Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

              WACCAMAW NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties,
South Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
February 2008
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
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other
Special Considerations ....................................................................................................... 4
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy ......................................... 4
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 5
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 6
II. REFUGE OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 7
Refuge History and Purpose ........................................................................................................ 7
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 12
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 12
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 14
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ....................................................................................... 15
Alterations to Hydrology .................................................................................................... 16
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants and Animals ........................................................ 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 17
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 17
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 17
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 18
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 18
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 19
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 19
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 19
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 23
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................................. 25
Invasive Species ............................................................................................................... 27
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 28
Prehistoric and Historic Background ................................................................................. 28
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 30
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 31
Land Protection and Conservation .................................................................................... 31
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 35
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance ......................................................................... 40
III. PLAN DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................................. 41
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 41
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 42
ii Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................... 42
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 43
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 43
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 44
Wilderness Review ..................................................................................................................... 44
IV. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ........................................................................................................ 45
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 45
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 45
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 46
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 46
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 55
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 60
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 64
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 71
V. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................. 75
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 75
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 75
Fish And Wildlife Population Management ....................................................................... 75
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 75
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 76
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 76
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 76
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 77
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 79
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 79
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 79
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 80
SECTION B. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 81
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 81
Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................... 81
Decision Framework................................................................................................................... 81
Planning Study Area .................................................................................................................. 82
Authority, Legal Compliance, and Compatibility ......................................................................... 82
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 82
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 85
III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 87
Formulation of Alternatives......................................................................................................... 87
Description of Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 87
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ............................................................. 87
Alternative B – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1 .......................................... 89
Alternative C – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on all Units ....................................... 91
Table of Contents iii
Alternative D – Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services ................................ 94
(Proposed Alternative) ...................................................................................................... 94
Features Common to all Alternatives ......................................................................................... 97
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Further Analysis ................................................. 98
Pre-Settlement Conditions ................................................................................................ 99
Custodial Management of the Refuge ............................................................................... 99
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 100
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 109
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 109
Effects Common to All Alternatives .......................................................................................... 109
Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 109
Climate Change .............................................................................................................. 109
Other Management ......................................................................................................... 110
Land Acquisition .............................................................................................................. 110
Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 110
Refuge Revenue-Sharing ................................................................................................ 111
Other Effects ................................................................................................................... 111
Summary of Effects by Alternative ........................................................................................... 111
Alternative A – Current Management (No Action) ........................................................... 111
Alternative B – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on Unit 1 ......................................... 112
Alternative C – Habitat Restoration/Enhancements on all Units ..................................... 113
Alternative D – Optimize Habitat Management and Visitor Services .............................. 114
(Proposed Alternative) .................................................................................................... 114
Unavoidable Impacts and Mitigation Measures ........................................................................ 115
Comparison of the Alternatives by Issue .................................................................................. 116
Water Quality from Soil Disturbance, Use of Herbicides, and Forest Management........ 123
Wildlife Disturbance ........................................................................................................ 124
Vegetation Disturbance ................................................................................................... 124
User Group Conflicts ....................................................................................................... 124
Effects on Adjacent Landowners ..................................................................................... 124
Land Ownership and Site Development .......................................................................... 125
Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................................................. 125
Anticipated Impacts on Wildlife Species ......................................................................... 126
Anticipated Direct and Indirect Impacts of Proposed Action on Refuge Programs,
Facilities, and Cultural Resources ................................................................................... 132
Direct and Indirect Effects or Impacts ....................................................................................... 134
Short-term Uses versus Long-term Productivity ....................................................................... 134
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ..................................................................................... 135
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 135
iv Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
SECTION C. APPENDICES
I. GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 137
II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITATIONS ......................................................................... 147
III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS .................................................. 151
IV. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................. 165
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 165
Fish and Wildlife Population and Habitat Management .................................................. 165
Resource Protection ....................................................................................................... 165
Visitor Services ............................................................................................................... 166
Refuge Administration .................................................................................................... 167
V. APPROPRIATE USE DETERMINATIONS .................................................................................. 169
VI. COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATIONS ........................................................................................ 177
VII. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ..................................................... 207
VIII. WILDERNESS REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 215
IX. REFUGE BIOTA .......................................................................................................................... 219
X. BUDGET REQUESTS .................................................................................................................. 231
XI. LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 233
Table of Contents v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR ................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. Protected lands within authorized acquisition boundary of Waccamaw NWR ....................... 9
Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR .............................................................................. 10
Figure 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous
United States with Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem (#33) highlighted ........ 13
Figure 5. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR ................................................................................. 20
Figure 6. Current organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR .............................................................. 78
Figure 7. Proposed future organizational chart for Waccamaw NWR ................................................ 78
Figure 8. Bull Island Wilderness Study Area on Waccamaw NWR .................................................. 218
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Habitat types and acreage within the Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary ..................... 21
Table 2. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry ....................................... 31
Table 3. Comparison of demographic statistics for Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties,
South Carolina, and the USA ............................................................................................... 34
Table 4. Summary of projects ............................................................................................................. 77
Table 5. Waccamaw NWR step-down management plans related to the goals and objectives
of the comprehensive conservation plan ............................................................................. 79
Table 6. Comparison of alternatives by management issues for Waccamaw NWR ......................... 100
Table 7. Summary of environmental effects by alternative, Waccamaw NWR ................................. 116
Table 8. Lands evaluated as potential wilderness inventory units .................................................... 216
vi Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 1
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (Waccamaw NWR) was prepared to guide management
actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation will receive first priority in
refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and encouraged as long as it is
compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or the purposes for which it
was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. This Draft CCP/EA
describes the Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed plan, as well as other alternatives considered and
their effects on the environment. This Draft CCP/EA will be made available to State and Federal
Government agencies, conservation partners, and the general public for review and comment.
Comments from each entity will be considered in the development of the Final CCP.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the Draft CCP/EA is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge
purpose; attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to National Wildlife Refuge
System mission; addresses key problems, issues and relevant mandates; and is consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the plan is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed in the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
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
2 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for conserving, enhancing, and protecting fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of people through Federal programs relating to
wild birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, inland sport fisheries, and specific fishery
and wildlife research activities (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, is in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program 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 established, for the first time, a clear
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife 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 this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines
for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
􀁹􇤠 Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, are
legitimate and priority public uses; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s “Dust Bowl” severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese.
Refuges established during the Great Depression focused on “waterfowl production areas,” i.e., protection
of prairie wetlands in America’s heartland. The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service began to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002, on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in 7 years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to 120
per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana) – the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the belief
that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
Federal dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in
recreation expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 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 of the 15-year plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will
guide management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The
CCP will be consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal
mandates, including Service compatibility standards, and other Service policies, guidelines, and
planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
4 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
LEGAL MANDATES, ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLICY GUIDELINES, AND OTHER SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
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. Refer to Appendix III for a complete listing of relevant legal mandates.
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 Waccamaw NWR and other partners, such as the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), South Eastern Wildlife and Environmental
Education (SEWEE) Association, Historic Ricefield Association (HRA), Winyah Bay Focus Area Task
Force and private landowners.
Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the National Wildlife Refuge
System and management of the Waccamaw NWR are provided in Appendix III.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and
legally opened. No refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A
compatible use is a use that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not
materially interfere with, or detract from, the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the
purposes of the refuge. All programs and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 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 Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses: hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation. As priority
public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over other public uses in
planning and management.
BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, DIVERSITY, AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH POLICY
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans.” The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges, refuge
managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to biological
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound professional
judgment incorporates field experience; knowledge of refuge resources; role of the refuge within an
ecosystem; applicable laws; and best available science, including consultation with others both inside
and outside the Service.
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into 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 (NABCI) is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations,
academic institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. NABCI
works 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. NABCI includes 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
(NAWMP) is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent.
NAWMP’s goal is to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and
upland habitat. Canada and the United States signed NAWMP in 1986 in reaction to critically low
numbers of waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994 making it a truly continental effort. NAWMP 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.
NAWMP’s projects are international in scope, but implemented at regional levels through 12 habitat
joint ventures. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture includes South Carolina and involves Federal,
Provincial/State and local agencies, and private conservation organizations. The Winyah Bay Focus
Area is a project of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and represents a creative, cooperative initiative to
protect a nationally significant South Atlantic coastal wetland ecosystem, which is made up largely by
the refuge acquisition boundary. The refuge plays a significant role in contributing 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
South Atlantic 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.
6 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
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 from 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
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the Service’s 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 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent agency
policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
State fish and game agencies and Tribal governments during the course of acquiring and managing
refuges. State wildlife management areas and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the
protection of species, and contribute to the overall health and sustainment of fish and wildlife species
in the State of South Carolina.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) is a State-partnering agency 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. This agency directs the State’s wildlife conservation program and provides public recreation
opportunities on State wildlife management areas. The participation of the 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 South Carolina. A key aspect of the planning process is
the integration of common objectives between the Service and the State agency, where appropriate.
The Heritage Trust Program of the SCDNR was created in 1976 to preserve natural features and
cultural remains, which are quickly disappearing as the State’s rate of development and population
increases. The program’s purpose is to inventory, evaluate, and protect the elements considered the
most outstanding representatives of South Carolina’s heritage. The SCDNR manages 68 heritage
preserves, 19 fishing lakes, 1 fish hatchery, and 20 wildlife management areas on over 83,000 acres.
The 46 State parks and historic sites, located on over 72,000 acres, are administered by the South
Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism. Additionally, the State agencies provide
and direct public recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program on
wildlife management areas and parks.
SCDNR’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustainment of fish and wildlife in the State
of South Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate, such as at the Bucksport and Sandy Island Wildlife
Management Areas (WMAs).
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Waccamaw NWR is located in South Carolina’s “Lowcountry,” about 60 miles north of Charleston, within
Georgetown, Horry and Marion counties (Figure 1). Its 54,000-acre acquisition boundary contains
portions of the Great and Little Pee Dee Rivers and the Waccamaw River. These river systems and
associated wetlands comprise a large portion of the Winyah Bay drainage basin and are an important
component of the Winyah Bay ecosystem. Waccamaw NWR is one of four refuges in the South Carolina
Lowcountry Complex, along with Ace Basin, Cape Romain, and Santee.
As of 2007, Waccamaw Refuge has acquired 97 tracts, comprising a total of 10,590 acres within its
authorized acquisition boundary. In 2006, the Service entered into a long-term lease agreement with
the SCDNR, allowing the Bucksport WMA to be added to Waccamaw NWR, bringing the acreage of
lands administered by the refuge up to 18,251 acres. The Service continues to actively acquire lands
from willing sellers within the refuge’s acquisition boundary, and private and public partners within the
Winyah Bay Focus Area have protected other significant tracts within Waccamaw’s acquisition
boundary (Figure 2). The refuge is divided into three management units (Figure 3). Each unit is
defined by a dominant habitat type. Unit 1 includes 34,784 acres and is made up entirely of alluvial
and black water floodplain forested wetlands. Unit 2 consists of 12,046 acres and is made up of
approximately 6,362 acres of upland longleaf pine forest and tidal forested and emergent wetlands.
Unit 3 is 2,902 acres and contains historic rice fields, many of which remain intact and are managed
for wintering waterfowl.
The wetland diversity of this refuge is what sets it apart from most others found along the east coast.
Waccamaw NWR’s tidal freshwater wetlands are some of the most diverse freshwater wetland systems
found in North America today, and offer important habitats for abundant migratory birds, fish, and resident
wildlife. Over 400 species of animals are supported by the variety of habitats in the refuge acquisition
area, including several endangered species. Birds such as the swallow-tailed kite, osprey, wood stork,
white ibis, prothonotary warbler, and many species of waterfowl can be observed on a seasonal basis,
while mammals, like the American black bear, frequent Waccamaw NWR’s forests year-round. Notably,
the refuge acquisition area supports the highest density of nesting swallow-tailed kites in South Carolina
and is the northernmost documented nesting for this raptor within its range.
Additionally, Waccamaw NWR’s wetlands play a critical role in the filtration and storm water retention
of the primary drinking water resource for the greater Grand Strand region.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSE
The lands and waters that comprise Waccamaw NWR have a rich history. Humans have used the
area’s natural resources in various ways since prehistoric times to survive. Early Native Americans
lived off the land and waters – and their wildlife and fish resources – for many centuries prior to the
arrival of European colonists who settled the area.
The area's American Indian tribes included the Seewees, the Santees, the Sampits, the Winyahs, the
Pee Dees, and the Waccamaws. As early as 1683, in the Winyah Bay area, British colonists
established trade relations with these groups. Indian groups were decimated by European-introduced
diseases, liquor, and intertribal and colonial conflicts. By 1715, the Waccamaws consisted of 610
individuals dispersed among six villages on Waccamaw Neck. The Winyahs were reduced to one
8 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 1. Location of Waccamaw NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
Figure 2. Protected lands within authorized acquisition boundary of Waccamaw NWR
10 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3. Management units of Waccamaw NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
village of 106 individuals. In 1720, the Yamasee War ended both the Indian threat and trade in the
area. Colonists turned to the preparation of naval stores as their main economic pursuit. From 1700-
1720, the English established settlements at Georgetown, on the Winyah Bay, and up the Black, Pee
Dee and Waccamaw watersheds. By 1705, large-scale rice cultivation formed the foundation of the
Carolina lowland economy. Rice agricultural practices transformed the landscape with the
widespread clearing of forested wetlands and construction of dike sand tidal gates. By 1850, a
number of plantations existed along the Waccamaw, Pee Dee, and Black Rivers.
From 1792 to the 1880s, several families operated ten rice plantations on Sandy Island. The plantations
were Oak Hampton, Ruinville, Brickville, Mount Arena, Sandy Knowe, Oak Lawn, Oatland, Holly Hill, Pipe
Down, and Hassell Hill. Many of the plantation owners who fled their estates during the Civil War returned
to their lands in 1865-66. The newly freed African-American Sandy Islanders formed communities at
Mount Arena, Brickville, Ruinville, and Pipe Down. They continued to work the Island's rice fields under
contract, providing themselves with wages and a portion of the harvest.
From 1893-1911, a string of hurricanes devastated the area's already economically stressed rice
economy. These storms destroyed much of the infrastructure of the rice fields, as well as the rice
crop nearly ready for harvest. On Sandy Island, freed slaves continued to grow rice on lands that
were given to them by their former owner and the rice grown by them was of major economic
importance until the mid-1940s. By the early 20th century, many of the area's rice plantations had
fallen into disrepair. A number of these estates were bought by wealthy individuals primarily for
waterfowl hunting and other sporting purposes.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act states that each refuge is to be managed to fulfill
the purpose for which it was established but also the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. If
there is a conflict between the two, the purposes for which the refuge was established takes precedence.
Waccamaw NWR was established in 1997. Its establishing and acquisition authorities include the
Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act of 1958 (16 USC 661-667-E), Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 3901(b)), and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C.
742f(b)(1)). The refuge was established to:
􀁹􇤠 Protect and manage diverse habitat components within an important coastal river ecosystem
for the benefit of threatened and endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fish,
migratory birds, and forest wildlife, including a wide array of plants and animals associated
with bottomland hardwood habitats; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation for present
and future generations.
Waccamaw NWR has operated under the following management goals:
􀁹􇤠 Provide habitat for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, neo-tropical migratory birds,
and resident species;
􀁹􇤠 Provide opportunities for environmental education, interpretation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities;
12 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
􀁹􇤠 Protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands, and their
associated habitats on a landscape-scale;
􀁹􇤠 Protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they
depend;
􀁹􇤠 Manage national wildlife refuges to serve as models for effective conservation of natural
resources; and
􀁹􇤠 Increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation to carry out the Service’s
mission through cooperative outreach efforts.
In sum, the Waccamaw NWR was established to protect a biologically diverse system of wetland and
upland habitats for the benefit of numerous plants and animals that form an integral part of the
ecological functions and productivity of the Winyah Bay Focus Area. Waccamaw NWR is also
managed to provide public access to traditional, wildlife-dependent outdoor recreational activities.
Objectives are achieved using habitat management tools that include timber management, water
management, prescribed burning, removal of noxious non-native species, protected sanctuary where
appropriate, and partnerships, as well as environmental education and interpretation.
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Waccamaw NWR does not contain any lands under special designation by the Federal Government,
such as congressionally designated wilderness areas, oil and gas activities, federally designated wild
and scenic rivers, demonstration areas, or research natural areas.
The State of South Carolina has designated the Little Pee Dee River as a Type I Natural State Scenic River
between U.S. Highway 378 to the confluence with Great Pee Dee River. The Great Pee Dee River is also a
Type 1 Natural State Scenic River from U.S. Highway 378 down to the confluence of the Black River.
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
In approaching its mission to conserve wildlife and their habitats throughout the country, the Fish and
Wildlife Service has found it useful to divide the entire United States into 53 distinct ecosystems,
drawn primarily along watershed boundaries (Figure 4). Waccamaw NWR lies within the
Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem, which spans portions of South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Georgia (USFWS, no date-b).
An ecosystem is a geographic area including all the living organisms (people, plants, animals, and
microorganisms), their physical surroundings, such as soil, water, and air, and the natural cycles that
sustain them. All of these 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 Fish and Wildlife Service has adopted an ecosystem approach to conservation because it can't
just look at a single animal, species, or piece of land in isolation from all that is around it.
Conservation will not be achieved within the boundaries of a national wildlife refuge, aquatic
resources will not be restored with a national fish hatchery, and listing an endangered species is not
going to conserve the system. All of these are interconnected. If one is disturbed or managed, all of
the others will be affected.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
Figure 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated ecosystems in the conterminous United
States with Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem (#33) highlighted
The ecosystem approach is comprehensive. It is based on all of the biological resources within a
watershed and it considers the economic health of communities within that watershed. A watershed
is the total land area from which water drains into a single stream, lake, or ocean.
The goals of the Savannah-Santee-Pee Dee Ecosystem Team are (USFWS, no date-c):
1. To protect, restore, and enhance the biodiversity of aquatic resources, wetlands, and their
associated habitats on a landscape scale.
2. To recover and enhance threatened, endangered, and species of special concern and the
habitats upon which they depend.
3. To protect, enhance, and manage migratory bird populations and the habitats upon which they
depend.
4. To manage national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries to serve as models of effective
conservation of natural resources.
5. To increase and enhance public awareness, support, and participation in carrying out the
Service’s mission through cooperative outreach efforts.
14 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
6. To protect, enhance, and manage interjurisdictional and diadromous fish populations (those that
regularly migrate between freshwater and saltwater) and the habitats upon which they depend.
7. To perpetuate healthy native plant and animal communities threatened by invasive native and
non-native plants and animals.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
The State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program began in Fiscal Year 2002. Under this new program,
Congress provided a historic opportunity for State fish and wildlife agencies and their partners to
design and implement a more comprehensive approach to the conservation of America’s wildlife.
A requirement of SWG was that each State completes a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy (CWCS) by October 1, 2005. Development of the CWCS is intended to identify and
focus management on “species in greatest need of conservation.” Congress expects SWG funds
be used to manage and conserve declining species and avoid their potential listing under the
Endangered Species Act.
In May 2002, SCDNR began a process to develop the CWCS that was funded through the SWG
Program. The SCDNR committed to developing the CWCS and begin implementing the conservation
actions by October 1, 2005. The goal of the CWCS was to emphasize a cooperative, proactive
approach to conservation while working with Federal, State and local governments; local businesses;
and conservation-minded individuals to join in the effort of maintaining the fish and wildlife resources
of South Carolina (SCDNR, no date).
South Carolina’s 2005 CWCS deemed the following actions to be critical: (1) increase baseline biological
inventories with emphasis on natural history, distribution, and status of native species; (2) increase
commitment by natural resource agencies, conservation organizations, and academia toward establishing
effective conservation strategies; (3) increase financial support and technological resources for planning
and implementation of these strategies; and (4) create public-private partnerships and educational
outreach programs for broad-scale conservation efforts (SCDNR 2006).
South Carolina possesses diverse wildlife. Its habitats range from the Appalachian Mountains to the
Atlantic Ocean and include many different taxonomic animal groups. SCDNR wanted to address as
many of those groups as possible for inclusion in the list of priority species for the CWCS; as such, 12
taxonomic groups are included: mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, diadromous
fishes, marine fishes, marine invertebrates, crayfish, freshwater mussels, freshwater snails, and
insects (both freshwater and terrestrial).
The CWCS identified 1,240 species to include on the State’s Priority Species List. Reports were
prepared for each species, guild or indicator; in these reports, authors described the species, their
status, population and abundance, habitat needs, challenges, conservation accomplishments, and
conservation actions. This approach allows for identification of both general conservation strategies
for wildlife and habitats in South Carolina, as well as development of species-based conservation
strategies. SCDNR also identified habitats critical for the priority species considered in the CWCS.
Both terrestrial and aquatic habitats were considered and reports were prepared for 38 habitats
(terrestrial and marine) organized within five ecoregions, as well as 13 ecobasins, which characterize
the freshwater aquatic habitats of the State.
Eight categories of conservation strategies (Conservation Action Areas, or CAAs) were developed:
Education and Outreach; Habitat Protection; Invasive and Nonnative Species; Private Land Cooperation;
Public Land Management; Regulatory Actions; Survey and Research Needs; and Urban and Developing
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
Lands. Within each CAA, actions were condensed from the recommendations prepared for each animal
on the Priority Species List. Some of the actions identified will affect all species included in the CWCS;
others may affect only a few species. Each of these actions was prioritized and measures that indicate
success of implementing the action were identified.
The CWCS considers monitoring to be crucial. Project leaders are required to produce annual
progress reports for review by a steering committee and the CWCS coordination team. These reports
will be evaluated for insight into adaptive management needs and reassessments of the CWCS.
South Carolina’s CWCS also places strong emphasis on partnerships. Successful conservation
efforts are advanced through a strong collaborative involvement between all resource stakeholders,
whether private or public, governmental or non-governmental. Task forces were convened to assist
in determining important natural resource issues in South Carolina. Taxa teams were assembled to
determine challenges to species and conservation actions to address those challenges. SCDNR also
held public meetings to gather input from the citizens of the State. Prior to submission of the CWCS,
SCDNR began creating Conservation Action Committees around the CAAs identified above.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
Threats to wildlife in South Carolina and the nation first began to be recognized a century ago in the
form of habitat destruction from unrestrained logging and the spread of agriculture, as well as
unregulated harvest for sporting and commercial purposes. After World War II, the challenges
associated with sustaining wildlife populations began to accelerate and change dramatically. Many
States, among them South Carolina, entered a period of rapid, sustained economic expansion and
human population growth. During these “boom times,” South Carolina’s economy and workforce
began to shift away from ones based primarily on agriculture. Migration into the State from other
States (and later from other countries) increased substantially and the urban populations began to
dominate the rural population demographically (SCDNR 2006).
Statewide, more than 100,000 acres per year were converted from forests, farmland, and other open
space to urban uses from 1992 to 1997, making South Carolina the ninth-ranked state nationally in terms
of total land area developed annually (USDA 1997). According to the same report, the National
Resources Inventory, prepared by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the growth rate from 1982 to 1992 was only 40,000 acres per year.
Thus, land conversion was accelerating during this 15-year period. These recent urban land conversion
rates represent a major burst of growth; this development trend and the conversion of rural lands to
urbanized uses – with their attendant impact on habitat for wildlife – continue unabated today.
Strong economic forces are also transforming South Carolina’s agricultural economy. Rising costs
and falling prices are creating hardships for many family farms. As of 1997, there were approximately
4.5 million acres in agricultural production in South Carolina, representing an 18 percent drop since
1982. Long-term declines in farmland are even more dramatic: in 1954, 124,203 farms were
producing goods in South Carolina, and 57 percent of the land in the State consisted of farms. By
1992, the number of farms in the State had been reduced to only 20,242, comprising 23 percent of
South Carolina’s land use (SCDNR 2006).
As South Carolina’s population continues to grow, placing ever greater pressure on undeveloped lands in
the State, and driving conversion from rural to urban land uses, new challenges threaten its fish and
wildlife. Additionally, long-standing downward trends in numbers of some species that previously had
16 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
been overlooked have become more evident. In a recent state-by-state analysis of biodiversity conducted
for the Nature Conservancy, South Carolina ranked 14th among all States in total number of native plant
and animal species and 15th in terms of risks to native species. In a planning exercise conducted in
1994, SCDNR biologists estimated that as many as one third of the State’s vertebrate species were
already then, or would soon be, experiencing serious declines (SCDNR 2006).
Elimination and fragmentation of coastal habitats have decimated wildlife species throughout the Atlantic
Coast, and are recognized by the Service as serious threats to wildlife in South Carolina. The species
most adversely affected by fragmentation are those that are area sensitive or require special habitat.
Fragmentation affects migratory songbirds, sea turtles, beach mice, and many other species, primarily
through high rates of nesting failure and predation. While more than 200 species of breeding migratory
songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and raptors are found in this region, some of these species have
declined significantly, such as the red-cockaded woodpecker and Bachman’s warbler. These species
need the benefits of large, managed forest blocks to recover and sustain their existence.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts as
biological oases surrounded by inhospitable agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed
most of the forested corridors along sloughs that formerly connected forest patches. The loss of
connectivity between the remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of a large range of wildlife
between tracts, and reduces the functional value of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The
severed connections also result in a loss of gene flow needed to maintain genetic viability and
diversity within wildlife populations. Thus, remaining populations are rendered even more vulnerable
to habitat modification and degradation. Particularly for wide-ranging species, reestablishing travel
corridors to allow movement is of critical importance.
ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of forested wetlands
and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships.
In addition to the loss of vast acreage of bottomland-forested wetlands and other habitat types, there
have been significant alterations in the region’s hydrology due to development, river channel
modification, flood control levees, reservoirs, and deforestation, as well as degradation to aquatic
systems from excessive sedimentation and contaminants.
Large-scale, man-made hydrological alterations have changed the spatial and temporal patterns of
flooding throughout the entire Savannah/Santee/Pee Dee Rivers Ecosystem, in terms of both
extent and duration of flooding, in comparison with the natural hydrology regime. This curtailment
of the flooding regime has had an enormous impact on the forested wetlands and their associated
wetland-dependent species.
In coastal estuaries, the saline stratification and location of the saltwater wedge can be impacted due to
atypical levels of freshwater influxes. Factors affecting the level of freshwater inflow include erosion,
sediment load changes, river runoff and pollution, dredging, and severe weather disturbances.
Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable freshwater fish species in
the country. Channel modifications and pollution have gradually eliminated large populations of
native aquatic species, including fish, mussels, snails, insects, and crustaceans. Barriers to
movement prevent anadromous fish from reaching spawning grounds and key habitat areas. Many
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
other aquatic species have similarly become isolated. Without avenues for migration, impacts from
land surface pollution runoff are exacerbated. Restoration of the structure and functions of a natural
wetland is complicated by the fact that wetlands depend on a dynamic interface of hydrologic regimes
to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes.
PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation like alligator weed and water hyacinth. Static water levels caused by the lack of
annual flooding and reduced water depths resulting from excessive sedimentation have created
conditions favorable for the establishment and proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic
plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further
threatening viability of aquatic systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural
aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often
prevents recreational use.
Various species of non-native wildlife and fish also flourish in this southern coastal climate. Animals
such as feral hogs, flathead and blue catfish, and Asian clams have caused extensive habitat
damage and alterations.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
CLIMATE
Coastal South Carolina where the refuge is located has a humid, warm-temperate climate typical of
the southeastern United States. The area’s climate is influenced by the coastal waters of the Atlantic
Ocean. The average yearly rainfall, as measured in Georgetown from 1971-2000, is 56 inches, with
rainfall reasonably well distributed throughout the year, although summer is the wettest season
(NOAA, no date). August is the wettest month at 7.4 inches and April is the driest at 2.67 inches.
Thunderstorms occur on about 50 days each year, and most occur in summer. The refuge is subject
to the effects of tropical storms and hurricanes from June through September. Snowfall is rare. In 90
percent of winters, there is no measurable snowfall. When snow does fall, it is usually little more than
a trace and of short duration.
January is usually the coldest month, with an average temperature of 48 degrees Fahrenheit, with an
average daily minimum of 38 degrees (NOAA, no date). July is normally the hottest, with
temperatures averaging about 80 degrees, with an average daily maximum of 90 degrees. Winters
are mild, with temperatures seldom remaining below freezing for long. Summers are hot and humid
with average relative humidity at about 85 percent. The prevailing wind is from the south-southwest,
and the average wind speed is highest in spring at 10 mph.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Wetlands dominate the landscape of the refuge acquisition area. Of the refuge’s 49,500 acres,
approximately 88 percent are classified as wetland habitats. The remaining 12 percent of land is
upland forest. Geographically, the refuge is situated in a coastal zone within the primary floodplains
of the Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw Rivers. The southern portion of the area consists of emergent
tidal wetlands. The central and northern portions are mostly hardwood-forested wetlands, except for
Sandy Island, which contains most of the area’s upland forests and is characterized by a rolling ridge
and swale topography. Elevations range from near sea level to 76 feet above the mean sea level,
which is the highest point in Georgetown County.
18 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
SOILS
Large portions of the refuge acquisition area are dominated by poorly drained, acidic soils with a
perched water table due to a subsurface clayey hard pan. The surface soils are generally sandy to
loamy and sub-surface soils silty to clayey. Nearly all of these soils are used for wildlife habitat.
The following soil types and series predominate in the refuge acquisition area (NRCS, no date):
􀁹􇤠 Levy – entisol, silty clay loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Hobonny – histosol, muck, very acidic, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Lakeland – entisol, sand, acidic, deep, excessively drained
􀁹􇤠 Rutlege – inceptisol, loamy sand, very deep, very poorly drained
􀁹􇤠 Chastain – inceptisol, loam, acidic, very deep, poorly drained
��􇤠 Johnston – inceptisol, mucky loam, acidic, very deep, very poorly drained.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Three major rivers, the Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee and Little Pee Dee, are the main sources of
freshwater inflow to the refuge acquisition area. The Little Pee Dee River is a Type I Natural
State Scenic River between U.S. Highway 378 to the confluence with Great Pee Dee River. The
Great Pee Dee River is also a Type 1 Natural State Scenic River from U.S. Highway 378 down to
the confluence of the Black River.
Two of the rivers, Waccamaw and Little Pee Dee, are classified as blackwater rivers because of their
tea-colored water, the result of tannin leached from vegetation adjoining the rivers. Blackwater rivers
originate in the Coastal Plain, are typically acidic, low in suspended sediments, and support a
diversity of native animal species. In contrast, alluvial rivers like the Great Pee Dee originate in the
Piedmont and carry high sediment loads. These rivers and their tributaries combine to form an
incredibly diverse wetland landscape. The Little Pee Dee River flows into the Great Pee Dee River
just inside the northern boundary of the refuge acquisition area, the Lynches River flows into the
Great Pee Dee River about 27-river-miles to the north, and the Waccamaw River flows through the
refuge acquisition area.
The flows of each river fluctuate from month-to-month and year-to-year. However, long-term
discharge records show consistent seasonal flow patterns. The lowest average flows typically occur
from September through November, with the highest flows occurring from February through April
(USFWS 1997). Overbank flooding is common during the high flow periods.
Water regimes depend on daily tidal fluctuations, flooding related to seasonal high-volume river flows,
state of dike disrepair, bed elevations and channelization, encroachment of aquatic plants, past and
present forestry and agricultural practices, alteration in runoff caused by man-made development,
and natural phenomena, such as hurricanes, tropical storms, and heavy rain.
Water quality within the Great Pee Dee River Basin ranges from excellent to degraded, depending on
local point source water discharges, non-point source runoff, and natural conditions. Rivers and
tributaries in the refuge acquisition area generally have naturally occurring low levels of dissolved oxygen
(DO) and low pH (USFWS 1997). Because of the Waccamaw River’s low DO levels the State of South
Carolina has established a site-specific standard of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) rather than 5 mg/l for the
river. The refuge acquisition area is relatively undisturbed due to its proximal isolation from the rapid
growth and development of the Grand Strand, with no evidence of industrial pollution. One known
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
contaminant problem is that of mercury. High levels of mercury were found in several species of fish in
1994, but not in river water or sediment samples. Although one or more sources for this high level of
mercury have yet to be identified, significant contributions to atmospheric deposition have been linked to
coal-fired power plants, of which there are several located within the local air shed.
AIR QUALITY
Georgetown County has generally good air quality and is considered to be in attainment with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), including lead, particulate matter below 2.5
microns in diameter (PM-2.5), particulate matter below 10 microns in diameter (PM-10), and sulfur
dioxide. In 2003, there was no exceedance of NAAQS for these parameters. Georgetown County’s
median Air Quality Index in 2003 was 28 on a scale where 0-50 is good, 50-100 is moderate, 100-200
is unhealthful, 200-300 is very unhealthful, and 300-500 is hazardous. The residents of Georgetown
and Horry counties were exposed to less air pollution than those of any other county in all of South
Carolina (Scorecard 2005).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Wetlands comprise nearly 88 percent of the refuge acquisition area and are of national and regional
importance. The area’s wetlands meet the assessment threshold criteria of the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan. Accordingly, they are listed as part of the Winyah Bay wetland system in
the Service’s Regional Wetlands Concept Plan for the Southeast Region (USFWS 1997).
Furthermore, riparian and bottomland hardwood forested wetlands were recently identified as a
nationally threatened ecosystem having experienced a 70-84 percent decline.
Twelve land cover types, including 8 wetland types, an upland type, and an open water category,
have been identified for the refuge acquisition area (USFWS 1997) (Figure 5). All habitats in the
refuge acquisition area are fresh water.
As noted earlier, the refuge acquisition area is divided into three units. Unit 1 is the northernmost and
largest unit consisting of approximately 34,784 acres (not including open water). Ninety-three
percent of this area is wetlands, consisting primarily of large, unbroken tracts of deciduous forested
wetlands located along floodplains of the Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee Rivers. Unit 2 is the most
ecologically diverse and covers approximately 12,046 acres (not including open water). It consists of
about 32 percent uplands and 68 percent wetlands. All wetland types described below are found in
this unit. Unit 3 is the southernmost and smallest unit, covering approximately 2,902 acres (not
including open water) of which 99 percent is wetland. Virtually the entire unit shows the influence of
historic rice culture. The abandoned rice fields are in various successional stages of regrowth by
emergent vegetation, trees, and shrubs. The majority of managed wetlands are located in this unit.
The habitat types and acreage of each by unit are summarized in Table 1.
20 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 5. Wetland habitats at Waccamaw NWR
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
Table 1. Habitat types and acreage within the Waccamaw NWR acquisition boundary
Habitat Type Unit 1 (acres) Unit 2 (acres) Unit 3 (acres)
Forested Deciduous Wetlands 29,799 5,428 1,185
Forested Deciduous/Evergreen Wetlands 832 92 31
Forested Deciduous/Shrub Wetlands 21 33 0
Forested Evergreen Wetlands 476 299 0
Forested Evergreen/Shrub Wetlands 0 34 0
Emergent Wetlands 143 1,563 1,472
Shrub Wetlands 725 942 189
Riverine Wetlands 1,967 776 135
Freshwater Ponds 49 39 6
Total Wetlands 34,012 9,206 3,018
Uplands 2,598 3,764 0
Total Area 36,610 12,970 3,018
Source: USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory online
Open Water
This category includes all unvegetated water bodies, consisting mainly of rivers. Most of the open
water is regulated by the State of South Carolina.
Freshwater Marsh
This category includes freshwater wetlands dominated by emergent vegetation. The majority of this type
is tidally influenced. Freshwater marshes remain flooded or saturated except during extremely dry
weather periods. Most of the freshwater marshes are crisscrossed with abandoned dikes and canals that
were constructed for rice cultivation during the 18th and 19th centuries. Plant diversity is greater here
than within any other wetland habitat type in the refuge acquisition area. Among the most common
species are giant cutgrass, pickerelweed, wild rice, jewelweed, water parsnip, smartweeds, yellow pond-lily,
water hemlock, arrowhead, rose mallow, soft-stem bulrush, giant cordgrass, cattail, loosestrife, white
water lily and alligator weed. Woody vegetation, such as tag alder, bald cypress, buttonbush, tupelo and
black gum, may be interspersed on the old rice field levees.
22 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Managed Wetlands
This category includes former rice field areas impounded by dikes and levees, where the hydrology is
usually manipulated for the purpose of raising plants attractive to waterfowl. The hydrologic regimes
are controlled by the impoundment managers. Most impoundments are managed for emergent
vegetation, including waterfowl foods such as smartweed, panic grass, wild millet, red root, water
shield, spikerush, arrow-arrum, white water lily, southern naiad, Asiatic dayflower, soft-stem bulrush,
wild rice, and water grass. Cultivated grains may also be planted during drawdown periods.
Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Temporarily and Seasonally Flooded Tidal
Areas included in this category are periodically influenced by tidal fluctuations. Flooding, often from a
combination of extreme lunar tides and high river flows, normally occurs in the winter through late spring.
Inundation may last only a few days or weeks in winter and early spring to well into the summer season.
These areas are the most diverse of the tidally influenced forested habitats within the study area.
Common trees include red maple, overcup oak, swamp chestnut oak, water oak, laurel oak, water
hickory, green ash, sweet gum, river birch, swamp tupelo, bald cypress, and loblolly pine.
Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Semipermanently Flooded Tidal
These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout most years except during extreme drought
periods. Water depth may periodically fluctuate as a result of tidal influences. Plant community
composition is relatively homogeneous. Dominant species include swamp tupelo, bald cypress,
green ash, water tupelo, and red maple.
Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Regularly Flooded Tidal
These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout most years. Water depths fluctuate regularly with
tides. Tree species composition is very similar to the immediately preceding habitat type. Shrub-dominated
habitats within this type include species such as swamp privet, buttonbush, and tag alder.
Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Temporarily Flooded or Saturated
These areas remain flooded or saturated throughout the winter and for brief periods during the spring.
Diurnal tides have little or no influence on the hydrology of this wetland type. This habitat type
usually occurs at the higher elevations within the floodplain. Typical plant species include swamp
chestnut oak, water oak, cherrybark oak, loblolly pine, several species of hickories, white oak, tulip
poplar, ironwood, sycamore, and sweetgum.
Deciduous Forested and Shrub Wetlands – Seasonally and Semipermanently Flooded
These areas are flooded for very long periods during the growing season to almost continuously
throughout the year. Diurnal tides have little or no influence on the hydrology of this wetland type.
Typical species in the drier portions of this type include water oak, green ash, American elm, and
sweetgum. In the wetter areas, overcup oak, water hickory, water tupelo, swamp tupelo, and bald
cypress predominate.
Evergreen Forested and Shrub Wetlands
Most of these areas are rarely flooded but may be periodically saturated to the surface. This type
usually occurs at the very highest elevations within the floodplain, on poorly drained flats, and in
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
depressions outside of the floodplain. Within the floodplain, these areas are at the driest end of the
wetland spectrum and are vegetated by species such as loblolly pine, spruce pine, live oak, and
American holly. Outside of the floodplain, these areas are commonly called bay swamps, pine
savannahs, or wet pine flatwoods and are vegetated by pond pine, loblolly bay, sweet bay, red bay,
titi, fetter-bush, wax myrtle, zenobia, and sweet gallberry.
Upland Forests
This category includes any area that does not meet the definition of wetland or deepwater habitat as
classified by Cowardin et al. (1979). A large portion of this habitat type occurs on Sandy Island. The
upland plant communities on Sandy Island are highly diverse and include a maritime sandhill
community, longleaf pine savannahs, and flatwoods with intermittent inclusions of small evergreen
and deciduous depressions, pocosins, freshwater depression meadows, broad-leafed deciduous
swamps, and pond pine woodlands. The maritime sandhill community on Sandy Island appears to be
the only known site of its type in the State. The predominant vegetation community on Sandy Island
is the longleaf pine/turkey oak type. Longleaf pine forests and savannahs were recently identified as
a national critically endangered ecosystem.
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Temporarily flooded bottomland forests provide ideal habitat for many species of mammals. Food and
cover are abundant and diverse, and a variety of mammalian species are present. About 40 species of
mammals potentially inhabit the refuge acquisition area (USFWS 1997). They include the black bear,
which is primarily associated with upland forests joined by extensive forested wetland corridors. Seven
species of bats may be found. Additionally, the refuge acquisition area contains roosting and foraging
habitat for at least two rare bats: the Rafinesque’s big-eared bat and the southeastern myotis. Both
species hold State-listed rankings of concern. Other mammals include forest wetland inhabitants, such as
deer, bobcat, raccoon, beaver, mink, river otter, marsh rabbit, and squirrel.
Amphibians and Reptiles
About 100 species of amphibians and reptiles are likely to occur within and adjacent to the refuge
acquisition boundary. Aquatic salamanders common to the area include the greater siren, eastern
lesser siren, two-toed amphiuma, dwarf water dog, and broken-striped newt. The most common
terrestrial salamanders are the marbled salamander and the South Carolina slimy salamander. The
most commonly encountered frogs are the bull frog, southern leopard frog, and green treefrog. The
American alligator is the largest reptile in the area. The brown water snake and eastern cottonmouth
are probably the most widespread and abundant snakes. The Florida cooter and the yellowbelly
slider are the most commonly encountered turtles.
Fish
The area is noted for its abundant and productive fishery. Within the refuge acquisition boundary, the
Waccamaw and Great Pee Dee Rivers provide unimpeded upstream and downstream movement for
all associated fish species. The composition of fish populations reflects the area’s varying flooding
regimes and physical and chemical characteristics of the water, as well as their proximity to tidal
influence. About 70 species of fish are associated with the refuge acquisition boundary, including
fresh water, anadromous (fish that move up the rivers from the sea to spawn), catadromous (fish that
24 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
live in fresh water and return to the sea to spawn), estuarine-dependent, and marine fish
(USFWS 1997). Anadromous fish known to occur include the striped bass, American shad, hickory
shad, blueback herring, Atlantic sturgeon, and shortnose sturgeon. One catadromous fish species,
the American eel, is known to occur in the area. There is excellent year-round recreational fishing for
freshwater fish, such as the largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish, bluegill, redear sunfish, warmouth,
pumpkinseed, black crappie, chain pickerel, redfin pickerel, bowfin, and numerous species of native
catfish, as well as one introduced species, the flathead catfish.
Birds
Colonial nesting birds, raptors, woodpeckers, shorebirds, and passerine birds all use bottomland
hardwood habitat. Some species are relatively restricted to bottomland hardwood habitat, including
barred owl, red-shouldered hawk, wood duck, yellow crowned night heron, yellow-billed cuckoo,
acadian flycatcher, American redstart, and the prothonotary, Swainson’s and northern parula
warblers. Other birds prefer bottomland hardwood sites because of food availability, such as
woodpeckers that use areas of dead or dying timber.
Floodplain forests of the South Atlantic Coastal Region support a rich assemblage of breeding birds,
over 50 percent of which are neotropical migratory birds. Bald cypress-tupelo forests provide
important breeding habitat for numerous insectivorous species of flycatchers, vireos, and warblers. A
large number of species are also dependent on mature southern pine forests, including northern
bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, wintering Henslow’s sparrow, southeastern American kestrel, brown-headed
nuthatch, and prairie warbler. The refuge acquisition area also provides habitat for wild
turkey. Approximately 200 species of birds have been recorded in the refuge acquisition boundary.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
The mosaic of wetland habitats on the refuge acquisition boundary, along with a specialized flora
composition associated with each component, provides habitat for breeding neotropical migratory
birds. This wetland habitat diversity is important to several high-priority species, such as the swallow-tailed
kite, black-throated green warbler, Swainson’s warbler and prothonotary warbler. Additionally,
contiguous forested wetland ecosystems, such as represented within the Great Pee Dee and
Waccamaw watershed, serve as important habitat for transient neotropical migratory species, as well
as feeding, foraging, and nesting habitat for other temperate migratory and resident species.
Swallow-tailed kite nesting activity has increased significantly throughout the refuge acquisition
boundary over the past ten years. Nest surveys, conducted by SCDNR from 1999 through 2004,
documented that the refuge acquisition boundary had the highest nesting density in South Carolina
from 2001- 2004. Fledgling survival rates were also higher within the Great Pee Dee River corridor
than anywhere else in the State. The nests within the refuge acquisition boundary also represent the
northernmost nests ever documented within their nesting range (SCDNR Report 2004).
It is unclear whether a population of black-throated green warblers currently exists anywhere in the
Winyah Bay Focus Area, and the refuge acquisition boundary is not likely to directly contribute to the
conservation of this species. The preferred habitat for Swainson’s warblers corresponds closely with
the Deciduous Forested Wetlands – Temporarily and Seasonally Flooded Tidal type, which is found
in the refuge acquisition area around Bull Island and along the Great Pee Dee drainage. This, along
with larger, more contiguous patches upstream along the Great Pee Dee River outside of the refuge
acquisition area, can support this species. The prothonotary warbler is the highest priority species
most likely to have healthy populations occurring in forested wetland patches of less than 6,000
acres. The refuge acquisition boundary can undoubtedly support one large population.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Waterfowl
South Carolina’s coastal wetlands, in particular the Winyah Bay drainage area, play an important role
for many species of migrating waterfowl by providing wintering grounds and staging areas for
migrating waterfowl that winter elsewhere. From 1954 to 1987, South Carolina wintered an average
of 30 percent of the dabbling ducks within the Atlantic Flyway (USFWS 1997). Since 1970, South
Carolina has wintered an average of 54 percent of American green-winged teal, 50 percent of the
northern shovelers, 35 percent of the mallards, 32 percent of the northern pintails and American
wigeon, and 31 percent of the gadwall in the flyway.
The Winyah Bay drainage area, which includes the entire refuge acquisition boundary, has gained
national recognition for its importance to migratory waterfowl by having the most extensive, intact
wetland complexes in the southeastern United States. Acre-for-acre, the managed wetlands in this
area winter more ducks than any comparable habitat in South Carolina. River systems, such as the
Great Pee Dee and Waccamaw, serve as flight corridors for waterfowl migrating along the coastal
wetland wintering grounds. In addition, the extensive forested floodplains of these systems provide
resting and feeding areas for waterfowl during their stopovers.
Waccamaw NWR provides year-round nesting and brood rearing habitat for wood ducks. There is an
abundance of wood ducks in the refuge acquisition area and Sandy Island likely serves as an
important roost and sanctuary.
Marsh and Wading Birds
All of the priority marshbirds that are found in the refuge acquisition boundary require tall emergent
vegetation as part of their habitat. All are breeding species, except the American bittern. Breeding
populations of pied-billed grebe and American coot are considered of regional conservation interest.
Among the marshbirds of conservation interest, the king rail is of highest concern, followed by the
least bittern and purple gallinule.
Most waterfowl-oriented management, especially for wintering populations, is geared away from
promoting tall emergent vegetation. Most available habitat at Waccamaw NWR is supported in
former rice fields where there appears to be substantial tall emergent habitat available, which should
support king rails and least bitterns in healthy numbers.
Nesting long-legged wading birds have plenty of habitat but the issue remains of how much
disturbance these nesting birds can tolerate. Species of conservation interest in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain include little blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crowned night heron, yellow-crowned
night heron, wood stork, and white ibis.
Shorebirds
Shorebirds suspected or known to occur within the refuge acquisition boundary include the killdeer,
greater and lesser yellowlegs, spotted sandpiper, common snipe, and American woodcock.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Six federally listed threatened and endangered species are known to occur or potentially occur within
the refuge acquisition boundary. These include two species of birds, one species of fish, and three
species of plants (USFWS 1997). The peregrine falcon, which occurs occasionally at Waccamaw
NWR, and was once listed as endangered, is now considered to be recovered and was de-listed by
the Service in 1999.
26 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) – Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpeckers are known to nest in the refuge acquisition boundary with the principal
population residing in the mature pine forest of Sandy Island. Specific data on this population and its
status are lacking because the area was privately owned until recently and access to conduct surveys
was not provided.
Wood stork (Mycteria americana) – Endangered
Although no nesting has been documented on refuge-owned lands, nesting is occurring within the
refuge acquisition boundary, including one known rookery that is immediately adjacent to a refuge-owned
tract. In addition to nesting habitat, the contiguous mature block of wetland ecosystems
provides suitable habitat for wood storks to forage and roost. Wood storks have been observed
foraging and loafing on refuge-owned tracts throughout the refuge acquisition boundary.
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) – Endangered
The shortnose sturgeon is found in the rivers and creeks. The waters throughout the Winyah Bay
drainage, including within and above the refuge acquisition boundary, contain important spawning habitat.
Pondberry (Lindera melissifolia) – Endangered
The pondberry is a plant that inhabits seasonally flooded wetlands, sandy sinks, pond margins, and
swampy depressions. There are 40 currently known populations of pondberry in the southeastern
United States. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary, potential habitat is
present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas.
Canby’s dropwort (Oxypolis canbyi) – Endangered
The Canby’s dropwort inhabits a variety of coastal plain habitats, including natural ponds dominated
by pond cypress, grass-sedge dominated bays, wet pine savannahs, shallow pineland ponds, and
cypress-pine swamps. There are currently 53 known populations of Canby’s dropwort in the
southeastern United States. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary,
potential habitat is present on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas.
American chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) – Endangered
American chaffseed is an inhabitant of pine flatwoods and savannahs with a history of frequent
burning. There are 145 known occurrences of American chaffseed, with 63 of these now considered
extirpated. Known occurrences are widely dispersed across the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coastal
plains. Although not known to occur in the refuge acquisition boundary, potential habitat is present
on Sandy Island and in other pineland areas.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) – Recently de-listed as Threatened
The number of occupied breeding areas for bald eagles in South Carolina was at a low of 13 in 1977,
when studies began, and had increased to 181 in 2003. The bald eagle is primarily associated with
coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting near bodies of water where it feeds. There is one documented
nest within the refuge acquisition boundary, which is nearby to one of the refuge-owned parcels in Unit 3.
Eagles have been documented feeding and roosting throughout the refuge acquisition boundary. In
addition, a few migratory bald eagles have been noted passing through the area.
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Species of Concern
Ten species of plants and animals, considered by the Service to be Species of Special Concern, are
known to occur or potentially occur within the refuge acquisition boundary. These species include the
Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Plecotus rafinesquii),
Southeastern myotis bat (Myotis austroriparius), Carolina pygmy sunfish (Elassoma boehlkei),
eulophia (Pteroglossaspis ecristata), Sarvis holly (Ilex amelanchier), pondspice (Listea aestivalis),
Carolina birds-in-a-nest (Macbridea caroliniana), Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana)
and Well’s pixie moss (Pyxidanthera barbulata var. brevifolia).
INVASIVE SPECIES
Invasive species include native and non-native species of plants and animals that tend to
aggressively colonize lands and ecological niches, displacing native plants and animals of higher
value. Not all invasive species are non-native (i.e., originating outside of North America). Some
invasive species of both plants and animals are indeed indigenous to the area or native to North
America, but are still considered invasive and problematic because they spread quickly and become
abundant, to the detriment of native flora and fauna, and thus indigenous biodiversity.
Two of the most important invasive upland plant species at Waccamaw NWR are kudzu and Chinese
privet. Kudzu is native to Asia and was introduced to North America in the late 1800s for erosion
control, although it is also used for ornamental purposes. This fast-growing vine persists along
roadbanks and appears to be spreading into disturbed areas, fields, and the edges of forests; it is
now widespread in the southeastern United States. It reproduces both by seeds and its tuberous
roots and is difficult to eradicate (USACE 2002). Chinese privet was introduced from China and
Europe in the early to mid-1800s for use as an ornamental. This shade-tolerant, aggressive shrub
often forms dense thickets, particularly in bottomland forests and along fencerows. It colonizes by
root sprouts and spreads widely by abundant bird- and other animal-dispersed seeds (Miller 2003).
Water hyacinth and phragmites are the two main invasive aquatic plants known to occur on the
refuge. Water hyacinth, a native of South America, was first introduced to the United States at the
Cotton States Exposition in New Orleans in 1884. Since then, this free-floating herb has become
widely naturalized in the southeast, often forming monotypes across large areas. Water hyacinth
invades lakes, ponds, rivers, marshes, and other wetland habitats. It reproduces mainly by
vegetative means and can form dense floating mats of vegetation. These mats restrict light
penetration, reducing the availability of light for submerged plants and aquatic invertebrates, and
depleting oxygen levels (Invasive and Exotic Species 2006). Phragmites australis, or common reed,
is particularly widespread in brackish and freshwater marsh habitats along the Atlantic Coast. Its
origins are unclear, and recent genetic research shows that both native and introduced varieties
occur in North America. Vegetative spread by below-ground rhizomes can result in dense clones of
phragmites, with up to 200 stems per square meter. Invasion by phragmites alters the structure and
function of marsh ecosystems by changing species composition, nutrient cycles, and hydrological
regimes. Dense stands decrease native biodiversity and quality of wetland habitat, particularly for
migrating wading birds and waterfowl (Invasive Species 2003).
One of the most important invasive animal species is the feral hog. Feral hogs are currently limited to
the lower portions of the refuge acquisition boundary. These animals were introduced to the eastern
United States from Eurasia by early European settlers as a source of food. The feral swine
population that exists today is a combination of domestic, escaped, or neglected domestic swine,
Eurasian wild boar, or feral pigs that have been captured for the purpose of starting wild, free-living
28 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
populations. The rooting and wallowing activities of wild pigs cause serious erosion to river banks
and areas along streams. Wild hogs carry diseases, such as swine brucellosis (APHIS 2005).
They also compete for food with native wildlife, particularly acorns, which are an important food for
both wild turkey and deer. Furthermore, feral hogs create wallows in wet sites, impinging on the
integrity of the plant and soil community (Georgia Wildlife Web 2000).
Two other invasive animal species of concern are the flathead catfish and the Arkansas blue catfish.
Both species were introduced into South Carolina rivers in the early 1990s, and both have had
significant adverse impacts on native fish populations, particularly the redbreast sunfish.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of
Access To "Indian Sacred Sites" to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic
resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible
for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and
remains that are related to and located in such properties. The term also includes properties of
traditional religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for
inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an
American Indian tribe. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that
is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.
Waccamaw NWR follows these legal mandates to protect the public’s interest in preserving the
cultural legacy that may potentially occur on the refuge. Whenever construction work is undertaken
that involves any excavation with heavy earth-moving equipment, such as tractors, graders, and
bulldozers used in the development of moist-soil units, the refuge contracts with a qualified
archaeologist or cultural resources expert to conduct an archaeological survey of the site. The results
of these surveys are submitted to the Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Officer, as well as the
South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The South Carolina SHPO is a program of
the South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the State Historic Preservation Officer is
Director of that Department (SHPO, no date).
The SHPO reviews the surveys and determines whether cultural resources will be impacted, that is,
whether any properties listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP will be affected. If cultural resources
are actually encountered during construction activities, the refuge is to notify the SHPO immediately.
To date, the Yauhannah Bluff tract is the only refuge property that has been recommended as eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This determination was made after a phase 2
archaeological survey was conducted in 2006, to mitigate potential impacts associated with the
construction of an environmental education center on this tract (Archaeological Investigations at the
Yourhaney Plantation (38GE18), Yauhannah Bluff, Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge, Georgetown
County, SC May 1, 2006).
PREHISTORIC AND HISTORIC BACKGROUND
The area of the Waccamaw, Great Pee Dee, and Little Pee Dee Rivers, with its ecology and diverse
flora and fauna, possesses a rich historical past. Small highly mobile groups initially settled the
southeast during the Paleoindian Period ca. 12,000-10,000 Before Present (B.P.), carrying with them
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
a unique and specialized stone tool kit. The geographic extent of the Paleoindians’ territories are
poorly understood, but are thought to range from 50 to 250 miles in extent and often appear to center
around quarries of high-quality stone (USFWS 1997). Isolated finds of fluted points have been
reported from Horry, Marion, and Georgetown counties.
Between 8000-5000 B.P., Archaic Period sites were located along swamp margins and terraces
overlooking floodplains. The period is generally characterized by increasing population, defined
territories and decreased mobility, development of stone containers and ceramics, and increased
reliance on locally available lithic raw materials and plants. Late in the period, small-scale gardening
of domesticates, such as squash and gourd, appeared.
Sedentary villages began to appear during the Woodland Period (ca. 3000-500 B.P.), as well as
burial and temple mound complexes. Woodland groups increasingly relied on agricultural crops.
Maize became the major crop and staple toward the end of the period. Chiefdom level societies
appeared through the southeast.
The Contact and Historic Periods date ca. 500-200 B.P. The area’s American Indian tribes at the
time included the Seewees, the Santees, the Sampits, the Winyahs, the Pee Dees, and the
Waccamaws. As early as 1683 in the Winyah Bay area, British colonists established trade relations
with these groups. The focus of colonial trade was enslaved Indians bound primarily for the West
Indies, skins, and white-tailed deer pelts. Indian groups were depleted by European-introduced
diseases, liquor, and inter-tribal and colonial conflicts. By 1715, the Waccamaws consisted of 610
individuals dispersed among six villages; the Winyahs were reduced to one village of 106 individuals.
In 1720, the Yamasee War ended both the Indian threat and trade in the area.
European presence in the Lowcountry began tentatively in the first half of the sixteenth century. A
short-lived Spanish settlement, San Miguel de Guadalupe, was established near the southern tip of
Waccamaw Neck in 1526. A second Spanish settlement, Santa Elena, became the capital of the
Spanish colony “La Florida,” from 1577-1578 near present-day Beaufort, South Carolina.
Charleston was settled by the English in 1670. From 1700-1720, the English established
settlements, including Georgetown, on the Winyah Bay and up the Black, Pee Dee and Waccamaw
watersheds. Initial impetus for these settlements was fur, deer, skin, Indian slave trade, and the
manufacture of naval stores. By 1705, large-scale rice cultivation formed the foundation of the
Lowcocountry economy. Enslaved Africans replaced Indians as the labor force and by 1708 formed
the majority of the colonial population. Rice agricultural practices transformed the landscape with the
widespread clearing of forested wetlands and construction of dikes and tidal gates.
By 1850, many plantations existed along local rivers. From 1792 to the 1880s, several families
operated ten rice plantations on Sandy Island. Many of the plantation owners who fled their estates
during the Civil War returned to their lands in 1865-66. The newly freed African-American Sandy
Islanders formed communities on the island. They continued to work the island’s rice fields under
contract and eventually also bought land on the island. Sandy Island culture has a rich oral tradition
and history and it represents one of the last remaining “Gullah” communities in South Carolina.
From 1893-1911 a series of hurricanes devastated the area’s already foundering rice economy.
These storms destroyed much of the infrastructure of the rice fields, as well as the rice crop itself. On
Sandy Island, rice continued to be of major economic importance until the mid-1940s. By the early
20th century, many of the area’s rice plantations had fallen into disrepair. A number of these estates
were bought primarily for waterfowl hunting and other sporting purposes.
30 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
To date, the Yauhannah Bluff Tract is the only refuge property that has been systematically surveyed
for cultural and archaeological resources. This tract was originally identified in 1972, prior to refuge
acquisition. According to the site form, “slipware, potsherds, flakes, and projectile points” were
collected. A portion of this site was examined by researchers from Coastal Carolina University in the
early to mid-1990s through the excavation of shovel tests and test units. In 2002, Yauhannah Bluff
was acquired by the Service and the entire tract was surveyed by New South Associates, using a
shovel test pit method. In 2006, a Phase 2 data recovery survey was conducted by New South
Associates on portions of the tract closest to the Great Pee Dee River, as a precursor to a future
environmental education center. The area surveyed is also the area which an earlier archaeologist
believed was the location of an early 18th century Indian trading post. This area also contained
remains of a plantation main house complex, dating from the 18th to early 19th centuries. While
prehistoric remains also existed in this area, the densest portion of that occupation was determined to
be to the west of the Phase 2 survey area during the test pit survey. Artifacts were found dating as
early as the Early Archaic Period on up through the Mississippian Period (Adams and Botwick 2002).
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Waccamaw NWR includes portions of Georgetown, Horry and Marion counties between the cities of
Georgetown and Conway, about 16 miles north of Winyah Bay. Three primary urban centers are
associated with the study area: the cities of Georgetown, Conway, and Myrtle Beach. The major area
of growth is the Grand Strand, a 60-mile stretch of coastline between the Atlantic Ocean and the
Waccamaw River in Georgetown and Horry Counties. The Grand Strand is one of the nation’s top
vacation destinations, stretching from Pawley’s Island north to the town of Little River near the South
Carolina-North Carolina State line. The area has both a large resident population and a large tourist
population, both of which are rapidly growing.
Georgetown County is about half as densely populated as the State (69 people per-square-mile vs.
133 people per-square-mile) but growing faster. In 2004, the county’s estimated population was
59,790, about one percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county
population grew by 7.2 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent growth
in the same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Georgetown County grew 20.5 percent compared to
South Carolina’s 15.1 percent in the same decade.
Horry County is more densely populated as the State (173 people per-square-mile vs. 133 people
per-square-mile) and also growing faster. In 2004, the county’s estimated population was 217,608,
about five percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county population
grew by 10.7 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent growth in the
same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Horry County grew 36.5 percent compared to South Carolina’s
15.1 percent in the same decade.
Marion County is also about half as densely populated as the State (72 people per-square-mile vs.
133 people per-square-mile) but growing more slowly. In 2004, the county’s estimated population
was 35,086, about 0.8 percent of South Carolina’s population of 4,198,068 (USCB 2006). The county
population declined by 1.1 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared to South Carolina’s 4.6 percent
growth in the same four years. From 1990 to 2000, Marion County grew 4.6 percent, compared to
South Carolina’s 15.1 percent growth in the same decade.
In 2004, of the data available, accommodation and food services were the largest of twenty major
economic and employment sectors in Georgetown and Horry Counties, followed by retail trade
(STATS Indiana 2006). Horry County is promoting rapid growth and development, while Georgetown
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
County is striving to provide an environment more conducive to a slower pace of development.
Manufacturing was the largest sector in Marion County. Employment by major industrial sectors is
shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Employment of civilian population 16 years and older by industry
Industry Georgetown
County
Horry
County
Marion
County
Agriculture, Forestry, Hunting 2.2% 0.3% N/A
Mining 0.2% 0.1% N/A
Construction 7.4% 8.5% 3.0%
Manufacturing 9.4% 4.1% 28.3%
Wholesale Trade 1.8% 1.9% N/A
Retail Trade 13.7% 17.1% 13.0%
Transportation and Warehousing 1.5% 1.5% 3.8%
Utilities 0.4% 0.3% N/A
Information 0.8% 1.5% N/A
Finance and Insurance 2.2% 3.8% 2.8%
Real Estate 2.8% 4.0% 0.3%
Professional and Technical Services N/A 2.6% N/A
Management of Companies N/A 0.4% N/A
Waste Services 4.6% 4.8% N/A
Educational Services 0.3% 0.3% 10.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 8.7% 7.5% 8.4%
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation 3.5% 5.0% 0.5%
Accommodation and Food Services 15.3% 23.6% 6.6%
Other Services 2.3% 2.5% 1.8%
Public Administration 5.5% 3.5% 7.3%
Source: STATS Indiana 2006 (Note: N/A = data not available)
South Carolina’s statistics are slightly below the national averages for persons below the poverty line,
median household and per capita income, and educational attainment levels (USCB 2006). Georgetown
and Horry Counties conform to this profile, but Marion County fares a little worse (Table 3). In terms of
race and ethnicity, whites and blacks dominate both the county and the State populations.
REFUGE ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
LAND PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION
The increasing human population in the Grand Strand area brings a host of challenges to the area in
general and to the refuge in particular. Higher resident and tourist populations will require more
resorts, services, and commercial development, especially along the ocean shore and major rivers.
Additional demands for housing, government services, and infrastructure will also be required,
including increasing demand for recreational areas and more extensive transportation systems.
These demands, in turn, will exert greater pressures on the area’s natural environment. Human
population, real estate development, and economic growth are contributing factors to the decline of
32 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
wildlife and wildlife habitat; open space, such as rice plantations and timber plantations; and
traditional lifestyles within local communities (e.g., Sandy Island residents). These factors are
affecting land use within and outside the refuge acquisition boundary.
At present, no major interstate highway traverses the refuge acquisition area. The primary roads in
the vicinity include U.S. Highways 17 and 501 (both multi-lane) and State Highway 544 and U.S.
Highway 701 (both two-lane). The only primary highway that crosses the refuge acquisition area is
U.S. Highway 701. Due to the large seasonal population attracted to the Grand Strand,
transportation is an important key to the economy of the local area. However, because of the rapid
growth in the area, many of the area’s highways suffer from extreme traffic congestion. The South
Carolina Department of Transportation is considering several highway construction projects to
improve traffic flows and to establish more efficient hurricane evacuation routes. One proposed new
construction project is the South Conway Bypass that would potentially join U.S. Highway 701 with
State Highway 544, with a portion of the construction potentially located within the refuge acquisition
boundary. Another project is a road widening of U.S. Highway 701 and bridge replacement.
The refuge does not have management jurisdiction over any of the waterways within and outside the
refuge acquisition boundary. The State-managed waterways have a variety of wildlife disturbances,
including motor boats, jet skis, houseboats and associated dumping, and other recreational
pressures. The Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, which overlays a portion of the Waccamaw River,
serves as an important route for commercial and recreational boat traffic.
Riverfront properties along the Pee Dee River, a South Carolina State-designated Scenic River, are
being developed into single family residences with associated docks and boat ramps.
Land Acquisition
The Service acquires lands and interest in lands, such as easements, and management rights in
lands through leases or cooperative agreements, consistent with legislation or other congressional
guidelines and executive orders, for the conservation of fish and wildlife and to provide wildlife-dependent
public use for recreational and educational purposes.
The Service’s policy is to acquire land from willing sellers, and only when other protective means,
such as local zoning restrictions or regulations, are not appropriate, available, or effective. When
land is needed to achieve fish and wildlife conservation objectives, the Service seeks to acquire the
minimum interest necessary to reach those objectives. If fee title is required, the Service gives full
consideration to extended use reservations, exchanges, or other alternatives that will lessen the
impact on the owner and the community. Donations of desired lands or interests are encouraged.
The Service, like all Federal agencies, has the power of eminent domain, which allows the use of
condemnation to acquire lands and interest in lands for the public good. This power, however,
requires congressional approval and is seldom used. The Service usually acquires lands from willing
sellers. In all fee title acquisition cases, the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of the
property’s appraised market value, as established by an approved appraisal that meets professional
standards and Federal requirements.
The refuge currently is composed of 10,590 acres in fee title with $14 million in acquisitions since
1997. An additional 7,661 acres are leased form the SCDNR, bringing the total of refuge-managed
lands to 18,251 acres. The refuge acquisition boundary is 54,480 acres. There are approximately
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
150 land ownerships within the refuge acquisition area, many of which are small tracts ranging from
under an acre to several hundred acres. About 40 percent of the area is contained in a few large
tracts owned by the timber industry.
Most notable acquisitions for the refuge include several International Paper Company parcels, Bull
Island, Thoroughfare Island, and the Causey Tract, a recently acquired, 380-acre tract on the east
side of the refuge. The Causey Tract is located near Conway and is within just a few miles of Coastal
Carolina University and Horry-Georgetown Technical College. Plans are underway to develop this
tract as the refuge’s first recreation area. In addition to these noteworthy tracts, the Yauhannah Bluff
tract was acquired in 2002, and plans are underway to build a state-of-the-art environmental
education center on this tract, which will provide a view shed of Bull Island, the Great Pee Dee River,
and Yauhannah Lake. Future acquisitions or leases may include the portion of Sandy Island owned
by Brookgreen Gardens, Longwood Island, and any tracts available that adjoin the Causey Tract.
Protecting Scenic Values on the Pee Dee River
The portion of the Little Pee Dee River between the Highway 378 Bridge and the confluence of the river
with the Great Pee Dee River has been designated as a State Scenic River. The South Carolina
Department of Natural Resources promotes the conservation, protection, and enhancement of the State's
natural resources. A scenic river or river segment is defined as essentially free flowing and possesses
shoreline largely undeveloped and with limited road access. Adjacent lands are partially or predominantly
used for agriculture, silviculture, or other dispersed human activities that do not substantially disturb the
natural character of the river corridor.
Scenic rivers must be managed in a manner that best maintains and enhances the scenic values of the
river and the adjacent land while at the same time preserving the right of riparian landowners to use the
river for customary agricultural, silvicultural, or other similar purposes. The refuge’s goal should be to
seek a pristine, unencumbered viewshed and to prevent further degradation. Because these effects may
occur outside the refuge, there is little direct action that the refuge can take to control local development.
Private Lands Program
The importance of Waccamaw NWR to waterfowl and other migratory birds is well known; however,
the potential to provide additional habitat for the benefit of Federal trust species (i.e., migratory birds)
on nearby private lands has not been fully explored. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is
the Service’s primary mechanism for delivering voluntary on-the-ground habitat improvement projects
on private lands for the benefit of Federal trust species. Technical and financial assistance is
provided to landowners to help meet the habitat needs of Federal trust species on private lands. The
objectives of the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program are to promote and implement habitat
34 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Comparison of demographic statistics for Georgetown, Horry, and Marion Counties, South Carolina, and the USA
Location
Median
Household
Income
Per
Capita
Income
% Below
Poverty
% High
School
Graduates
%
Bachelor
Degree
%
White
%
Black
%
Hispanic % Asian % Native
American
Georgetown
County
$35,312
$19,805
17.1
75.2
20.0
59.7
38.6
1.6
0.2
0.1
Horry County
$36,470
$19,949
12.0
81.1
18.7
81.0
15.5
2.6
0.8
0.4
Marion
County
$26,526
$13,878
23.2
68.0
10.2
41.7
56.3
1.8
0.3
0.3
South
Carolina
$37,082
$18,795
14.1
76.3
20.4
67.2
29.5
2.4
0.9
0.3
USA
$41,994
$21,587
12.4
80.4
24.4
75.1
12.3
12.5
3.6
0.9
Source: USCB, 2006
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
improvement projects that benefit Federal trust species; provide conservation leadership; promote
partnerships; encourage public understanding and participation; and work with USDA to implement its
conservation programs. Habitat improvement practices include habitat restoration, enhancement,
and establishment. The highest funding priority status is awarded to proposed projects on private
lands that will complement activities on National Wildlife Refuge System lands or contribute to the
resolution of problems on refuges that are caused by off-refuge land use practices.
Wildland Fire Management
It is the policy of the Service to use fire when it is the most appropriate management tool for reaching
habitat objectives. Wildfires, however, would be aggressively suppressed unless such natural fires
are a part of an approved fire management plan. Protection of people and property is the top priority
within the fire management program.
Opportunities to use prescribed fire as a management tool on the refuge are limited. However,
emergent wetlands and upland forest habitat types are most likely to benefit from the use of
prescribed fire as a management tool. Management of emergent wetlands can be accomplished
through some combination of prescribed burning on 3-year cycles and/or managing water levels.
Burning, mowing, and/or disking are used on some wetlands to manipulate vegetation or to control
woody shrub encroachment. Burning is an important management tool in some managed wetland
areas to reduce tree and shrub encroachment for the establishment of moist-soil plants that provide
food for wintering waterfowl. A program of prescribed fire is used on maritime sandhills and longleaf
pine communities as a management tool for reducing fuel loadings and manipulating vegetation to
meet refuge objectives.
VISITOR SERVICES
Executive Order 12996 and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
recognized six priority public uses on national wildlife refuges as long as they are compatible with the
purposes for which the refuge was established. These include hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation, which “have been and are
expected to continue to be generally compatible uses.” However, these uses are by no means the
only permitted public uses of national wildlife refuges; other uses have been and can continue to be
permitted, provided that they are determined to be compatible with the refuge purposes, including
walking dirt/gravel roads, biking dirt/gravel roads, canoeing, horseback riding, and general boating.
Horseback riding is confined to gravel roads only. All-terrain vehicles are not permitted.
Popular recreation uses include hunting, and recreational and commercial fishing. Hunting for white-tailed
deer, waterfowl, and small game is very popular. Recreational fishing is primarily limited to the
main river systems and smaller tributaries that are not blocked and not considered private property.
Recreational boating, waterskiing, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, bird watching, and wildlife
observation are also very popular activities conducted in this area. Boat access within and adjacent
to the refuge is provided by eight State- or county-maintained public boat launching ramps and four
privately owned commercial marinas, making these activities more feasible. Boat landings exist near
Bull Island on the Waccamaw and Pee Dee Rivers.
Nearby ecological attractions include: Conway River walk, Huntington Beach State Park, Lewis
Ocean Bay Heritage Preserve, Myrtle Beach State Park, Sandy Island, Washo Reserve, Samworth
WMA, and Waccamaw River Heritage Preserve. Other nature-based tourist attractions available in
the local area include the Bellefield Nature Center, Brookgreen Gardens, Francis Marion National
36 Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge
Forest and the SEWEE Center at Cape Romain NWR. Overnight camping facilities are located at the
Myrtle Beach and Huntington Beach State Parks and other commercial campgrounds. Several
nature-based guided and self-guided tours are offered nearby.
According to the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce, a large seasonal tourist population is
attracted to the Grand Strand's extensive beaches and over 90 golf courses. In 2003, an estimated
13 million tourists visited the Grand Strand area (USFWS 2005).
Most visitors to the Grand Strand area are from out-of-state and typically visit for a period of four to
seven days. Over 50 percent of the area’s tourists make return visits. Although most visitors
concentrate on beach activities, many seek a diverse recreational experience. The basic appeal of
the Grand Strand is its family-oriented recreational activities, including beaches, water parks, golf
courses, fishing, historical sites, cultural events, hiking, and tennis/sports. As more people are
attracted to the area, visitor activities that are not related to water have also grown in importance.
Nature-based tourism is being targeted at both the State and local levels. Aggressive marketing
programs are being developed by the South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism
to foster tourism and job growth in rural areas and small towns. These programs are expected to
attract even more visitors, both foreign and domestic, in the foreseeable future.
Anticipated demand for non-motorized boating (kayak, canoe), bird watching, nature photography,
hiking, camping, and environmental education and interpretation is exp