 1733, and established it as the first
settlement recognized by the English government in colonial days. Oglethorpe's efforts toward
colonization extended south to St. Simons where he built Fort Frederica and ended the Spanish
threat in North America. Subsequently, by 1776, Savannah, Richmond Hill, Midway, Sunbury,
Darien, Brunswick, and St. Mary’s were thriving agricultural communities. Naval stores (tar, pitch,
turpentine) and live oak timbers were the earliest major economic resources of the islands, which
soon came under intensive agriculture. On the mainland, as well as the islands, the colonists
experimented with a variety of subtropical plants including olives, dates, oranges, figs, rice, indigo,
hemp, pomegranates, coffee, tea, and silk. The climate proved unsuitable for oranges, although they
persisted as a minor crop for many years. Silk was a major crop for a few years and was produced
on a minor scale as late as 1790. By 1750 rice and indigo were well established as profitable crops.
The Revolutionary War brought about a decline in the market for indigo, which was largely
supplanted by rice except on the islands.
Rice was grown in diked fields at the mouths of mainland rivers. Production reached its peak
between 1850 and 1860. Chatham County was the leading producer, followed by Camden,
McIntosh, Glynn, Liberty, and Bryan counties. In 1859, planters were harvesting an average of 50
bushels per acre, with about 23,000 acres in cultivation. Total state production was 52,507,652
pounds. Long-staple cotton, imported from the Bahamas about 1785, was first grown on St. Simons
and was soon cultivated on the other islands and the adjacent mainland along the Georgia and South
Carolina coasts. This variety known as sea Island cotton, far superior to upland cotton, sold for two to
five times the price of the latter.
The plantation era on the Georgia coast was marked by a sophisticated level of land management.
Despite malaria and yellow fever, which drove the white planters and their families inland during the
growing season, the planters cleared thousands of acres of forest and cypress swamp to grow rice
and other crops. Plantation owners were well educated and included some of the most advanced
agriculturists in the nation, employing practices generally attributed to a much later age. These
12 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
included irrigation, drainage, liming, fertilization, crop rotation, fallowing, composting, mulching, and
biological insect control (using flocks of turkeys to control leaf worm caterpillars in cotton). Of
particular interest was the application of marsh mud, crushed oyster shell, cordgrass, and stable
manure to the fields. The application of marsh mud to the fields was considered essential to
successful crop production.
The war for southern independence and the ensuing abolition of slavery marked the beginning of the
end for the plantations and for prosperity and a way of life. Survivors of the war returned to their
devastated lands and attempted to restore the plantation system with paid labor, but the freed slaves
and imported Irish and Chinese laborers proved to be undependable sources of labor and the
plantations were soon abandoned.
Thus, within a few years, the coastal area changed from one of the most prosperous regions in the
nation to one of the poorest. Most of the islands were more or less deserted until the 1890s when
wealthy industrialists purchased them and restored some of the remaining plantations. Except for
Blackbeard Island, which was in public ownership, the islands remained private, relatively natural,
well-managed retreats.
PURPOSES
Although the Complex has an overriding purpose of providing for the habitat needs of migratory birds,
each refuge within the Complex has a unique purpose and establishing legislation. This Draft CCP
identifies specific goals, objectives, and strategies that are intended to support these individual refuge
purposes.
Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
“for use as a bird refuge and as an experiment station for acclimatization of certain foreign game
birds” (Executive Order 4512, September 20, 1926); and, “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Blackbeard Island was acquired by the Navy Department at public auction in 1800 as a source of live
oak timber for ship building. The U.S. Navy transferred land in McIntosh County, Georgia, to the
Bureau of Biological Survey (a predecessor to the Fish and Wildlife Service) in 1924, by Executive
Order 4512, to establish a bird refuge. A Presidential Proclamation in 1940 changed its designation
from Blackbeard Island Reservation to Blackbeard Island NWR. Today, the refuge’s 5,618 acres
include maritime forest, salt marsh, freshwater marsh, and beach habitat (Figure 2). In 1975, 3,000
acres of the refuge were set aside as National Wilderness by Public Law 93-632. The primary
management objectives for Blackbeard Island NWR are as follows:
 Provide wintering habitat and protection for migratory birds.
 Provide protection and habitat to promote resident and migratory wildlife diversity.
 Provide protection and management for endangered and threatened plant and animal species
(loggerhead sea turtle, American alligator, wood stork, piping plover).
 Provide environmental education, interpretation, and recreational opportunities to the visiting
public.
Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
“particular value in carrying out the national migratory bird management program” (16 U.S.C. 667b,
An Act Authorizing the Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or other purposes); “for use as
an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d,
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Migratory Bird Conservation Act); and, for “the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to
maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in
various treaties and conventions” (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583, Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986).
Harris Neck NWR was established in 1962 by transfer of federal lands formerly managed by the
Federal Aviation Administration as a WWII Army airfield. The refuge’s 2,824 acres consist of
saltwater marsh, grassland, mixed deciduous woods, and freshwater impoundments (Figure 3).
Because of this great variety in habitat, many different species of birds are attracted to the refuge
throughout the year. The primary management objectives for Harris Neck NWR are as follows:
 Provide habitat and protection for migratory birds.
 Provide protection and habitat to promote resident and migratory wildlife diversity.
 Provide protection and management for endangered and threatened species (American
alligator and wood stork).
 Provide protection and management necessary to sustain and promote colonial nesting bird
populations that use the refuge.
 Provide wildlife education and interpretation and recreational opportunities to the visiting
public.
Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge
“as a wildlife refuge and as a nature and forest preserve for aesthetic and conservation purposes,
without disturbing the habitat of the plant and animal populations except as such disturbance may be
necessary to preserve the use of the real property for the purposes above mentioned” (Deed of
Donation, December 4, 1975); and “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Pinckney Island NWR, established December 4, 1975 by a Deed of Donation, was once included in
the plantation of Major General Charles Pinckney, a prominent lawyer active in South Carolina politics
after the American Revolution. Few traces of the island’s plantation life in the 1800s exist today. The
4,053-acre refuge includes Pinckney Island, Corn Island, Big and Little Harry Islands, Buzzard Island,
and numerous small hammocks (Figure 4). Pinckney is the largest of the islands and the only one
open to public use. Nearly 67 percent of the refuge consists of salt marsh and tidal creeks. A wide
variety of land types is found on Pinckney Island alone: salt marsh, forestland, brushland, fallow field,
and freshwater ponds. The primary management objectives for Pinckney Island NWR are as follows:
 To protect and provide habitat for endangered and threatened species.
 To provide and maintain habitat for migratory and resident birds that utilize and or nest
annually on the refuge.
 To provide, enhance and maintain habitat for native wildlife.
 To promote wildlife interpretive and recreational opportunities.
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
“as a refuge and breeding ground for birds and wild animals subject to future use in navigation if
necessary and to valid existing rights if any” (Executive Order 5748, April 6, 1927); for lands
acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d); for lands acquired under the
Refuge Recreation Act 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); for “the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain
the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained in various
14 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
migratory bird treaties and conventions” (16 U.S.C. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583, Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1968); “for the development, advancement, management,
conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources” (16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4)); and, “for the
benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services.
Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or
condition of servitude” (16 U.S.C. 742f(b)(1), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956)
Savannah NWR was established on April 6, 1927, by Executive Order No. 4626, which created the
Savannah River Bird Refuge and set aside 2,352 acres as a preserve and breeding ground for native
birds. On November 12, 1931, Executive Order No. 5748 added 207 acres to the refuge and
renamed the area the Savannah River Wildlife Refuge. An additional 6,527 acres were assigned to
the refuge on June 17, 1936, by Executive Order No. 7391. On July 30, 1940, Presidential
Proclamation 2416 renamed the refuge the Savannah National Wildlife Refuge. These three
Executive Orders established the 9,086-acre core of the present refuge; subsequent acquisition using
Duck Stamp funds and other special funding added 3,557 acres. An additional 459 acres were
added when the fee title to Hog Marsh Island and adjacent lands to the north were acquired through
an exchange of spoilage rights with Chatham County, Georgia. In 1964, Savannah Electric and
Power Company deeded 34 acres to the refuge in exchange for a power line right-of-way. In 1978,
the 12,472-acre Argent Swamp tract was purchased from Union Camp Corporation using Land and
Water Conservation Funds. Bear Island (687 acres) was purchased in fee title, from a private
individual, on October 19, 1993. In order to straighten the eastern boundary, two tracts totaling 54
acres were purchased from Union Camp Corporation on August 27, 1996. The Barrows tract (535
acres), which lies adjacent to the southeast boundary, was purchased in fee title during 1998.
Another tract of land was added onto the mid-western portion of the refuge; the Solomon tract was
purchased in 1999 and is 887 acres. The total current refuge acreage consists of 29,175 acres of
freshwater marshes, tidal rivers and creeks, and bottomland hardwoods (Figure 5). About half of the
refuge is bottomland, composed primarily of cypress, gum, and maple species. Access to this area is
by boat only. The primary management objectives for Savannah NWR are as follows:
 To utilize refuge property as "a refuge and breeding ground for native birds and wild animals."
 To provide habitat and protection for those species of plants and animals whose survival is
threatened or endangered.
 To provide habitat and sanctuary for migratory birds consistent with the objectives of the
Atlantic Flyway.
 To maintain and enhance as needed the habitats of all other species of indigenous wildlife
and fishery resources.
 To provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, and quality-oriented
recreation for the visiting public.
Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
“Effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act."
Tybee NWR was established on May 9, 1938, by Executive Order No. 7882, as a breeding area for
migratory birds and other wildlife. The majority of the 400-acre refuge is covered with sand deposits
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ dredging activities in the Savannah River (Figure 6). The
more stable portions of the island are densely covered with such woody species as eastern red
cedar, wax myrtle, and groundsel. Saltwater marsh borders parts of the island. At low tide the
shoreline provides a resting and feeding place for many species of migratory birds. Stated objectives
of the refuge only dictate basic ownership and protection. Tybee NWR was established by executive
order to "effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act." The refuge is
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
primarily managed for the benefit of nesting shorebirds. Due to its small size, limited habitat, and
funding, Tybee NWR is closed to the public.
Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
“for the purpose of creating a fish and wildlife refuge to be maintained as nearly as practicable in its
natural state” (Deed of Donation, October 20, 1969); and, “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. 715d, Migratory Bird Conservation Act)
Wassaw, one of Georgia’s coastal barrier islands, was designated a national wildlife refuge on
October 20, 1969, by a Deed of Donation from the Nature Conservancy for the sum of one dollar.
Unlike many of Georgia’s Golden Isles, little development and few management practices have
modified Wassaw’s primitive character. The 10,053-acre refuge includes beaches with rolling dunes,
live oak and slash pine woodlands, and vast salt marshes (Figure 7). The island supports rookeries
for egrets and herons, and several species of wading birds are abundant in the summer months. In
summer, telltale tracks on Wassaw’s beach attest to nocturnal visits by the threatened loggerhead
sea turtles that come ashore for egg laying and then return to the sea. The primary management
objectives for Wassaw NWR are as follows:
 Maintain and protect the coastal maritime forest, marsh and beach communities.
 Provide habitat for migratory birds, wading and shorebirds, and native fauna.
 Provide habitat for endangered and threatened loggerhead sea turtles, wood storks, peregrine
falcons, and piping plovers.
 Provide recreation and environmental education for the public.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Lands within the SCRC were reviewed for their suitability in meeting the criteria for Wilderness Areas,
as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964. Three thousand acres of Blackbeard Island NWR (and all
of Wolf Island NWR) are designated as a Wilderness Area. A Wilderness Area (in contrast with those
areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape) is recognized and defined as “an area
where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor and
does not remain.” An area of wilderness is further defined as an area of undeveloped, federal land
retaining its primal character and influence without permanent improvements or human habitation,
which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which:
1. Generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature with the imprint of
man’s work substantially unnoticeable;
2. Has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation;
3. Has at least 5,000 acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation
and use in an unimpaired condition; and
4. May also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historic value.
No areas in the other five refuges were found to meet these criteria. Therefore, the suitability of
refuge lands for wilderness designation is not further analyzed in this CCP.
16 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Figure 2. Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
Figure 3. Harris Neck National Wildlife Refuge
18 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Figure 4. Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
Figure 5. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
20 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Figure 6. Tybee National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Figure 7. Wassaw National Wildlife Refuge
22 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
The Service administratively designates Research Natural Areas (RNAs) on refuges; currently there
are 210 such areas on refuges totaling 1,955,762 acres. RNAs are part of a national network of
reserved areas under various ownerships. RNAs are intended to represent the full array of North
American ecosystems with their biological communities, habitats, natural phenomena, and geological
and hydrological formations. In RNAs, as in designated wilderness, natural processes are allowed to
predominate without human intervention. Under certain circumstances, deliberate manipulation may
be used to maintain the unique features for which the research natural area was established.
Activities such as hiking, bird watching, hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and photography are
permissible, but not mandated, in research natural areas. RNAs may be closed to all public use if
such use is determined to be incompatible with primary refuge purposes. Virgin slash pine-hardwood
habitat on Blackbeard Island NWR has been designated as RNA.
Biosphere reserves are protected areas of representative terrestrial and coastal environments which
have been internationally recognized under the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Program for their
value in conservation and in providing the scientific knowledge, skill, and human values to support
sustainable development. Biosphere reserves are united to form a worldwide network which
facilitates sharing of information relevant to the conservation and management of natural and
managed ecosystems. Five units of the Refuge System are included in Biosphere reserves, and
three of these are found on the lower Coastal Plain of Georgia and South Carolina: Blackbeard
Island NWR, Wolf Island NWR, and Cape Romain NWR.
The State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources has designated several high-priority waters
associated with the SCRC. These are streams, estuarine, and marine waters that contain important
populations of high-priority aquatic species or are representative of an aquatic system and its
associated community. The State of South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental
Control has also designated outstanding resource waters in the immediate area of the Complex.
Outstanding resource waters are designated as freshwater or saltwater that constitutes an
outstanding recreational or ecological resource.
The following are those designated waters:
High Priority Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters Associated Refuges
Georgia
Savannah River, Site 46 Savannah NWR
Savannah River, Costal Site 235 Savannah and Tybee NWRs
Wilmington/Bull/Tybee, Coastal Site 241 Wassaw NWR
Little Ogeechee/Skidaway Coastal Site 226 Wassaw NWR
S. Newport/Barbour Is./Wahoo/Johnson, Coastal Site 232 Harris Neck NWR
Crescent/Sapelo/Julienton Coastal Site 219 Harris Neck NWR
Doboy/Teakettle/Mud/Cabretta Coastal Site 224 Blackbeard Island NWR
[Altamaha River, Site 28 Wolf Island NWR]
[Darien/North/Black/Carnigan, Coastal Site 223 Wolf Island NWR]
South Carolina
Colleton River and its tributaries including the Okatie River Pinckney Island NWR
The Savannah River which flows through the Savannah NWR has also been designated by the
Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) as a free-flowing river segment possessing "outstandingly
remarkable" natural or cultural values of more than local or regional significance. About a 170-mile
segment of the Savannah River (from river mile 20 at King's Island upstream to river mile 190) is
designated as having outstandingly remarkable values of scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife,
history, and cultural resources.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Harris Neck, Pinckney Island, Savannah, and Wassaw NWRs are recognized as Important Bird Areas
(IBA) by the National Audubon Society.
The Wolf Island NWR (Wolf, Egg, and Little Egg Islands) is located at the mouth of the Altamaha
River. The Altamaha River has also been designated by the NRI as a free-flowing river segment
possessing "outstandingly remarkable" natural or cultural values of more than local or regional
significance. About a 128-mile segment of the Altamaha River (from Altamaha Sound upstream to
river mile 128 at the junction of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers) is designated as having outstandingly
remarkable values of scenery, recreation, geology, fish, wildlife, history, and cultural resources.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
An ecosystem is a geographical area that includes and interconnects all the living (biotic) organisms,
their physical (abiotic) surroundings, and the natural cycles that sustain them. All of these elements
are interconnected. Managing any one resource affects the others in that ecosystem. Ecosystems
can be small (a single stand of aspen) or large (an entire watershed including hundreds of forest
stands across many different ownerships).
The United States (including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) is comprised of 14 Ecosystem
Divisions. Of these 14 ecosystem divisions, the Subtropical Division (230) includes the Southern
Atlantic and Gulf Coast States. Within the Subtropical Division lies the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed
Forest Province (232) (Bailey 1978).
Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of
environmental resources. The Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion lies within the Outer Coastal Plain
Mixed Forest Province (Loveland and Acevedo 2008). Regionally, the Southern Coastal Plain
Ecoregion, an area of over 14 million square kilometers, extends from South Carolina and Georgia
through much of central Florida, and along the Gulf coast lowlands of the Florida Panhandle,
Alabama, and Mississippi (area 75-Level III Ecoregion). The Savannah Coastal NWR Complex is
located in the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion. Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the Southern Coastal
Plain ecoregion in Georgia and South Carolina (Environmental Protection Agency 2009a and 2009b).
This ecoregion is lower in elevation with less relief and wetter soils than the more inland, adjacent
Southeastern Plains ecoregion. Once covered by a variety of forest communities that included
longleaf pine, slash pine, pond pine, beech-magnolia, and mixed upland hardwoods, land cover in the
region is now predominantly slash and loblolly pine plantations with cypress-gum, bay swamp, and
bottomland hardwoods in low-lying areas (GADNR 2005).
Ecoregional subdivisions (Level IV) in Georgia and South Carolina of the Southern Coastal Plain
include: the Okefenokee Plains (75e); Sea Island Flatwoods (75f); Okefenokee Swamp (75g); Bacon
Terraces (75h); Floodplains and Low Terraces (75i); and Sea Islands/Coastal Marsh (75j). The
Savannah Coastal NWR Complex lies almost entirely in the Sea Islands/Coastal Marsh ecoregion
subdivision (75j), as shown in Figures 8 and 9 (Environmental Protection Agency 2009a and 2009b).
A portion of the Savannah NWR also lies in the Floodplains and Low Terraces ecoregion subdivision
(75i), which is characterized by the broad floodplains and terraces of major rivers, such as the
Savannah, Ogeechee, and Altamaha. Soils consist of stream alluvium and terrace deposits of sand,
silt, clay, and gravel, along with some organic muck and swamp deposits. The ecoregion subdivision
includes large sluggish rivers and backwaters with ponds, swamps, and oxbow lakes. River swamp
forests of bald cypress and water tupelo and oak-dominated bottomland hardwood forests provide
important wildlife habitat (GADNR 2005).
24 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
The Sea Islands/Coastal Marsh ecoregion subdivision, encompassing Blackbeard, Harris Neck,
Pinckney Island, Tybee, Wassaw, Wolf Island and major parts of Savannah NWRs, contains the
lowest elevations in South Carolina and Georgia and is a highly dynamic environment affected by
ocean wave, wind, and river action. Quaternary unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay have been laid
down as beach, dune, barrier beach, saline marsh, terrace, and nearshore marine deposits. Mostly
sandy soils are found on the barrier islands, while organic and clayey soils often occur in the
freshwater, brackish, and salt marshes. Maritime forests of live oak, red cedar, slash pine, and
cabbage palmetto grow on parts of the sea islands, and various species of cordgrass, saltgrass, and
rushes are dominant in the marshes. The island's dunes are dominated by sea oats, which play a
primary role in stabilizing the dune. Other dune plants include bayberry, dogfennel, bitter panic
grass, broomsedge, wax myrtle, and Spanish bayonet. The island, marsh, and estuary systems form
an interrelated ecological web, with processes and functions valuable to humans, but also sensitive to
human alterations and pollution. The coastal marshes, tidal creeks, and estuaries are important
nursery areas for fish, crabs, shrimp, and other marine species. Parts of the region have a long
history of human alterations. Native Americans cultivated corn, melons, squash, and beans. A
Spanish mission period during the 1500s-1600s included crops of citrus, figs, peaches, olives,
artichokes, and onions. During the colonial and antebellum periods in the late 1700s and 1800s, and
a plantation agriculture economy produced indigo, rice, sugar cane, and Sea Island cotton.
Savannah Harbor is one of the largest container ship ports on the east coast, and it also contains one
of the largest commercial shrimp fisheries in the state, raising concerns about the health of the
estuary, coastal marshes and associated flora and fauna. While parts of the this region are now
managed as wildlife refuges or estuarine research reserves, the expanding resort economy continues
to broadly change land uses, water quality, and the once more isolated Gullah and Sea Island
cultures (Griffith et. al 2002, and EPA 2009b).
Blackbeard Island, Harris Neck, and Wassaw NWRs (and Wolf Island NWR) are located in the
Service’s Altamaha River watershed ecosystem unit. Savannah, Pinckney Island, and Tybee NWRs
are located in the Service’s Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee River watershed ecosystem unit. The
watershed ecosystem approach is comprehensive in that it's based on all of the biological resources
within a watershed and it considers the ecological health of communities within that watershed.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The Savannah Coastal NWR Complex is a component of many regional and ecosystem conservation
planning initiatives, which are described in the following paragraphs.
Many regional conservation plans and initiatives are derivatives of national plans (mentioned in
Chapter I, National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives). These regional plans are
developed by a variety of cooperating regional organizations and agencies and are being planned
and implemented in the southeastern United States. Some of the more notable which are compatible
with the mission and purpose of the Savanah Coastal NWR Complex are listed below:
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Figure 8. Ecoregions of South Carolina Levels III and IV
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division. “Ecoregions of North Carolina and South
Carolina.” http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ncsc_eco.htm
26 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Figure 9. Ecoregions of Georgia Levels III and IV
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western Ecology Division. “Ecoregions of Alabama and Georgia.”
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/alga_eco.htm
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
Recognizing the importance of waterfowl and wetlands to North Americans and the need for
international cooperation, the United States and Canada governments developed a strategy to
restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. The
strategy was documented and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) was
signed in 1986 by the Canadian Minister of the Environment and the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior, the foundation partnership upon which hundreds of others would be built. With its update
in 1994, Mexico became a signatory to the Plan. The Plan is innovative because its perspective
is international in scope, but its implementation functions at the regional level. Its success is
dependent upon the strength of partnerships, called "joint ventures," involving federal, state,
provincial, tribal, and local governments; businesses; conservation organizations; and individual
citizens. Joint ventures develop implementation plans focusing on areas of concern identified in
the Plan. The vision of the NAWMP is to recover waterfowl populations by restoring and
managing wetland ecosystems, to conserve biological diversity in the western hemisphere, to
integrate wildlife conservation with sustainable economic development, and to promote
partnerships of public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals for conservation.
Canada, the United States, and Mexico are committed to the ongoing continental effort to restore
North America's waterfowl and wetland resources.
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (NAWCP) is the product of an independent
partnership of individuals and institutions having interest and responsibility for conservation of
waterbirds and their habitats in the Americas. This partnership—Waterbird Conservation for the
Americas—was created to support a vision in which the distribution, diversity, and abundance of
populations and habitats of breeding, migratory, and non-breeding waterbirds are sustained or restored
throughout the lands and waters of North America, Central America, and the Caribbean. The Plan
provides a continental-scale framework for the conservation and management of 210 species of
waterbirds, including seabirds, coastal waterbirds, wading birds, and marshbirds utilizing aquatic
habitats in 29 nations throughout the Americas. 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. The NAWCP
provides an overarching continental framework and guide for conserving waterbirds. It sets forth goals
and priorities for waterbirds in all habitats, at nesting sites, during annual migrations, and during non-breeding
periods. It advocates continent-wide monitoring; provides an impetus for regional
conservation planning; proposes national, state, provincial and other local conservation planning and
action; and gives a larger context for local habitat protection.
Southeast United States Waterbird Conservation Plan
This Plan seeks to elaborate on the goals and objectives established in the North American
Waterbird Conservation Plan. Within the context of the continental plan, stepped down goals and
objectives are described for the southeastern regional landscape. In the regional plan, priority
species are identified, major threats to waterbirds are described, and conservation actions are
outlined. This Plan, by providing a link between the national plan and local conservation
initiatives, outlines a framework through which partners can identify and develop projects that
build upon existing information to move waterbird conservation forward at both the regional and
continental scale. 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, sandhill cranes, whooping
28 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
cranes, interior least terns, and populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this Plan is the
standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures
(Waterbird Conservation for the Americas).
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan
The Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (PIF) is a cooperative partnership between government
agencies, private organizations, individuals, academic communities, and industry. PIF was launched
in 1990 in response to growing concerns about many land bird species. The central premise of PIF
has been that resources of public and private organizations in North and South America must be
combined, coordinated, and increased in order to achieve success in conserving land bird
populations in this Hemisphere. Bird conservation plans have been developed for physiographic
areas. These plans identify priority species for conservation efforts in each area, recommend
population and habitat objectives for managing these priority species, and provide implementation
and management strategies for reaching objectives.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) is a partnership effort throughout the United States
to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird species are restored and protected.
The USSCP 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. Of particular interest to the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex is
the Southeastern Coastal Plain - Caribbean Shorebird Conservation Plan, which calls for an annual
habitat objective to provide 4,000 acres of suitable shorebird foraging habitat (e.g., mudflats) during
both the south-bound and north-bound migration for shorebirds (Hunter et al. 2005).
North American Bird Conservation Initiative
The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of government, private, and
academic organizations, and private industry leaders addressing bird conservation. The initiative’s
vision is to achieve regionally based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships that deliver
the full spectrum of bird conservation across the North American continent and that support
simultaneous, on-the-ground delivery of conservation for all birds. It evolved in 1998 out of
recognition of the value of coordinating efforts of the NAWMP, NAWCP, PIF, and USSCP.
Populations and habitats of North America's birds are protected, restored, and enhanced through
coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state, and local levels, guided by sound
science and effective management. Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) encompasses landscapes
having similar bird communities, habitats and resource issues. The South Atlantic Coastal Plain Bird
Conservation Region (BCR 27) includes the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex.
The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative
Under NABCI, the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) represents one of the initial
efforts in North America to integrate the objectives of four major bird conservation plans
(NAWMP, USSCP, NAWCP, and PIF) into a single plan that land managers, biologists,
administrators, and private landowners can use to achieve common goals and objectives for bird
conservation across a regional landscape. The primary objectives are to develop population and
habitat goals for priority species, delineate “all bird” focus areas, develop a long-term framework
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
for bird conservation in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, and develop and seek funding for "all
bird" projects (The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative).
American Oystercatcher Conservation Plan for the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United
States
This plan focuses on H. p. palliatus in the United States, referred to as “American Oystercatcher” or
simply as “oystercatchers.” The present plan addresses only the populations on the East and Gulf
coasts and summarizes current knowledge of their life history, distribution, and population trends,
describes current threats, lists research and management needs, and outlines recommended
conservation actions. Conservation activities recommended to address these threats include:
Identification and protection of existing habitat; creation of new habitat through carefully designed use of
dredge-spoil materials; management of existing protected areas to reduce predation and disturbance;
and control of predator populations, especially in the nesting season (Schulte et al. 2006).
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) is a partnership focused on the conservation of habitat for
native birds in the Atlantic Flyway of the United States from Maine south to Puerto Rico. The joint
venture is a partnership of the 18 states and commonwealths and key federal and regional habitat
conservation agencies and organizations in the joint venture area. The joint venture was originally
formed as a regional partnership focused on the conservation of waterfowl and wetlands under
NAWMP, and has since broadened its focus to the conservation of habitats for all birds consistent
with major national and continental bird conservation plans and NABCI.
Atlantic Loggerhead Sea Turtle Recovery Plan (Revised 2008)
Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or
protect the species. This plan is intended to serve as a guide that delineates and schedules those
actions believed necessary to restore the Atlantic Loggerhead (Caretta careua) as a viable self-sustaining
element of its ecosystem. It is intended to determine population status and trends along
the Atlantic (and Gulf) coast of the United States and to determine progress towards the recovery.
Wood Stork Recovery Plan (Revised 1996)
The objective of the recovery plan is to assure the long-term viability of the U.S. breeding population
of the wood stork in the wild, allowing initially for reclassification to threatened status and ultimately
removal from the list of threatened and endangered species.
The National Estuary Program
Established as part of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA), this program seeks to
protect and restore 28 designated estuaries of national significance that are deemed to be threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse. Several federal agencies participate in the planning and
assessment efforts: EPA, NOAA, USGS, DOI, and USDA (EPA 2007).
30 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
USGS National Coastal Program Plan
"A Plan for a Comprehensive National Coastal Program" describes a comprehensive National
Coastal Program that responds to critical regional needs while addressing national issues
associated with coastal change, including nutrient enrichment, oxygen depletion, harmful algal
blooms, chemical contamination, diseases in marine organisms, and fish kills; shoreline erosion,
the increasing susceptibility of coastal communities to natural hazards and sea level rise,
increasing demands on non-living resources (including groundwater, sand and gravel, and energy
resources); and declines in living marine resources, habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, and
invasions of non-indigenous species (USGS undated).
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
The Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM) provides national leadership,
strategic direction, and guidance to state and territory coastal programs and estuarine research
reserves. It oversees six major programs. Each program has a national reach, but is designed to
account for local resources and needs. OCRM works with state and territory coastal resource
managers to develop a scientifically based, comprehensive national system of marine protected
areas (MPAs) and supports effective management and sound science to protect, sustain, and restore
coral reef ecosystems. These activities are mandated by the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
MPA Executive Order, and the Coral Reef Conservation Act (NOAA 1999).
Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership
The Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP) includes fish and wildlife agencies from 14
southeastern states; the Gulf and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commissions; the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and NOAA
Fisheries. The SARP focuses on six key issue areas: Aquatic Habitat Conservation; Public Use;
Imperiled Fish and Aquatic Species Recovery; Fishery Mitigation; Inter-jurisdictional Fisheries; and
Aquatic Nuisance Species. These partnering entities work together for the conservation and
management of aquatic resources in the southeast.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners) is working with landowners to restore, enhance, and
protect fish and wildlife habitat on private lands. Through alliances with organizations and individuals,
the Partners program is a voluntary partnership whose focus is to restore vegetation and hydrology to
historic conditions on private lands.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program-Southeast Region
The Service seeks to engage willing private landowners through non-regulatory incentives (with
technical and financial assistance) to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on
privately owned lands.
South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
The South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) identifies the challenges
facing the State of South Carolina's diverse wildlife species and devises strategies to conserve those
"species with the greatest conservation need," and their habitats. It is a guide to conserving the
1,240 species of fish and wildlife that have immediate conservation needs or are key indicators of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. The CWCS emphasizes a cooperative, proactive approach
to conservation, inviting local governments, businesses and conservation-minded organizations and
individuals to join in the task of maintaining the fish and wildlife resources (SCDNR 2006).
Georgia Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
Supported by the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program, Georgia's Comprehensive Wildlife
Conservation Strategy (CWCS) (also known as the State Wildlife Action Plan) identifies the
challenges facing Georgia's diverse wildlife species and devises strategies to conserve those
"species with the greatest conservation need," and their habitats. Georgia ranks sixth in the
nation in overall species diversity based on numbers of vascular plants, vertebrate animals and
selected invertebrates. The state currently has 223 species that are protected by state or federal
laws and hundreds of additional animal and plant species in need of conservation. The CWCS is
a guide to conserving the species of fish and wildlife that have immediate conservation needs or
are key indicators of the diversity and health of the state’s wildlife. The CWCS emphasizes a
cooperative, proactive approach to conservation, inviting local governments, businesses, and
conservation-minded organizations and individuals to join in the task of maintaining the fish and
wildlife resources (GADNR 2005).
South Carolina's Statewide Water Resource Plans
In addition to South Carolina's CWCS (above), other resource plans and initiatives guide the
management and protection of South Carolina's natural and cultural resources:
208 Water Quality Management Plan of South Carolina:
This plan is developed for the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the development and
implementation of area wide waste treatment management plans. It requires states to identify
areas with water quality problems and designate an entity to develop area wide waste
treatment management plans so as to attain the national goal of "fishable-swimmable waters"
as required by the Clean Water Act (SCDHEC 1997).
South Carolina Water Plan:
The purpose of this plan is to establish guidelines for the effective management of the state's
surface and ground water resources, to sustain the availability of the water resource for
present and future use, to protect public health and natural systems, and to enhance the
quality of life for all citizens (Badr et al. 2004).
Georgia's Statewide Natural Resource Plans (Georgia Department of Natural Resources)
In addition to Georgia's CWCS (above), several other natural resource plans and initiatives guide the
management and protection of Georgia’s natural and cultural resources:
The Department of Natural Resources Strategic Plan (A 10-year Strategic Plan for the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources) was developed with input from the Board of
Natural Resources, DNR leadership and staff, and facilitators from the University of Georgia
Fanning Institute and approved by the Board of Natural Resources in March 2007. It focuses
on ways in which DNR can improve efficiency through better internal coordination and
communications; expand public-private partnerships to address critical natural and cultural
resources issues; and provide high-quality customer service to the citizens of Georgia.
32 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
To ensure continued service to current and future Georgians, the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Sites Division formulates a comprehensive statewide recreation policy every five
years. This policy is contained within the Georgia Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor
Recreation Plan (SCORP), a plan that also makes the state eligible to receive and
distribute federal funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF
grants support state, county and city outdoor recreation projects in three categories: land
acquisition, development and rehabilitation.
Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, each State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) is charged with developing a statewide historic preservation plan.
Georgia's State Historic Preservation Plan 2007-2011: Building a Preservation Ethic
provides common direction for all organizations and individuals who support the
preservation of Georgia’s historic places. The plan includes information about trends in
Georgia and how they may affect historic properties; mission, vision and goals for
historic preservation; information about Georgia's historic and archaeological resources,
information about how preservation works in Georgia, and about the statewide
preservation planning process.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
In order to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) that will establish goals and
objectives on how to manage a refuge complex over the next 15 years, a number of planning steps
are followed. One of those steps is a review of known ecological threats and problems that may
hinder the ability of refuge personnel to fulfill the objectives of the individual refuges. This iterative,
ongoing review process has recognized a number of common regional concerns, which are of
particular importance to refuges in the Savannah Coastal NWR Complex:
 Large industries (especially pulp and paper and chemical industries) attracted to the coastal
region of Georgia and South Carolina by an abundance of water, seaport facilities, climate, and
an available and receptive labor force have contributed to major pollution problems. The
estuaries receive stormwater runoff, pollutants from industries and municipalities along the coast,
and from river systems carrying agricultural pesticides and sewage and industrial wastes from
towns and cities upstream along the rivers, additionally, these industries are depleting ground
water necessary to recharge freshwater wetlands. Besides being aesthetically objectionable and
hazardous to human health, the impacts on wildlife, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, and
tourism are detrimental.
 Dredging associated with the maintenance of harbors and inland waterways, coastal
development, highway construction, etc., results in alteration of circulation patterns, shoreline
erosion and sediment deposition (not to mention the direct loss of marshlands by the dredging
activities per se). Dredging increases the silt load and turbidity of the waters, reducing
photosynthesis and decreasing primary production. Benthic organisms can be buried by silt and
fisheries impacted by the anoxia developed due to the exposure of bottom sediments (for
example, disturbed sediments from Wassaw Sound have been found to have the potential to
remove the oxygen from a volume of water, 535 times the same volume of sediment
[Frankenberg and Westerfield 1968]).
 Dredging activities in the Savannah area have also raised concerns that the deeper dredging
might crack or weaken the rocky barrier of the fresh water aquifer that keeps sea water out.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
 Beach erosion is a problem on all barrier islands due to storm surges, global warming/sea-level
rise, and sand starved refuge beaches. Littoral currents which flow from north to south along the
Georgia and South Carolina coastline carry sand deposited by coastal rivers. This sand is
subsequently re-deposited on the beaches of the barrier islands. Dredging activities in the
Savannah River delta have interrupted this natural southward transport of sand by dumping the
dredged material on land at the mouth of the river (i.e., Tybee NWR-Oysterbed Island) and
robbing the Georgia barrier islands of their sand supply. The result is that barrier islands in
coastal Georgia are sand starved.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM) predict
a rise of approximately 39 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) along the South Carolina and
Georgia coast line by the year 2100. Tidal marshes are among the most susceptible ecosystems
to climate change, especially accelerated SLR. Rising sea levels may result in tidal marsh
submergence and habitat migration as salt marshes transgress landward and replace tidal
freshwater and brackish marsh (Church et al. 2001; Meehl et al. 2007).
 Several Invasive/exotic species are a common concern among most (if not all) of the refuges in
the Savannah Coastal Refuge Complex:
o Laurel Wilt – the Ambrosia beetle with its associated fungus can kill a mature red bay tree
in a matter of days;
o Invasive plants – Chinese tallow trees (an exotic that is a serious threat because of its
ability to invade high-quality, undisturbed forests); Cogon grass (a rapidly spreading
ground cover presenting the potential for problems for native plants and trees); Alligator
weed; water hyacinth; Chinaberry; etc.
o Feral hogs – feral hogs destroy native plants and compete with other wildlife for food; and,
are a special concern because of their egg predation of loggerhead nests.
Blackbeard Island NWR
Blackbeard Island NWR is located on Sapelo Sound in coastal Georgia and represents some of the
most important estuarine habitat in the southeastern United States. It is characterized by extensive
salt marshes and freshwater marshes which support one of the most biologically productive systems
in the world. The primary threat to this region is urban development, which will contribute to
increased stormwater runoff, pollution, ground water depletion and sedimentation of offshore habitats.
 Blackbeard Island NWR consistently has one, if not the highest density of nests in Georgia, and is
considered a most important loggerhead beach. The Blackbeard Island NWR sea turtle project
began in 1966 and represents one of the longest sea turtle nest study/protection programs in
Georgia.
 Approximately 340 acres of Blackbeard Island NWR’s beach appear to be eroding, especially at
the north and south ends of the island. Lack of beach sand has negative impacts on the
invertebrates that support shorebirds and limit sea turtle nesting.
 At one time, a large aquifer supplied the impoundments on the refuge with freshwater via artesian
wells. Industrial growth placed such a demand on the aquifer that water no longer flows from the
wells. Therefore, the sole source of impoundment freshwater replenishment is rainfall.
Freshwater fishing on Blackbeard Island NWR has not been reported since 2001 due to
prolonged drought and the lack of aquifer freshwater.
34 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
 Invasive species of management concern are:
o The Ambrosia beetle (most if not all red bay trees over 4 feet in height are dead as a result
of ambrosia beetle fungus infestation on the island);
o Feral hog control/removal is conducted prior to and during the sea turtle nesting season in
an effort to decrease egg and hatchling depredation. Feral hogs (the population of feral
hogs on the island are thought to be of astronomical proportions, but management and
control is hindered due to the island's dense palmetto understory and predation of
loggerhead nests by the hogs is a problem);
o Cattails have overgrown both open water ponds on the refuge. The wood stork rookery
and the largemouth bass fishery no longer exist on Flag Pond due to the cattail (and other
nuisance vegetation) invasion and the drought and lack of freshwater.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM) predict
a rise of approximately 58 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Blackbeard Island NWR by the
year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
Harris Neck NWR
Harris Neck is located on the South Newport River in coastal Georgia. This area represents
some of the most important estuarine river systems in the southeastern United States. It is
characterized by extensive salt marshes and freshwater marshes which support one of the most
biologically productive systems in the world. The primary threat to this region is urban
development, which will contribute to increased stormwater runoff, pollution, and sedimentation of
offshore habitats. Management is focused on six man-made impoundments utilized by the
endangered wood stork and a variety of wading birds. The refuge contains one of the largest
wood stork rookeries in the state. Personnel from Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, and University of Florida and refuge staff biologists continue to
collect and share wood stork data from the Woody Pond rookery.
 The land around the refuge is becoming fragmented at an alarming rate for housing
development, and more encounters with "unwanted animals" continue to grow.
 Invasive species of management concern are the ambrosia beetle, armadillos, coyotes, feral
cats and dogs, and greenbrier (Smilax spp.) and emergent aquatic plants (cattails and
Sesbania) in the refuge's ponds.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM)
predict a rise of approximately 58 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Harris Neck NWR by
the year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
Pinckney Island NWR
Pinckney Island NWR is located in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The refuge lies 0.5-mile west of
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, which hosts approximately 1.5 million tourists each year, resulting
in an average of 58,000 vehicles crossing the refuge daily.
 Migratory songbird habitat management is a primary objective of the refuge with a special
emphasis on painted buntings. A decline in the painted bunting's population in recent years is
of concern.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
 Heavy domestic and industrial withdrawals of groundwater from the Floridan aquifer have
caused a decline in artesian pressure, with resulting saltwater encroachment into the
freshwater coastal water aquifer, and serious declines in both freshwater quality and quantity.
Cones of depression are largest and most serious in the Savannah and Hilton Head (and St.
Mary's) areas. A joint monitoring effort between Georgia's Environmental Protection Division
and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control uses three
monitoring wells on the refuge to track the movement and rate of saltwater intrusion into the
Floridan aquifer and has been ongoing for the last 10 years.
 Despite the many small ponds on the refuge, freshwater supplies are limited because of large
domestic, commercial, and industrial demands on the regional groundwater aquifer and the
resultant water table drawn down and saltwater intrusion into the aquifer. This limits the ability
of refuge personnel to develop freshwater wetlands for migratory songbirds, reptiles, and
amphibians. Saltwater intrusion has moved under the Port Royal sound and been detected in
Moss Creek. The refuge's freshwater ponds are permanently closed to public fishing. Limited
freshwater supplies are further exacerbated by recent drought conditions (and by the future
anticipated effects of climate change).
 Invasive species of management concern are Johnson grass, Chinese privet, Chinese tallow,
and feral cats.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM)
predict a rise of approximately 52 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Pinckney Island NWR
by the year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
Savannah NWR
Savannah NWR is located in Chatham and Effingham Counties, Georgia, and Jasper County, South
Carolina, on the lower Savannah River between mile markers 18 and 41. The port city of Savannah
(with a metropolitan population of over 320,000) lies immediately downstream of the refuge and is a
center of pulp, paper, and organic chemical industries. Savannah NWR contains approximately
6,000 acres of impounded freshwater wetlands, of which about 3,000 acres are actively managed by
22 water control structures. These freshwater impoundments are the most important managed
habitat within the refuge. Several refuge management concerns arise due to the intrusion and
activities from the Savannah metropolitan regional area.
 Impacts of Savannah River dredging and harbor deepening activities (from a 42-foot to a
48-foot depth to accommodate mega ships) threaten aquatic habitats, especially those of
the endangered shortnose sturgeon and the striped bass, due to lowered dissolved
oxygen (DO) levels. In particular, DO concentrations are measurably lower in the Kings
Island Turning Basin, which the sturgeon uses as a nursery and as foraging habitat. Prior
to 2005, striped bass fishing in the Savannah River system was closed for 16 years due to
low recruitment of young fish caused by harbor modifications and higher salinities in
traditional spawning areas of the river.
 Saltwater intrusion due to past dredging projects has resulted in a loss of tidal freshwater
marshes on the refuge from 6,000 acres in 1927 to less than 2,800 acres today. A study to
assess the changes in plant communities and the corresponding interstitial salinity gradient (a
follow-up to studies conducted in 1986-87 and 1993-94) is ongoing with plans to continue
indefinitely until the freshwater marsh fully recovers. Also scientists from the National
36 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
Wetlands Research Center and the University of New Orleans are investigating forest dieback
in the tidal freshwater swamps and the influence of saltwater intrusion within the refuge.
 The Port of Savannah, which includes the Garden City and Ocean terminals, is the nation's
fastest growing port, the second busiest container port on the East Coast, and the fourth
busiest in the nation. Transportation fuel (diesel, oil, etc.) spills from large marine vessels
(tankers, barges, boats, etc.) and chemical spills from industries hold the potential to
adversely impact the refuge's river and marsh habitats.
 Commercial and residential development and urban sprawl along the border of the refuge are
unprecedented. (Jasper County, South Carolina, has an estimated population growth of 600
percent in the next 15 years.) Consequently, boundary encroachment and increasing frequent
law enforcement issues (prostitution/drugs/poaching/theft/etc.) are threatening the purposes
(i.e., "Inviolate sanctuary" and "preserve and breeding ground for native birds" ) for which the
refuge was established. (The city of Hardeeville’s efforts to annex the refuge are also of
political concern.)
 Clear-cut logging threatens nearly 3,000 acres of mature bottomland hardwood habitat on Mill
Creek, one known nesting site for the swallow-tailed kite on the Savannah River.
 Commercial truck traffic of SC 170/GA 25 highway (bisecting the refuge east to west) is very
high, resulting in many accidents, debris and trash, and congestion – disturbing the aesthetic
and primitive character of the refuge; reactivation of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and
development of a new port will lead to further disturbance to the habitat and native wildlife of
the refuge.
 Invasive plant species of management concern are: Alligator weed, Chinese tallow, water
hyacinth, American lotus, cattails, Chinaberry, etc.
 The feral hog is an exotic species on the refuge and poses significant threats to refuge
management and other native wildlife. As hogs feed, they root up large sections along dikes
which then erode during rains and high tides. They also destroy native plants and compete
with other wildlife species for food.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM)
predict a rise of approximately 52 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Savannah NWR by
the year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
Tybee NWR
Tybee NWR is considered a sanctuary for migratory birds. The refuge is located in Jasper County, South
Carolina, at the mouth of the Savannah River. Originally only a 1-acre oyster shoal until 1998, it is now
used as a spoil site for material dredged from the Savannah River by the Corps of Engineers and
presently encompasses an area of about 400 acres of scrub/shrub habitat, sand beaches, and marsh.
 Impacts of Savannah River dredging and harbor deepening activities threaten aquatic
habitats, especially those of the endangered shortnose sturgeon.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
 Dredged spoil from the Savannah River (deposited on Tybee NWR) and the high volume of
international shipping provide a constant source of invasive plant species. The exotics
Common Reed (Phragmites communis) and Salt Cedar (Tamarix spp.) have invaded the
refuge and are of concern.
 Transportation fuel (diesel, oil, etc.) spills from marine vessels (tankers, barges, boats, etc.)
and chemical spills from industries adversely impact the refuge's river and marsh habitats.
 Construction and development of a new port in Jasper County, South Carolina, will lead to
further disturbance to the habitat and native wildlife of the refuge.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM)
predict a rise of approximately 52 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Tybee NWR (and
Savannah NWR) by the year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
Wassaw NWR
Wassaw NWR is located in Chatham County between the Wilmington and Vernon Rivers in coastal
Georgia, approximately 14 miles south of Savannah. Unlike many of Georgia's barrier islands,
Wassaw NWR has experienced little in the way of human influences. Minimizing disturbance to
wintering and nesting birds on beaches is the primary management opportunity.
 The highlight of the refuge is its 7 miles of undeveloped, spectacular beaches. However,
the refuge's oceanfront beach is characterized by an eroding shoreline along its northern
and southern ends. Sand is potentially being lost by dredging operations in the Savannah
River, creating a deficit in the overall sand which historically replenished barrier islands,
including Wassaw NWR.
 Dunes, beaches, and sand bars are critical for migratory birds as nesting, feeding, loafing, and
roosting habitat. (A Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship banding station is in its
70th year of operation on Wassaw Island.) Even more critical for shorebirds are the
invertebrate prey populations these habitats support. Sea turtles nest on barrier island
beaches and feed in offshore waters. Lack of sand, as a result of dams and dredged harbors,
is having a negative impact on the sea turtle habitats. An ongoing sea turtle research
program, begun in 1973, is conducted by the Caretta Research Project.
 Freshwater aquifers on the island have ceased to flow due to a cone of depression created by
industrial and municipal withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer. Freshwater habitats on the
island are temporary and seasonal. Water levels in refuge ponds are impacted by increased
withdrawal of groundwater by local industry, eliminating flow from artesian wells on the refuge.
 Invasive species of management concern are the Ambrosia beetle (most if not all red bay
trees over 4 feet in height are dead as a result of ambrosia beetle fungus infestation on the
island); feral hogs; Chinese tallow; and cogon grass.
 Sea Level Rise (SLR) model simulations (Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model – SLAMM)
predict a rise of approximately 58 cm (Scenario – SRES A1B mean) for Wassaw NWR (and
Savannah NWR) by the year 2100 (Craft et. al 2008).
38 Savannah Coastal Refuges Complex
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
The Georgia-South Carolina Coast, from Blackbeard Island NWR to Pinckney Island NWR
experiences relatively moderate climate conditions. Sea breezes offer some relief from intense
summer heat. Average summer (June through August) temperatures hover around the 80°F mark,
with Savannah at 80.7°F and Sapelo Island at 80.4°F. Maximum summer temperatures average
about 90 °F. The warmest day on record was July 20, 1986, when temperatures reached 105 °F at
both Savannah and Sapelo Island. Winters are relatively mild and short. Average winter (December
through February) temperatures are around 50°F, with Savannah at 51.4°F and Sapelo Island at-
52.3°F. Minimum winter temperatures average about 40°F. The Georgia-South Carolina coastal
area experiences few cold days. Historically, Savannah and Sapelo Island have temperatures below
32°F only about 26 and 16 days a year, respectively. The coolest day on record was January 21,
1985, when temperatures fell to 3 °F at both Savannah and Sapelo Island.
Precipitation along the coast averages about 50 inches per year. The maximum 1-day (24 hours)
rainfall totals at Savannah and Sapelo Island are 8.47 inches (associated with Hurricane Easy-
September 5, 1950) and 8.07 inches (June 23, 1984), respectively. Snowfall along the Georgia coast
is rare. However, Savannah and Sapelo Island did record significant snowfall (3 to 4 inches) in
December 1989. November and December are typically the driest months of the year whereas
August and September, included in the hurricane season, are usually the wettest months.
The first recorded hurricane to cause significant damage to the Georgia coast struck the Charleston,
South Carolina, area on September 15, 1752. Since that time, numerous hurricanes have passed along
the Georgia coast, but surprisingly few have caused serious damage. The Georgia coast has not had a
major hurricane (defined as at least a category 3 hurricane) since the late 1890s. Hurricanes off the east
coast tend to follow the path of warm, lighter air above the Gulf Stream, which is flanked on both sides
with heavier, cooler air. Brunswick, Georgia, is farther (80 miles) from the Gulf Stream and its
accompanying warm air than any other place on the southeastern coast. Consequently, the Georgia
coastal area is less exposed to hurricanes than areas farther north or south (Carter 1970). Details for
temperature and precipitation data are given in Table 1 and Figures 10 and 11.
In Savannah the average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 54 percent. Humidity is higher at
night, and the average at dawn is about 86 percent. The sun shines about 62 percent of the time in
summer and winter. The wind is predominantly from the northeast and northwest in the winter
(December – February), from the south in spring and summer (March – August), and from the
northeast in the fall (September – November). The northerly winds of the winter and fall are much
stronger than those of the summer and spring. Average wind speed is highest, 8.8 miles per hour, in
February and March.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
Global climate change poses risks to human health and to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Important economic resources, such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and water resources, also
may be affected. Warmer temperatures, more severe droughts and floods, and sea level rise will
have a wide range of impacts. These stresses add to existing stresses on resources caused by
other influences such as population growth, land-use changes, and pollution.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by
about 1.2 to 1.4ºF since 1900. The 10 warmest years in the 20th century have all occurred within
the past 15 years, with the warmest 2 years being 1998 and 2005. Some climate models, based
on increases in emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide, predict that average surface temperatures could increase from 2.5 to 10.4oF by the end of
this century. The increase in CO2 is attributed largely to human activities since 1945. The
burning of fossil fuels adds 5.6 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year; and
deforestation contributes another 0.4 to 2.5 billion tons.
Global warming, resulting in melting of glaciers and ice sheets, will cause sea levels to rise. Globally,
sea level has risen 4–10 inches during the past century. NASA estimates that the polar