DOCSLIB.ORG

Review and Approvals Santee National Wildlife Refuge

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review and Approvals Santee National Wildlife Refuge REVIEW AND APPROVALS SANTEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Summerton, South Carolina ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1991 171. Ao - 7 ?z Refuge Manager~ /-Da e ssociate Manager Date INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS A. HIGHLIGHTS 1 B. CLIMATIC C0NNDITIONS 2 C . LAND ACQUISITION 1 . Fee Title Nothing to Report 2. Easements Nothing to Report 3 . Other 3 4. Farmers Home Administration Conservation Easements 3 D . PLANNING 1. Master Plan Nothing to Report 2. Management Plan Nothing to Report 3. Public Participation 4 4. Compliance with Environmental and Cultural Resources Mandates 5 5 . Research and Investigation 5 5. Other Nothing to Report E. ADMINISTRATION Personnel 9 Youth Programs 12 Other Manpower Programs Nothing to Report Volunteer Program 13 Funding 14 Safety 14 Technical Assistance Nothing to Report Other Nothing to Report F. HABITAT MANAGEMENT 1. General 17 2 . Wetlands 17 3 . Forests 24 4 . Croplands 24 5 . Grasslands Nothing to Report 6 . Other Habitats Nothing to Report 7 . Grazing Nothing to Report 8 . Haying Nothing to Report 9 . Fire Management 26 10 . Pest Control 26 11 . Water Rights Nothing to Report 12 . Wilderness and Special Areas 28 13 . WPA Fasanent Monitoring Nothing to Report 14. Farmers Home Administration Conservation Easements 28 15 . Private Lands 28 Page 16 . Other Fasements Nothing to Report G . WILDLIFE 1 . Wildlife Diversity Nothing to Report 2 . Endangered and/or Threatened Species 28 3 . Waterfowl 30 4 . Marsh and Water Birds 32 5 . Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns and Allied Species 33 6 . Raptors 33 7 . Other Migratory Birds 34 8 . Game Mammals 34 9 . Marine Mammals Nothing to Report 10 . Other Resident Wildlife 35 11 . Fisheries Resources Nothing to Report 12 . Wildlife Propagation and Stocking 35 13 . Surplus Animal Disposal Nothing to Report 14 . Scientific Collections Nothing to Report 15. Animal Control Nothing to Report 16 . Marking and Banding 36 17 . Disease Prevention and Control Nothing to Report H. PUBLIC USE 1 . General 36 2 . Outdoor Classrooms - Students Nothing to Report 3 . Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers Nothing to Report 4 . Interpretive Foot Trails 44 5. Interpretive Tour Trails Nothing to Report 6 . Interpretive Exhibits/Demonstrations 44 7. Other interpretive Programs 45 8. Hunting 45 9. Fishing 48 10. Trapping Nothing to Report 11 . Wildlife Observation Nothing to Report 12. Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation Nothing to Report 13 . Camping Nothing to Report 14. Picnicking Nothing to Report 15 . Off-Road Vehicling Nothing to Report 16. Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation Nothing to Report 17 . Law Enforcement 49 18. Cooperating Associations Nothing to Report 19 . Concessions Nothing to Report I. EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 1 . New Construction Nothing to Report 2 . Rehabilitation Nothing to Report 3 . Major Maintenance 52 4 . Equipment Utilization andReplacement 53 ii Page 5. Carmunications Systems 54 6 . Computer System 54 7. Energy Conservationn Nothing to Report 8. Other Nothing to Report J. OTHER ITEMS 1 . Cooperative Programs Nothing to Report 2 . Other Economic Uses Nothing to Report 3. Item of Interest 54 4 . Credits 55 K. FEEDBACK r 111 LAKE MARION SANTEE National Wildlife Refuge DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wild Service INTRODUCTION The Santee National Wildlife Refuge is located in Clarendon County in the upper coastal plains region of South Carolina . The refuge was established on January 1, 1942 primarily to alleviate the loss of natural waterfowl habitat caused by the construction of hydro-electric power and navigational projects on the Santee and Cooper Rivers . Except for some 4,400 acres of fee title land, the refuge is superimposed on lands and waters of the 110,000-acre Lake Marion reservoir which is administered by the South Carolina Public Service Authority (SCPSA) . The refuge is physically divided into four geographically separated management units containing 9,000 acres of open water, 1,445 acres of shallow freshwater marsh, 2,350 acres of timberland, 750 acres of agricultural lands, and 1,550 acres of early successional fields . The primary objective of Santee is to annually provide wintering habitat for some 8,000 Canada geese and 50,000 ducks . Special emphasis is placed on managing specific habitat for the wood duck . In addition, emphasis is placed on management of the red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species . Included in the refuge is the 420-acre Dingle Pond Unit which is a designated Public Use Natural Area . This unit consists primarily of a Carolina Bay and as such is of local geological significance . The 163- acre Plantation Islands area and Little Pine Island are proposed for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System . However, the proposal has not yet been signed by the president . Historic sites within the refuge and listed in the National Register include the Santee Indian Mound, the site of Fort Watson of Revolutionary War fame . This site is also listed in the South Carolina register of historical sites . r A fifty-year lease agreement between the USFWS and the SCPSA became effective in 1975 . This lease completely altered the water boundary and changed much of the land boundary from the original lease . Provisions in the lease permitted the posting of mutually agreed upon boundaries which would become official refuge boundaries once officially surveyed . Both land and water boundary surveys were completed in 1985 and final approved maps from the SCPSA in 1986 . 0 A . HIGHLIGHTS Waterfowl numbers are still down although goose numbers have leveled off . (Section G .1) This was the wettest year in recent history . (Section B) Northrup King Co . donated 200 bags of corn seed . (Section J .3) The staff banded 748 wood ducks, the most ever . (Section G . 16) Who ever heard of killing Johnsongrass in corn? (Section F . 10) - More pumping of water to flood or dewater was done than in recorded refuge history . (Section F . 2) Safety grating was installed around three in-ground pumps . (Section E . 6) Another contour dike was constructed in Timber Island Field on the Cuddo Unit. (Section F .2) - The refuge celebrated its 50th anniversary . (Section H . 1) Refuge office/visitor center on the shore of Lake Marion . Many visitors wish they could buy it for their personal residence . (GF) 1 B . CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Normal climatic conditions for central South Carolina typically consist of hot humid summers and mild winters . Rainy seasons normally occur during late winter/early spring, late summer, and early fall . Annual mean temperature and precipitation based on a 30-year average is 63 .5 of and 46 .35 inches, respectively . This year precipitation totaled 60 .86 inches, considerably more than last year's 43 .17 inches . The wet spring and summer caused us to have to pump much more than normal, but the crops did well . However, some crops in low areas drown out . In September the rains quit and we had to pump all water to flood impoundments in November for waterfowl . As a contrast, last year we had to let water out because of Fall rains to prevent overtopping of dikes and roads . The summer was hot at times with temperatures breaking 100 of only in July, but exceeding 90 of four other months . Refer to Table 1 . Table 1 . Climatological data on Santee Refuge, 1991 Precipitation (inches) Temperatures (oF) Lake Average 1st Month Total 30-yr -Avg No . Max Min Max Min of Mth Avg +Avg Days o F . o F . Rain JAN 8 .41 3 .44 +4 .97 12 71 25 50 34 74 .50 FEB 1 .15 3 .67 -2 .52 5 81 18 59 35 74 .55 MAR 4 .22 4 .66 -0.44 5 87 32 67 42 75 .80 APR 7 .34 3.51 +3.83 12 89 29 76 51 76 .70 MAY 6 .24 3.35 +2 .89 11 97 53 84 60 76 .20 JUNE 2 .91 3.82 -0 .91 11 96 54 90 67 76 .25 JULY 9 .51 5 .65 +3 .86 14 1'o 67 92 70 76 .20 AUG 14 .89 5 .63 +9 .26 13 97 63 93 71 76 .00 SEP 1 .37 4 .32 -2 .95 3 97 48 84 64 75 .50 OCT 1 .19 2 .58 -1 .39 3 86 40 77 51 74 .70 NOV 1 .75 2 .34 -0 .59 5 80 24 67 41 73 .65 DEC 1 .88 3 .38 -1 .50 5 82 18 58 34 73 .40 2 C . LAND ACQUISITION 3 . Other Farmers Home Administration Conservation Easements A 21-acre deeded conservation easement was posted in February in extreme western Orangeburg County . This was the first one for Santee NWR and at year's end was the last one . In 1990, four tracts in Clarendon County and one in Abbeville County were recommended for the easement program by Fish and Wildlife Enhancement and the Division of Wildlife and Habitat Management, but at year's end no word had come to post the boundaries . The distance between the white posts is the width of the conservation easement that Asst . Mgr . Fringeli is posting . (GB) 3 i Mgr. Bond posting the easement that is not much for waterfowl habibat . (GF) D . PLANNING 3 . PublicParticipation The South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD) held a series of three public meetings in the Santee-Cooper lakes area to present options and receive feedback about waterfowl management in the area . The primary purpose of the meetings was to discuss several proposals concerning changes in hunting regulations on the lakes . Since we are the primary waterfowl managers on the lakes, we were invited to attend to give our input . Refuge personnel were present at two of the meetings . Mgr . Bond and Asst . Mgr . Fringeli attended the December 5th meeting in Manning and Mgr . Bond also attended the December 17th meeting in Orangeburg .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
    FOREWORD Abundant fish and wildlife, unbroken coastal vistas, miles of scenic rivers, swamps and mountains open to exploration, and well-tended forests and fields…these resources enhance the quality of life that makes South Carolina a place people want to call home. We know our state’s natural resources are a primary reason that individuals and businesses choose to locate here. They are drawn to the high quality natural resources that South Carolinians love and appreciate. The quality of our state’s natural resources is no accident. It is the result of hard work and sound stewardship on the part of many citizens and agencies. The 20th century brought many changes to South Carolina; some of these changes had devastating results to the land. However, people rose to the challenge of restoring our resources. Over the past several decades, deer, wood duck and wild turkey populations have been restored, striped bass populations have recovered, the bald eagle has returned and more than half a million acres of wildlife habitat has been conserved. We in South Carolina are particularly proud of our accomplishments as we prepare to celebrate, in 2006, the 100th anniversary of game and fish law enforcement and management by the state of South Carolina. Since its inception, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) has undergone several reorganizations and name changes; however, more has changed in this state than the department’s name. According to the US Census Bureau, the South Carolina’s population has almost doubled since 1950 and the majority of our citizens now live in urban areas.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States And
    t a AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY QL 614 .A43 V.2 .A 4-3 AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY Special Publication No. 2 A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes -^ ru from the United States m CD and Canada (SECOND EDITION) A/^Ssrf>* '-^\ —---^ Report of the Committee on Names of Fishes, Presented at the Ei^ty-ninth Annual Meeting, Clearwater, Florida, September 16-18, 1959 Reeve M. Bailey, Chairman Ernest A. Lachner, C. C. Lindsey, C. Richard Robins Phil M. Roedel, W. B. Scott, Loren P. Woods Ann Arbor, Michigan • 1960 Copies of this publication may be purchased for $1.00 each (paper cover) or $2.00 (cloth cover). Orders, accompanied by remittance payable to the American Fisheries Society, should be addressed to E. A. Seaman, Secretary-Treasurer, American Fisheries Society, Box 483, McLean, Virginia. Copyright 1960 American Fisheries Society Printed by Waverly Press, Inc. Baltimore, Maryland lutroduction This second list of the names of fishes of The shore fishes from Greenland, eastern the United States and Canada is not sim- Canada and the United States, and the ply a reprinting with corrections, but con- northern Gulf of Mexico to the mouth of stitutes a major revision and enlargement. the Rio Grande are included, but those The earlier list, published in 1948 as Special from Iceland, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Cuba Publication No. 1 of the American Fisheries and the other West Indian islands, and Society, has been widely used and has Mexico are excluded unless they occur also contributed substantially toward its goal of in the region covered. In the Pacific, the achieving uniformity and avoiding confusion area treated includes that part of the conti- in nomenclature.
    [Show full text]
  • South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 516 STUDY PLAN INSTREAM FLOW OF THE LOWER SALUDA RIVER FINAL FEBRUARY 2007 Prepared By: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 516 STUDY PLAN INSTREAM FLOW OF THE LOWER SALUDA RIVER FINAL FEBRUARY 2007 Prepared by: SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA SALUDA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 516) STUDY PLAN INSTREAM FLOW OF THE LOWER SALUDA RIVER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 Existing Operations..................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objective........................................................................................................2 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ...................................................................................3 2.1 Upstream and Downstream Boundaries...................................................................3 2.2 Habitat and Geomorphology....................................................................................3 2.3 Fishery, Fish Management Objectives, and Seasonal Habitat Uses ........................4 3.0 PROPOSED METHODS.....................................................................................................9 3.1 Field Reconnaissance and Habitat Mapping............................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Carolina Darter Etheostoma Collis
    Supplemental Volume: Species of Conservation Concern SC SWAP 2015 Carolina Darter Etheostoma collis Contributor (2005): Gene Hayes and Jason Bettinger [SCDNR] Reviewed and Edited (2013): Mark Scott, Andrew R. Gelder, and M. Troy Cribb [SCDNR] DESCRIPTION Taxonomy and Basic Description The Carolina Darter is a member of the perch family, Percidae. It is classified in the subgenus Hololepis, which contains 3 species in South Carolina (Rohde et al. 1994). At one point it was incorrectly called the Saluda Darter. The Carolina Darter is a resident of the Yadkin, Pee Dee, and Catawba drainages in North and South Carolina (Cloutman 1979). Carolina Darters reach a length of 60 mm (2.4 in.) (Rohde et al. 1994). The fish has a small head and mouth with a highly arched, incomplete lateral line (Kuehne and Barbour 1983). The brown-spotted sides are marked with a median dark stripe that breaks into blotches on the peduncle (Eddy and Underhill 1979). A primary basicaudal spot has two spots of lesser intensity above and below (Rohde et al. 1994). Breeding males do not develop bright colors but may have breeding tubercles on the pelvic fin spine and rays as well as on all anal fin rays (Kuehne and Barbour 1983). Status The Carolina Darter has received legal status as a federal species of concern and a species of concern in South Carolina. It was identified as a species vulnerable to imperilment in a recent assessment of southeastern freshwater fishes (Warren et al. 2000). The species is considered vulnerable (S3) in North Carolina, imperiled (S2) in Virginia, and is currently not ranked (SNR) in South Carolina (NatureServe 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Aquatic Ecology, Surf Ace-Water Quality, and Ground-Water Studies in the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1996
    Selected Aquatic Ecology, Surf ace-Water Quality, and Ground-Water Studies in the Santee River Basin and Coastal Drainages, North and South Carolina, 1996 By Thomas A. Abrahamsen, W. Brian Hughes, Eric J. Reuber, and Terry L. Sicherman U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 97-115 National Water-Quality Assessment Program Columbia, South Carolina 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director The use of firm, trade, and brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government. For addtional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Stephenson Center-Suite 129 Box 25286 720 Gracern Road Denver, CO 80225-0268 Columbia, SC 29210-7651 FOREWORD The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey Describe how water quality is changing over (USGS) is to assess the quantity and quality of the time. earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa­ Improve understanding of the primary natural tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- and human factors that affect water-quality ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound conditions. decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and This information will help support the development trends is an important part of this overall mission. and evaluation of management, regulatory, and moni­ One of the greatest challenges faced by water- toring decisions by other Federal, State, and local resources scientists is acquiring reliable information agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    VITAE OF Jay Richard Stauffer, Jr. Business Address: The Pennsylvania State University Ecosystem Science and Management 432 Forest Resources Building University Park, PA 16802 Office Telephone: (814) 863-0645 EMAIL [email protected] FAX (814) 865-3725 Education: Cornell University - B. S., December 1972 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University - Ph.D., June 1975 Doctoral Dissertation: The influence of temperature on the distribution, community structure and condition of fish of the New River, Glen Lyn, Virginia. Positions Held: Ichthyological Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Junior laboratory and field biologist, June - September 1968 Ichthyological Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Field biologist in charge of collection, identification of seine collections and larval fish, June - September 1969 Ichthyological Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Biologist - larval fish collection, seine collections, age and growth studies on Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir, May - September; December - January 1970 Ichthyological Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Biologist - seine and larval fish collections, population studies on Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir, May - September; December - January 1971 Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Laboratory assistant - identification of rotifers and zooplankton, January - May 1972 2 Ichthyological Associates, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Biologist in charge of Laboratory - sorting and identification of all fish; curator of museum specimens; population studies on Muddy Run Pumped Storage Reservoir,
    [Show full text]
  • REGIONAL INFLUENCE of LANDSCAPE FEATURES and PROCESSES on FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES by Darren Jay Thornbrugh
    REGIONAL INFLUENCE OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND PROCESSES ON FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES By Darren Jay Thornbrugh A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Fisheries and Wildlife - Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT REGIONAL INFLUENCE OF LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND PROCESSES ON FLUVIAL FISH ASSEMBLAGES By Darren Jay Thornbrugh Habitat fragmentation, degradation and loss are dominant reasons for global declines in biodiversity of fishes in stream systems, and humans have drastically modified landscapes drained by streams due to activities including urbanization and agriculture. Such human land uses are known to change stream habitats through inputs of excess nutrients, sediments, or toxics and through changes in stream flow and thermal regimes, and human land uses have been shown in many studies to negatively affect stream habitats and the fishes they support. Despite this understanding, degradation of stream habitats and fishes continues globally, and freshwater fishes remain one of the most threatened groups of organisms on the planet. Less understood are the specific mechanisms by which land uses affect stream habitats and how these can vary by region, and how additional landscape-scale characteristics may alter effects of human land uses, resulting in regionally-specific responses in stream fishes to stressors. Such differences across regions may render one locale more sensitive to biodiversity loss or fish assemblage change from the same magnitude of anthropogenic disturbance in the landscape and confound efforts to develop and apply specific actions to conserve biodiversity of stream fishes. The goal of this study is to help address these limitations in understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Irnpacts of Irnpoundments on Six Small Watersheds in Pennsylvanial
    American Fisheries Societg Wamwater Streams Symposium, 198I, pp. 291-302 Irnpacts of Irnpoundments on Six Small Watersheds in Pennsylvanial Fnro J. BnruNrn Biology Department, Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania 16127 Ansrnecr Six reservoirs on 3 watersheds in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, were studied from 1972 to 1979. No significant differences in water chemistry occurred above or below the impoundments between sampling intervals or watersheds. The biological oxygen demand of the bottom sedi- ments was significantly correlated with the volatile solids and phosphorus concentrations within the sediments, and was inversely correlated with the dissolved oxygen concentrations immedi- ately off the bottoms of the reservoirs. The reservoirs acted as lagoons, reducing coliform con- centrations significantly in the streams below. The reduction of coliforms was directly related to the turnover time of the reservoir. The diversity and biomass of invertebrates and fish pop- ulations were greater in streams below than above the structures. Recommendations are offered for the improvement of such areas as fish and wildlife habitat as well as overall stream ecology. IxrnopuctloN The irnpacts of 6 reservoirs in 3 watersheds Floodplains have traditionally been the first in Mercer County, Pennsylvania (Fig. 1) were topographic areas settled for a variety of rea- assessed frorn October 1972 through Septem- sons, not the least of which is that the rich ber 1979. Two reservoirs, Mathay Run and alluvial land has an abundant water supply, Saul Run in the Saul-Mathay watershed, were high fertility, and a level contour for ease of chosen for study because of the diversity of development. Approximately 7 percent of the land use and the flood protection they provid- total land area of the contiguous United ed for the communities of Greenville and States, with an estimated 22,0OO comrnunities Hempfield Township.
    [Show full text]
  • Christmas Darter Etheostoma Hopkinsi Saluda Darter Etheostoma Saludae (Form of E
    Highest Conservation Priority – Other Species Christmas Darter Etheostoma hopkinsi Saluda Darter Etheostoma saludae (form of E. collis) Redeye Bass Micropterus coosae Contributors: Dan Rankin and Jason Bettinger DESCRIPTION Christmas Darter Taxonomy and Basic Description The Christmas darter (Rohde et al. 1994) is a member of the family Percidae; this diverse family contains approximately 150 species of darters, all of which are found in rivers, lakes, swamps and springs of eastern North America. The Christmas darter belongs to the genus Etheostoma, the largest genus of North American fishes (Jenkins and Burkhead 1994). The Christmas darter is the only South Carolina representative of the subgenus Oligocephalus, one of the largest subgenera of Etheostoma. Two subspecies have been identified: E. binotatum from the Savannah River drainage in both Georgia and South Carolina and E. hopkinsi from the Altamaha and Ogeechee river drainages in Georgia. Kuehne and Barbour (1983) have hypothesized possible species level differentiation of E. binotatum and E. hopkinsi due to marked differences in appearance of breeding males. The colorful Christmas darter ranges in length from 41 to 71 mm (1.6 to 2.8 inches). As is typical of other members of the subgenus Oligocephalus, the Christmas darter has a small conical head, broad frenum and two anal spines. Breeding males have a blue marginal and a red sub-marginal band on the spiny dorsal fin (Kuehne and Barbour 1983). This darter has 10 to 12 dark green bars on its side, separated by a red bar in a mature male and a yellow bar in the female. Its greenish back has eight dark saddles and its belly is light green.
    [Show full text]
  • Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies Into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan a Joint Project Of
    Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan A joint project of and June 2007 1 Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan A joint project of the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership and The Nature Conservancy This project was conducted with the generous financial support of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) under NFWF grant agreement 2005-0005-002. Recommended Citation: Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership and The Nature Conservancy. 2007. “Incorporating State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies into a Southeast Aquatic Habitat Plan.” Nashville, TN. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project was funded by a National Fish and Wildlife Federation grant, sponsored by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency acting on behalf of the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership (SARP). Additional funding for this grant was provided through in-kind contributions from the SARP member agencies. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) led this project in collaboration with the SARP regional aquatic habitat planning committee. The TNC project lead was Sally Palmer, and Joey Wisby of TNC led the CWCS integration database development. SARP Coordinator Scott Robinson, along with Marilyn O’Leary and Ed Comstock assisted in meeting facilitation, logistics, and collecting feedback from SARP member-state CWCS planners. Finally, this project is built upon the expertise of the literally hundreds of participants in the 2003-2005 CWCS planning efforts of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Southeast is a region with more aquatic diversity than any other area of the continental United States (Palmer et al.
    [Show full text]
  • A 0 0 0 REVIEW and APPROVALS SANTEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Summerton, South Carolina ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year
    a REVIEW AND APPROVALS SANTEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Summerton, South Carolina 0 ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1994 0 0 ,L1Q. ~ll3/gs Refu Manager Date District anager Date Regional Office Approval Date Acting ARD-Refuges and Wildlife E T. PAUL 02 .2 127 JaCk'a VIS CROSSROADS Cf..k 973 127 559 95 Cantey Bay Nat- . Trail 2 . f Riataric Sit. 260 Scott Lake OlticelWiaitor C .nte DINGLE'POND UNIT 010 LAKE PUBLIC USE NATURAL AREA PINE MARION UNTO 301 I .iJ Ua 15 95 Pully l ni Nut Sanannan Branch Black d Bottom 1 T tte Pasture LEGEND I NTEE • Refuge Boundary Boat Ramp Pan .d Road r - • --- • Dirt Road . Nature Trail 1 SCALE I _ 3eee LAKE MARION SANTEE National Wildlife Refuge DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service INTRODUCTION TABLROFCOITIITS A . HIGHLIGHTS 2 B . CLIMATIC CONDITIONS . 2 C . LAID ACQUISITION 1 . Fee Title Nothing to Report 2 . laments 3 3 . Other 4 4 . Farsers Hove Adtinistration Conservation Masevents 5 D . PLAIIIIG 1 . Master Plan Nothing to Report 2 . Managetent Plan Nothing to Report 3 . Public Participation Nothing to Report 4 . Cotpliance with Rnvironaental and Cultural Resources Mandates 7 5 . Research and Investigation 1 5 . Other Nothing to Report 1 . 'MINISTRATION 1 . Personnel 8 2 . Youth Progravs Nothing to Report 3 . Other Manpower Prograis Nothing to Report 4 . Volunteer Prograt 9 5 . funding 9 6 . Safety I@ 1 . Technical Assistance Nothing to Report 8 . Other Nothing to Report F . HABITATMAIAGHMBIT 1 . General 2 . Wetlands I@ 3 . forests 12 4 . Croplands 12 5 . Grasslands Nothing to Report 6 .
    [Show full text]
  • 316(B) Supporting Documentation for NPDES Nutrien Ltd
    316(b) Supporting Documentation for NPDES Nutrien Ltd. Permit Renewal Kennewick Fertilizer Operations NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility 30 June 2020 Project No.: 0549532 The business of sustainability Signature Page 30 June 2020 316(b) Supporting Documentation for NPDES Permit Renewal Kennewick Fertilizer Operations NPDES Permit WA0003671 – Kennewick Facility and NPDES Permit WA0003727 – Finely Facility Kennewick, Washington David P. Edwards, L.G. Mich ael F. Mendes, L. G. Partner Project Manager Kurtis Schlicht Suzanne Dolberg, P.E. Technical Lead Deputy Project Manager Environmental Resources Management 1218 3rd Avenue, Suite 1412 Seattle, Washington 98101 T: +1 425 462 8591 F: +1 425 455 3573 © Copyright 2020 by ERM Worldwide Group Ltd and / or its affiliates (“ERM”). All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the prior written permission of ERM. www.erm.com Version: 1.0 Project No.: 0549532 Client: Nutrien Ltd. 30 June 2020 Page iii Seattle\Projects\0549532\DM\28730H(316b).docx 316(B) SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR NPDES PERMIT CONTENTS RENEWAL CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. §122.21(R)(2) SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA ........................................................................ 3 3. §122.21(R)(3) COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA .................................................
    [Show full text]