Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
0
0
0
CAROLINA SANDHILLS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
McBee 9 South Carolina
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT
Calendar Year 1982
TI . S . Department of the InteriorFish and Wildlife Service
NATIONAL WILDLIK REFUGE SYSTEM
*Served as YACC enrollee from 9/16/81 - 2/3/82 .
Review and Approvals
Subm'tted By
Date Regional Office Review
Date
P1RSONN L
1 . Marvin T . Hurdle, Refuge Vianager, GS-12, PFT2 . Kenneth L . Litzenberger, Asst . Refuge Manager, Gs-9, PFT3 . David H . Robinson, Forester, GS-11, PFT4 . Kay W . McCutcheon, Secretary (Typing), GS-5, PFT.5 . 'Thomas J . Oliver, Maintenance Mechanic, ''G-10, PFT6 . Ellice L . Sweeney, Tractor Operator, GIG-3, PFT7 . Janith D . Jones, Biological Technician, GS-5, PPT (EGn 5/11/82)0 8 . William C . Newman*, Tractor Operator, WG-5, T"T (5/2/82 - 7/24/82)9 . Meg C . Grantham, Biological Aid, GS-3, TI (7/12/82 - 9/17/82)
10 . Robert S . Davies, Biological Aid, GS-3, TFT (ROD 8/9/82)11 . Lee Shaw, Engineering Equipment Operator, I.'G-8, TI (8/16/82 - 9/14/82)12 . Joel T . Oliver, YACC enrollee (Terminated 3/23/82)13 . Sheila K . Jones, YACC enrollee (Terminated 3/5/82)
1 .2 .3 .
1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .
1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .
1 .2 .3 .4 .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pale
A . HTGHLIGHTS 1
B . CLIMATIC_Cf?NDITIONS 1
C . LANT? ACQUISITION :;2
Fee Title 2Easements - Nothing to reportOther - Nothing to report
T' . PLANNING 3
Master Plan - Nothing to reportManagement Plan 3Public Participation - Nothing to reportCompliance With Environmental Mandates 3Research and Investigations - Nothing to report
>? . ADMINTSTRATION 3
Personnel - Nothing to reportYouth Programs 4Other Manpower Programs - Nothing to reportvolunteers Program 4Funding 4Safety 6Technical Assistance 6
F . HABITAT NANAsEN 2NT 6
General - Nothing to reportWetlands 6Forests 7Croplands; 8Grasslands 11Other Habitats - Nothing to reportGrazing - Nothing to reportHaying - Nothing to reportFire Management 11Pest ControlWater Rights - Nothing to reportT'ilderness and Special Areas 12WPA Easement Monitoring - Nothing to report
G . WILDLIH . :, 13
Wildlife Diversity - Nothing to reportEndangered and/or Threatened. Species 13Waterfowl 15Marsh and -'ater Birds 18
5 .6 .
8 .9 .
10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .
Shorebirds, Gulls, Terns, and Allied Species 18Raptors 18Other Migratory Birds 18,Game Mammals 19Marine Mammals - Nothing to reportOther Resident Wildlife 19Fisheries Resources 21Wildlife Propagation and. Stocking 21Surplus Animal Pisposal - Nothing to reportScientific Collections - Nothing to reportAnimal Control 21Marking and Banding 21Disease Prevention and Control - Nothing to report
G . WILnLI^n (cont'd)
Page
K . { EDBACK 29
H. . PTTJ3LIC ITST," 22
• l . General 222 . Outdoor Classrooms - Students 233 . Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers 234 . Interpretive Foot Trails 235 . Interpretive Tour Routes 236 . Interpretive Exhibits/T?emonstrations 237 . Other Interpretive Programs 238 . Hunting 239 . Fishing 24
10 . Trapping - Nothing to report11 . Wildlife Observation 2412 . Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation 2413 . Camping - Nothing to report14 . Picnicking 2515 . Off-Road Vehicling : 2516 . Other Non-Wildlife Oriented Recreation - Nothing to repor t17 . Law Enforcement 25
I. EQU'IPM'ENT AND FACILITIES 25
1 . New Construction 252 . Rehabilitation 253 . Major Maintenance 264 . Equipment Utilization and Replacement 26_5 . Communications Systems - Nothing to report6 . Energy Conservation 267 . Other - Nothing to report
.T . OTHER ITEMS 28
1 . Cooperative Programs 28
3 .Items of Interest 28Credits 29
ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORTCAROLINA cANDHILLS NATIONAL ?'ILDI,Dh REFUGE
CALENDAR YEAR 1982
A . HIGHLIGHTS
The Young Adult Conservation Corps program on the refuge ended on March 23
when the last enrollee was discharged (Section E .2 .d) . The Youth Conserva-tion Corps was reactivated but with fewer enrollees than in previous years(Section E .2 .b) . Janith Jones was appointed as a biological technician on .
a permanent part-time basis (Section E .2 .1) . Maintenance mechanic JackOliver received a $400 .00 superior service award (Section J.2) .
A helicopter with helitorch was used to prescribe burn 700 acres of woodlands .
Adverse weather caused less than desirable results, but the system shows con-siderable promise (Section F .9) .
A survey of Compax tments 9 and 10 located 121 pine trees containing red-cockaded woodpecker cavities and 21 trees containing cavity starts . The
number of nests located in these two compartments increased by three overthe previous survey (Section G .2 .a) .
A large, brown, long-tailed cat believed to be a cougar was observed by RefugeForester Robinson on the refuge (Section G .2 .b) .
Vintering waterfowl numbers continue to decline (Section G .3) . Post-seasonbanding efforts did not meet banding quotas for mallards and Canada geese .Preseason banding of wood ducks was successful with 111 birds being banded(Section G .16) .
The deer harvest was the second largest since deer hunts were initiated(Section G .8) . Hunting opportunities were expanded by permitting hunting of
bobwhite (Section G .10), mourning dove, and woodcock (Section G .7) .
Wild turkeys are again present on the refuge thanks to restocking efforts bythe South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department (Section G .12) .
The number of visitors declined by 37 .4 percent from the previous year, butthe length of the average visit increased (Section H .1) .
B . CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
Three inches of snow fell in January and hampered operations for a few daysas several employees were unable to get to work due to icy roads . Abovenormal precipitation' in January and February hindered the prescribed burningprogram . Several late freezes in March and April affected the wildlife foodsavailable on the refuge . Both hard mast and soft mast production were greatlyreduced . The nearby peach farmers reported losing between 80 and 100 percentof their crops due to the cold temperatures . Scattered rain during springand summer helped produce good yields on refuge agricultural crops ; however,a few heavy rains in July caused considerable damage to refuge roads . Pre-cipitation for the year was slightly above normal (Table 1) . Weather was
The three inches of snow which fell during January added anextra touch of beauty to the refuge . Unfortunately, severallate freezes adversely impacted upon mast production .January 1982
Slide # 92-2-2
Hurdle
Fage la
responsible for three fires on the refuge . Two were started by lightningand one was caused by a neighbor who lost control of a trash burn during aperiod of drought and high winds . See Section F .9 for details on all thefires . For the remainder of the year, the weather was mild and uneventful .Mild winter temperatures may have affected waterfowl populations . At theclose of the year, both geese and duck populations were below the alreadydeclining figures of recent years .
C . LAND ACQUISITION.
1 . Fee Title
Since 1950, the refuge has included a 405 acre inholding which is leasedfrom the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department . During1981, the'Wildlife Department expressed an interest in exchanging this tractfor other refuge lands that could be developed for mourning dove hunting .Three small outlying tracts containing approximately 500 acres were
Page 2
Table 1 . Monthly Precipitation for 1982 In Inches
Month 1982 Normal Difference.
January 4 .60 3 .36 + 1 .24
February 4 .73 3 .47 + 1 .26
March 1 .33 4 .14 - 2 .81
April 4 .46 3 .84 + 0 .62
May 2 .92 3 .36 - 0 .44
June 7 .36 4 .09 + 3 .27
July 7 .66 5 .62 + 2 .04
August 1 .04 5 .35 - 4 .31
September 2 .90 4 .26 - 1 .36
October 3 .71 2 .68 + 1 .03
November 1 .30 2 .80 - 1 .50
December 4 .69 3 .46 + 1 .2
Totals 46 .70 46 .43 + 0.27
*Includes one YACC staff member
Page 3
selected this year for possible exchange consideration . A timber cruisewas made of all the lands involved in order to assist Realty in determin-ing a fair exchange value . It is hoped that this exchange can be completedduring 1983 .
D . PLANNING
2 . Management Plan
During 1981, we prepared an amendment to the refuge hunt plan which wouldpermit quail hunting on the refuge . This amendment was rejected by theRegional Office because it was felt to be too restrictive . During 1982,we submitted another amendment permitting quail hunting, along with anamendment permitting woodcock hunting . Both of these amendments wereapproved by the Regional Director .
4 . Compliance with Environmental Ma ndates
The rewrite of the amendment to the hunt plan permitting quail hunting onthe refuge required the preparation of an environmental assessment . It wasdetermined that the proposed action would have no adverse impact upon theenvironment .
E . ADMINISTRATION
There were no changes to the permanent, full-time staff during the year .Five temporary appointments were made for various periods of time to meetspecial needs . Janith D . Jones, who had served as a temporary, full-timebiological technician since May 11, was converted to a permanent, part-timebiological technician position on December 12 . One temporary employeeremained on the staff at the end of the calendar year . The following tablereflects a five year comparison of staffing patterns at the end of eachfiscal year .
Table 2 . Five Year Comparison of Carolina Sandhills Staffing Pattern
PermanentTemporaryFull-Time
Part-Time
FY 82 6 0 2
FY 81 6 0 0
FY 80 8 0 0
FY 79 9* 0
FY 78 9* o
0
2 . Youth Programs
a . Young Adult Conservation Corps
We started the year with three YACC enrollees, all of whom were excellentemployees . The enrollees were treated as part of the refuge staff andengaged in the same work activities as other employees . Although we hadexperienced some severe problems with the YACC program when it was firststarted, we hated to see the program terminated when the last enrollee wasdischarged on March 23 .
b. Youth Conservation Corps
The refuge hosted a non-resident, eight weeks long YCC camp comprised offive enrollees . Although the program was greatly diminished in size fromprevious camps, we felt that it was successful . All supervision was pro-vided by the refuge staff, and refuge vehicles and equipment were used tosupport the program.
The enrollees were involved in a number of work projects, all of which werein support of on-going refuge activities . Typical projects included suchactivities as performing timber stand improvement, erosion control, patch-ing potholes in the visitor's drive, trail maintenance, and assisting thefisheries biologist in checking refuge lakes .
4 . Volunteers Program
Meg C . Grantham, a rising senior at Clemson University, served as a volun-teer for fourteen days during June and July prior to a temporary appoint-ment as a biological aid . Her volunteer service involved identifying andpreparing a list of plants found along the foot trail from Martins Lake toLake Bee . Meg also assisted with the supervision of the YCC enrollees andactively engaged in their work activities . We were well pleased with herperformance and would welcome more volunteers like her .
5. Funding
The refuge funding level for Fiscal Year 1982 declined from the previousyear . This decrease followed a period when annual funding levels, althoughincreasing, had failed to keep up with the rate of inflation . This decreaseonly served to set the refuge program back further in the hole in which wealways seem to be . Projected funding levels for Fiscal Year 1983 show someincrease but are still short of what is needed to meet refuge objectives .The one bright spot is that the inflation rate has declined, so maybe wewill be able to maintain our position in the hole without slipping furtherback . Table 3 displays the funding level at this station for the . past five
fiscal years .
Page 4
S
0.Tuly 1952
July 1982
Slide S ?2-9-1
Slide # 82_8_IL4
Li tzenberger
The YCC enrollees were a great help in carrying out the refugeprogram . They participated in a wide array of activities suchas trail maintenance (above photo) and development of a park-ing area (below photo) .
Purdle
Page 4a
*Does not include special funding such as BLHP or youth programs .
**These figures are tentative and subject to change .
Table 3 . Refuge Funding (FY 79-83)*
Fiscal Year 1210 1220 124.0 1400 1994 6810TotalFunding
1979 64,400 81,000 41,000 3,100 0 0 189,500
1980 86,000 82,000 41,ooo 0 0 209,000
1981 100,800 69,200 39,000 0 4,700 0 213,700
1982 96,300 87,000 9,000 0 4,100 0 196,400
1983** 86,000 58,000 36,000 0 2,000 30,000 212,000
6 . Safety
We were able to get through another year without a really serious acci-dent . YCC enrollee Karen Butler and Biological Aid Grantham were stungseveral times by bumble bees while clearing brush from a dam . . Karen'sstings were painful enough to require the attention of a physician, butboth employees were back at work the following day .
Safety meetings were held at least monthly throughout the year . Inaddition, tail-gate safety meetings were held before starting work on anypotentially dangerous project . Work hazard analyses were also used tohelp spot and guard against potential hazards .
7 . Technical Assistance
Under the terms of the cooperative agreement with the South CarolinaForestry Commission, the refuge is responsible for providing technicalassistance on wildlife matters to the staff of the Sand Hills State Forest .Details on the cooperative program between the two agencies can be foundin Section J.l .a .
F . HABITAT MANAGEMENT
2 . Wetlands
There are numerous small creeks and tributaries that transect the refugeand feed into either Black Creek on the east side of the refuge or LynchesRiver on the west side . The wetlands along the banks of these waterwaysproduce some of the best wildlife habitat found on the refuge .
There are thirty man-made impoundments on the refuge with a total of 350surface acres of water . No true green-tree reservoirs are present, buta few impoundments have some trees growing along their back edges . Thewater levels in these impoundments were lowered slightly in March to pro-tect the timber . In June, the water levels of ten impoundments were low-ered to encourage the growth of natural grasses . The common species thatgrew in these dewatered areas were spikerushes (Eleocharis RD .), PanicumsD ., Fimbrestylis,s •s
and water plantain (Alismo subcordatum) . Waterlevels of five other impoundments were drawn down, and Japanese milletwas planted on the exposed banks . A tractor was used to do the plantingaround four of the ponds . The fifth impoundment, Martins Lake, was seededby an airplane . In the past, aerial seeding has proven to be inexpensiveand very successful ; however, this year the millet that was aerr.ally seed-ed did not produce a good crop . Beginning in October, the water levelswere gradually raised in order to have all refuge impoundments at fullpool by mid-January .
Page 6
93 . Forests
A revision of the forest management plan for the Sandhills Project(Carolina Sandhills Refuge and Sand Hills State Forest was completed andapproved last year . Compartment prescriptions are prepared annually tosupplement the forest management plan . This year, prescriptions were pre-pared for Compartments 9 and 10 which are scheduled for treatment during1983 . Each stand in these two compartments was examined thoroughly, andrecommendations were made on the types of treatment needed for wildlifehabitat improvement . Planning was carried out Jointly between refuge andstate forest personnel . The final prescriptions were approved by the AreaManager at the annual meeting between the two agencies .
During the year, improvement cuts and thinnings were conducted on 337acres of pine stands in Compartments 1 and 4 . These cuts removed the sup-pressed and diseased trees allowing more sunlight to penetrate the forestfloor thereby encouraging the growth of legumes and and other food bear-ing plants . These cuts also created an open stand condition which ispreferred by red-cockaded woodpeckers_ 1 and an array of otherwildlife species .
Approximately 127 acres of stagnated slash pine plantations in Compart-ment 1 were clear cut and site prepared this year for longleaf planting .
An additional 14.5 acres previously cleared in Compartments 1 and 3 wereplanted to longleaf pine seedlings . In the past, a considerable acreageof slash pine was planted on the refuge, but experience has shown that thesite and climate are unsuitable for this species . The forest managementplan calls for the gradual removal of all slash pine plantations over a30 year period and conversion of the sites back to longleaf . An old aban-doned field containing 15 acres in Compartment 9 was replanted in longleafpine seedlings for the third time .
Approximately 150 acres of newly planted pine plantation, sites in Com-partments 1 and 3 were aerially seeded to sericea lezpedeza during March .
A good stand of sericea was established . This should greatly improve thewildlife carrying capacity of these open areas . The purposes of this seed-ing were to prevent erosion of the site, to provide nitrogen for the pineseedlings, and to provide additional wildlife food and cover .
A crawler tractor and rolling chopper were used to chop strips throughapproximately 14.5 acres of pine/turkey oak stands in Compartment 5 .These stands contain scattered longleaf pines with a dense understory ofturkey oaks . The purpose of this project was to open up the• dense turkeyoak stands in order to promote crown development for better mast production .Sprouts from the knocked down turkey oaks have been heavily browsed by deerin these areas .
The crawler tractor and rolling chopper were also used to remove turkeyoak from within several red-cockaded woodpecker colonies in Compartment 5 .
Page 7
0
0
Page 8
Red-cockaded woodpeckers will often desert a, cavity and colony area whendense vegetation grows around the cavity trees .
Wildlife habitat improvement was carried out on 25 acres of upland hard-
wood in Compartments 2, 4 and 5 . Low quality hardwoods competing with
the more desirable mast producing species, such as red oak, hickory, and
dogwood, were deadened . All trees killed were left standing to providedens and nests for wildlife species dependent upon dead tree cavities .
Prescribed burning is a very important forest management tool used forunderstory enhancement in pine stands . . The objectives of burning are toincrease the amount of palatable material for browsing, to increase andmaintain an open forest condition preferred by red-cockaded woodpeckersand an array of other wildlife species, and to reduce the risk of wild-fires by reducing the heavy buildup of pine and leaf litter . During the
1982 burning season, approximately 981 acres were prescribe burned in
four compartments . This was far less than we expected to burn due tothe limited number of suitable burning days .
One of our major concerns is management for those wildlife species whichare dependent upon dead trees or snags for cavity sites . This year a snagtree survey was conducted on the refuge by Biological Technician Jones todetermine the number of cavity trees present and the potential cavity treesavailable on the refuge . Data from this study has not been finalized .
4 . Croplands
The farming program on Carolina Sandhills has undergone a tremendous changewithin the last few years . Farming has always been a high risk venture inthe sandhills because of the poor sandy soils and the frequent droughts .
In spite of these problems, our cooperative farmers were willing to carryout an intensive farming program on the refuge as long as the prices offertilizer, fuel, chemicals, and equipment remained low .
As recently as the mid 1970's, practically all of the open land on therefuge was in a rotation of corn, soybeans, and rye . This was accompaniedby heavy applications of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers . Littleconsideration was given to controlling erosion, and severe soil lossesoccurred with every rain . At the end of 1975, our two major cooperative
farmers stated that they were no longer able to make a profit on the refugeand did not wish to continue farming on the area .
Following these events, we realized that some major changes were needed inthe farming program in order to meet basic wildlife needs and to preserveand restore the soil base . The decision was made to reduce production ofannual crops to the minimum level essential to meet wildlife needs
0
Page 9
and to either plant the remaining land to soil building perennials or tolet it remain fallow . Today approximately seventy percent of the 1,700acres of open land has either been planted to perennial legumes or grassesor has been permitted to revert to natural vegetation which is maintainedby mowing or burning . The remaining acreage is utilized for annual cropproduction, although only a portion is farmed at any one time .
Other actions that have been taken include the construction of numerousterraces and waterways, increased soil testing to determine fertilizerand lime needs, and more emphasis on contour farming and strip cropping .Special attention has been given to trying to develop a crop rotationwhich will meet wildlife needs, reduce the need for chemical fertilizersand pesticides, and improve and protect the soil .
Although we are still experimenting with combinations of crops, we feelthat the rotation shown in Table 4 shows considerable promise in meetingour goals . The rotation is highly dependent upon legumes to improve thesoil and to provide nitrogen for subsequent crops . All of the crops, withthe possible exception of corn, can be planted . with a grain drill whichreduces the potential for erosion . When combined with a strip croppingsystem, this rotation provides a large amount of diversity in any givenfield and attracts a wide variety of wildlife . We also feel that insectand pest plant problems will be reduced by rotating crops frequently andby having several different crops growing in the same area .
There were two cooperative farming agreements in effect in 1982 . Mr .George Catoe was responsible for maintaining 39 acres of bicolor lespe-deza and 20 acres of japonica lespedeza . Mr . A . C . McLeod was responsiblefor maintaining 230 acres of sericea lespedeza and for planting 15 acresof corn and 42 acres of wheat . In addition, McLeod harvested 182 acres ofrye which were planted in the fall of 1981 . The refuge received 30 per-cent of the bicolor and japonica and all of the corn and wheat as itsshare of the cooperative program .
The refuge staff was responsible for planting approximately 11 acres ofmilo, 6 acres of Japanese millet, 5 acres of brown-top millet, and 30acres of wheat . We contracted with a local flight service to aeriallyseed 8 acres of Japanese millet in a dewatered portion of Martins Lake .
All crops planted were intended for waterfowl use except for a few smallstrips planted along the visitor's drive to attract wildlife for viewing .
In addition to the above food crops, the refuge planted 40 acres of sericealespedeza, 5 acres of bicolor lespedeza, and 12 acres of tall fescue infields temporarily being rotated out of annual crop production . Hairyvetch was overseeded on 25 acres of wheat which was planted for greenbrowse . Four acres of wheat were overseeded with unhulled sericea seed,and one acre of wheat was overseeded with unhulled japonica seed todetermine if the legumes could be established in this manner .
Table 4 . Wildlife Food Crop Rotation for Carolina Sandhills NWR
Year #
Crop
Remarks
1-3
Lespedeza
Establish oneeof. the perennial lespedezas (sericea, bicolor, japonica) .Sericea is probably best for waterfowl fields because of its lowgrowth . Seeds may be harvested during second and third year if de-sired.
4
Milo
5
Wheat & Hairy Vetch
6
Milo or Millet
7
Wheat
Plant in spring . Can be planted with grain drill in 14 or 21 inchrows . Either harvest or leave in the field for wildlife . Corn canbe substituted if desired . Other possible crops include buckwheat andsunflower .
Plant in fall for green browse and winter cover . Plow under the nextspring as green manure crop . Should be plowed under at least threeweeks before planting next crop . If followed by millet, plowing undercan be delayed until vetch matures . This will result in an excellentstand of vetch mixed with the millet .
Plant milo in spring ; millet in early August for waterfowl . Harvestor leave in the field for wildlife .
Plant in fall for green browse . There is a possibility that peren-nial lespedezas can be reestablished by planting unhulled seed withthe wheat seed. If successful, the wheat should probably be mowed inspring to permit the lespedezas to become dominant .
slide # 82-7-12
The present crop rotation system on the refuge is heavilydependent upon legumes, such as hairy vetch, for soil im-provement .April 1982 Hurdle
Hairy vetch is plowed under in the sprint prior to plantingmilo . research has show,~m that a dense stand of vetch c.anadd as much as 200 pounds of nitrogen per acre to the soil .May 1982
Slide # R2-7---17
iurdle
Page 10a
P~ilo planted after vetch produced a good yield without the
addition of any nitromen to the soil . The mile was planted
with a drill and no weed control was carried out .
Sept 1982
Slide ;f1 82-S-3? H urdl e
A considerable acreage of cropland has been planted toperennial lespedezas such as sericea . These fields willeventually be brought back Into crop production or will bepermitted to revert to naturalJune 1982
Slide ,{ 82-7-10 T-Turdl.e
Pa,7e 10b
5 . Grasslands
There are no true grasslands present on the refuge . The agriculturalfields that have been removed from the farming program are maintainedby mowing and burning to prevent excessive encroachment of woody vegeta-
tion .
9, FireManagement
In accordance with an approved fire management plan and a prescribedburning plan, Carolina Sandhills Refuge personnel carry out an activefire management program on the refuge . Prescribed fires are used to ac-complish certain forest management objectives . The first of these is toprovide the necessary habitat to maintain a diversity and abundance ofnatural fauna with emphasis on endangered and threatened species . Thesecond objective is to reduce the potential for wildfires by reducing theamount of fuel accumulation . The third objective is to demonstrate howfire management can effectively be used in wildlife management .
During the 1982 burning season, approximately 981 acres were prescribeburned in Compartments 3, 6, 7 and 9 . The number of days suitable forburning was extremely limited due to wet weather .
This year, in cooperation with the S . C . Commission of Forestry, approx-imately 700 acres in Compartment 6 were prescribe burned using aerialignition . Under this system a helicopter, which has an aerial ignitiondispenser (helitorch) attached, flies over the proposed burning area set-ting spot fires in a uniform pattern over the entire tract . The helitorch
or dispenser contains a mixture of gasoline thickened with a gelling agent .
The gelled gasoline is pumped out in golfball-sized lumps from the heli-torch that is suspended from a helicopter cargo hook . The gelled gaso-
line is ignited from the dispenser and keeps burning as it falls throughthe air to the ground.
The helitorch consists of a 55 gallon tank, an igniter, and an electric
pump . The pilot controls the flow and ignition of the gel .
The key to successful aerial ignition burning is ignition spacing .
Flight lines are flown at different intervals, and ignitions are set60-70 feet apart depending on fuel type . The intensity of the fire canbe regulated by the distance between strips .
The area which was aerially ignited was surrounded by refuge roads therebyeliminating plowed breaks . Equipment problems hampered burning the firstafternoon . The next day, a considerable amount of acreage was set, butburning was halted during mid afternoon due to high temperatures and windyconditions . The results were less than desirable primarily due to weatherconditions rather than the technique involved .
Page 11
This was the first year that aerialscribed burning on the refuge . Theoperation consisted of a helicopterFebruary 1982
ignition was used in pre-equipment used in thisequipped with a helitorch .
Slide # 82-5-17
Hurdle
The basic method of firing was to fly lines across the areadropping small amounts of burning gelled gasoline . The con-tractor experienced some problems in regulating the flow offuel to the helitorch which resulted in excessive fuel use .February 1982
Slide # 82-5-2
Hurdle
Page lla
Page llb
Under normal burning conditions, the intensity of aerial ignited
fires can be regulated by the spacing of flight lines . Linesset close together quickly burn out with little damage to desir-able vegetation . '1nfortunately, burning conditions were lessthan desirable and the operation had to be halted ; however, themethod shows great promise and we plan to try it again undermore favorable conditions .February 1982
elide # 82-5-8
Hurdle
w
0
Page 12
We feel that it would be profitable to burn large pine stands usingaerial ignition . Acreages that would normally take weeks for groundpersonnel to burn can be burned in one day using aerial ignition . Withefficient use of the helicopter, ground personnel, and equipment, aerialignition can increase prescribed burning capabilities and be cost efficientat the same time .
Under the terms of the cooperative agreement with the South CarolinaForestry Commission, the Commission has the responsibility for fire sup-pression on the refuge . When needed, refuge personnel serve as a back-upforce . The refuge maintains a fire control unit (John Deere 450-C with,Mathis plow) which serves as a back-up unit for fire suppression and isalso used in prescribed burning .
During the year, the Commission suppressed three wildfires on the refuge .These fires burned 72 acres in Compartment 1, 3 acres in Compartment 10,and 340 acres in Compartment 8 . The Compartment 1 fire was apparentlystarted from an escaped trash burning fire off of the refuge, while theother fires were started by lightning . It was necessary to salvage theburned timber in Compartment 1, but damage on the other areas was minorand no salvage was necessary .
A-prescribed burning plan for the 1982-83 burning season was completedand submitted to the Regional Office for approval .
10 . Pest Control
nne of the cooperative farmers applied a preplant application of atrazineat the rate of two pounds of active ingredient per acre in order to con-trol broad-leaved weeds on 15 acres of corn land . Refuge personnel usedundiluted 2,4-D Amino in tree injectors to deaden unwanted trees compet-ing with desirable mast producing hardwoods on 25 acres of woodlands .All chemical use was in conformance with approved chemical control pro-posals .
12 . Wildernes s and Special Areas
The refuge contains one research natural area made up of 551- acres oflongleaf pine-scrub oak (SAF 71) . In addition, there are numarous uniqueareas such as archeological sites, rare plant communities, etc: ., presenton the refuge . No special management other than protection was carriedout during the year .
0
G . WILDLIFE
2 . Endangered and or Threatened Species
a . Red-cockaded Woodpecker
A survey of Compartments 9 and 10 was conducted during the winter of1981-82 to determine the location of all trees containing red-cockadedwoodpecker cavities and cavity starts . These cavity trees were locatedand mapped as part of a continuing refuge survey . A total of 121 treescontaining cavities and 21 trees containing new cavity starts were located .
All cavity trees were tagged with a pre-numbered aluminum tag and markedwith a band of white paint . This band allows the tree to be easily locatedand serves as a flag for areas to receive special consideration duringforest management activities . All brush and small trees were cut fromaround the cavity trees to prevent blockage of the cavity which may causedesertion by the woodpecker .
All of the cavity trees in these two compartments were checked again during the nesting season to determine the number of nests present . Sevennests were located in Compartment 9, and nine nests were located in Com-partment 10 . Based upon the accepted theory that each colony containsonly one breeding pair, these two compartments contain a minimum of 16active colonies . Both compartments were previously surveyed during 1977to determine the number of cavity trees present . Table 5 presents a com-parison between the two surveys .
Approximately 88 percent of the trees containing cavities were old-growthtrees which are well in excess of 100 years old . Increment borings weremade on 20 trees containing red-cockaded woodpecker cavity starts . Itwas impossible to get an exact age on some because of heart rot ; however,the average age was over 100 years old .
b . Eastern Cougar
Does this elusive species exist in South Carolina, and. if so, does itutilize this refuge? Those questions have arisen each year since about1970 . Over the years, a number of refuge staff members, biologists, andvisitors have reported seeing a large, brown, long-tailed cat on or nearthe refuge . This year, refuge forester David Robinson was added to thelist . Dave was driving on Refuge Trail 3 when a cougar-shaped cat leapedacross the road about 45 feet in front of him . He watched the cat as itran into the woods and then tried unsuccessfully to follow i.t . Thishappened about 10 :30 in the morning on a clear, spring day ; :however, notracks were found except for what looked like a few toe marks . .
Page 13
Table 5 . 1982 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Cavity Tree Survey Data
Comnaxtment ## Cavity TreesAvailable 1977
# Cavity TreesAvailable 1982
% Change1977-82
# Cavity StartsFound 1982
# RCWPNests 1977
# RCWPNests 1282
9 57 64 + 12 .3 14 6 7
10 60 57 - 5 .0 7 7 9
Total 117 121 + 3 .7 21 13 16
0
c . Pine Barrens Treefrog
The Pine Barrens Treefrog (Hy1a and.ersonii) is listed as endangered bythe state of South Carolina . These frogs are distributed throughout therefuge, although they do not occur in great numbers . Their preferred hab-itat consists of wet seepage areas and drains that contain dense growthsof Spagnum s There was no noticeable change to the refuge populationof these frogs during the year .
d . Plants
There are three plant species present on the refuge that are under reviewfor addition to the Federal list of Threatened and/or Endangered Species .They are white wicky (Kalmia cuneata), Wells' pixie moss (Pyxidantherabarbulata var . brevifolia), and sweet pitcher plant (Sarracenia, rubrassr ., nesii) . There has been no change in refuge populations sincethey were reported in last year's narrative .
e . Other Endangered/Threatened S pecies
There were only two sightings of eagles on the refuge this year . Oneadult bald eagle and one immature golden eagle were seen in September .No eagles were recorded here during the mid-winter eagle count sponsoredby the National Wildlife Federation .
3 . Waterfowl
The decline in wintering waterfowl numbers reported in recent narrativescontinued during the winter of 1981-82 . Total use days were down over23 percent from the previous year and over 81 percent from the recordlevels set in 1976-77 . All species of waterfowl which commonly winter onthe refuge have shown dramatic declines as shown in Table 6 . Table 7 pro-vides a summary of wintering waterfowl use for the past nine years .
Most of the waterfowl nesting which occurs on the refuge is by wood ducks .There is a small resident flock of Canada geese, but these birds are sel-dom successful in raising young . A few mallards and hooded mergansersare also known to occasionally nest on the area .
Because of the lack of suitable tree cavities and for demonstration pur-poses, a wood duck nest box program has been carried out on this refugefor many years . This program has proven to be highly successful in help-ing to reestablish wood ducks on the area . Table 8 provides a summaryof the nest box program for the year .
Page 15
Table 6 . Changes in Peak Populations of Common Wintering Waterfowl on
Carolina Sandhills NWR
Peak Populations
% Change in 1981-82 from
Page 16
Species
1976-77 198o-81 1981-82
1976-77. 1980-81
- 12 .5
- 47 .5
0 .0
- 64 .7
- 15 .0
- 9 .1
- 56 .7
+ 25 .0
Total
800
700
- 65.0
1,000
525
- 90.5
150
150
- 75.0
150
53
- 89 .4
200
170
- 93 .2
550
500
- 85.7
300
130
- 62 .9
40
50
- 66 .7
Canada Goose
2,000
Mallard
5,500
Black Duck
600
GW Teal
500
Am . Widgeon
2,500
Wood Duck
3,500
Ring-necked Duck
350
Flooded Merganser
150
Table 7 .
Years
Nine Year Summary of Wintering Waterfowl Use DaysSeptember Through March
Canada Geese
Other Geese
Ducks
Coots
1973-74 143,770
0
562,200
890 706,860
1974-75 110,617
0
454,295
735 565647
1975-76 125,490
122
720,722
10,970 857,301
1976-77 133,725
210
964,703
8,462 1,107,100
1977-78 81,750
90
517,801
4,870 604,511
1978-79 59,390
180
175,185
1,960 236,715
1979-80 45,935
0
150,897
5,510 202,342
1980-81 46,245
31
213,005
4,302 263,583
1981-82 44,48o
92
155,052
1,570 201,194
Table 8 . Annual Narrative Report FormWood Duck Box Program Inspection
1 more boxes
fewer boxes
no change
Remarks : 35percent is a more realistic survival to flight stages__._
*If survival is other than 5(%, please explain rationale in remarks .
Page 17
Number Percent
Total usable boxes 117,
Estimated boxes usedby wood ducks 85 7Y
Estimated boxes usedby other wildlife 22%
Estimated wood duckbroods produced 68
_
58%
Estimated total wood duckshatched 499
Estimated wood duckssurviving to flight stage* 176 35go
Plans for next year
4 . Marsh and Water Birds
The amount of habitat available on the refuge for marsh and water birdsis limited, and no management practices are carried out specifically forthis group of birds . Great blue herons are present year round, and greenherons commonly nest around refuge ponds . A few pied-billed grebes canbe found throughout most of the year . During the summer and fall, littleblue herons, white ibis, cattle egrets, and great egrets are occasionallyattracted to the dewatered impoundments .
An anhinga was observed on several occasions this year . These birds arepresently shown on the refuge bird list as having been seen on the refugeonly once or twice . Sightings of this species have now occurred enoughthat it should be listed as an occasional or rare visitor .
5 . Shorebirds,_Gulls, Turns,and plied Species
This group, like the marsh and water birds, are represented on therefuge by only a few species . Killdeer are the most common representa-tive of the group present . Greater yellowlegs, lesser yellowlegs, spottedsandpipers, solitary sandpipers, and common snipe can also be occasion-ally observed around ponds and dewatered impoundments .
Woodcock are present on the refuge year round, but we have almost nodata on which to base population estimates . Dr . Gene Wood, a wildlifebiologist and professor at Clemson University, has informed us that thesebirds are probably fairly common in the bottomland areas of the refugeduring the winter months . Hunters were permitted to take woodcock onthe refuge this year, although we know of no one who took advantage ofthe opportunity .
6 . Ra tp ors
Turkey vultures, black vultures, red-tailed hawks, and American kestrelsare commonly observed all year . Marsh hawks are common during spring,fall, and winter in the farming units . Cooper's hawks, sharp-shinnedhawks, and red-shouldered hawks are also present but are seldom seenbecause of their preference for woodland habitat . Screech owls tre themost common owls present ; but barred owls, great-horned owls, and occasion-ally a barn owl are also present .
7 . Other Migratory Birds
The refuge supports a large population of mourning doves and is an im-portant production area for these birds . Dove hunting was permittedthis year when the open season coincided with the state quail season .As far as we have been able to determine, there was little or no par-ticipation by dove hunters .
Page 18
0
e
Page 19'
This was the fourth year that a Christmas Bird Count under the auspicesof the National Audubon Society was held on the refuge . Unfortunately,the gentleman who organized the count failed to inform us about it untilthis year . Previous counts resulted in 47 species being identified in
1979 ; 55 species in 1980 ; and 63 species in 1981 . Two refuge employeesparticipated in this year's count and in spite of cold, rainy weather,74 species were observed . One new species, white-crowned sparrow, wasadded to the refuge bird list during the count .
8 . Game Mammals
The only game mammal that was legally hunted on the refuge this year waswhite-tailed deer . In contrast to past years when a check station wasoperated throughout the hunts, this year the check station was onlyoperated long enough to gather a representative sample of age, sex, andweight from harvested animals . Based upon check station informationand hunter reports, we estimated that approximately 279 deer were legal-ly taken . The crippling loss and illegal kill probably brought the totalkill to around 350 deer . This was the second highest annual kill sincedeer hunting was started. on the area . Tables 9 and 10 provide a summaryof the data collected from the 212 deer inspected at the check station .
Other mammals that occur on the refuge which are listed as game animalsby the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department arecottontail rabbit, gray squirrel, fox squirrel, river otter, muskrat,bobcat, red fox, gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, and opossum . Inprevious years, a few bear tracks were found on the refuge, but nonewere reported this year . There was no noticeable change to the popula-tion levels of other game mammals .
10 . Other Resident Wildlife
Wild turkeys are present on the refuge again thanks to a statewide re-stocking program being conducted by the South Carolina Wildlife and MarineResources Department . Refer to Section G .12 for details on the stockingprogram . Prior to this year's restocking, it had been over ten yearssince the last turkey was seen on the refuge, although we have receivedwidely scattered reports from neighboring landowners of occasional sight-ings .
Bobwhite quail hunting was permitted on the refuge for the first timethis fall . The refuge season coincides with the state season which runsfrom Thanksgiving Day to March 1 . Hunters reported fairly good successearly in the season, but hunter interest started to decline by the endof the year .
A mammal list and an amphibian and reptile list are maintained on ther-3fuge . There were no additions during the year .
0
0
S
Page 20
Table 9 . 1982 Deer Age Results by Sexes on Carolina Sandhills NWR
Table 10 . 1981-82 Average Live Weights per Ages and Sexes and Pointsper Age Class on Carolina Sandhills NWR
Sex ~Unk . V Totals
Bucks 30 33 12 4 2 1 82
Does 29 42 22 21 7 130
1982 Totals 59 75 34 23 212
1982 Percents 28 .9 36 .7 16 .7 6 .4 11 .3 - 100 .0
1981 Percents 34.2 33 .9 13 .0 5 .0 13 .9 - 100 .0
Bucks Does No . of Points
Ages 1981 ! 1982 1981 1982 1981 1982
z 53 52 49 47 - -
12 101 99 82 83 3 .0 3 .4
2 121 139 88 91 6 .6 6 .7
32 142 138 90 95 7 .3 8 .5
4-24 165 154 92 93 9 .2 7 .0
ComparativeAverages 116 116 80 82 6 .5 6 .4
July 1982
F' :
July 1982
Slide # 82-8-Q
In our enthusiasm for managing endangered species and mi ra-tory birds, we sometimes seem to forget all of the othercreatures which are dependent upon refuges for homes . Hope-fully this is not the case at Carolina Sandhills .
"440 MW
~•
14
A
,a } 14•~; "I I ---
f
I . -W
t h10.1r 4C,
___v
P •MR 1
:curdle
glide # 82-8-12
Hurdle
Page 20a
11 . Fisheries Resources
Most impoundments on the refuge are managed primarily for waterfowl andfishery resources are secondary . The water is very acidic (pH valuesrange from 4 .5 to 6.3) and is not conducive to fish reproduction .Hydrated lime was added to a few ponds in the spring to increase bassspawning . Fishery biologist John Boaze visited the refuge in July andsampled several impoundments to determine bass and bream spawning success .He found most ponds had good largemouth bass and bluegill reproductionand recommended that we continue to add lime in the spring to maintainthe pH value at about 7 during the spawning season .
Fishery biologists from Carolina Power and Light Company (CP&L) weregiven permission to gill net fish in Lake Bee . CP&L operates a nuclearpower plant on lake Robinson, which is downstream from the refuge . Theyused the fish from Lake Bee to compare with those in Lake Robinson .
12 . Wildlife Propagation and Stockin
In February, the S . C . Wildlife Resources Department released six gobblerson the refuge as part of a statewide turkey restocking program . Due toan abundant acorn crop, the state agency was unable to trap any hens .
One gobbler was found dead a few days after the restocking . There wasapprehension among the staff as to whether the gobblers would remainand, if they did, whether they would make it through the deer huntingseason ; however, the turkeys and/or their signs were observed throughoutthe year . Several visitors reported seeing hens with the gobblers, andthe turkey scats that were found substantiated those sightings . Appar-ently a few hens remained from previous restocking attempts, and theyresponded to the calls from some lonely gobblers .
In January, 1983, which is not included in this report period, we receiv-ed nine turkey hens from the state . All nine were released along thevisitors drive near Martins Lake, which is where the other turkeys weremost recently sighted .
15 . Animal Control
Feral dogs continue to be a problem on the refuge . After consultation
with the South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department and withthe Service's wildlife assistance biologist, an animal control proposalwas prepared and submitted to the Area Office . Following approval of theproposal a trapping program was initiated, but it was terminated after afew days because of lack of success .
16 . Marking and Banding
The post season banding program began on January 21 . The refuge's quotawas 100 Canada geese and 200 mallards, We were unable to get a shot off
Page 21
Fish reproduction was checked in a number of ponds duringJuly . Most ponds were found to contain an adequate stock-ing of largemouth bass and bluegill .July 1982
Slide ;;` 82-8-29 Li tzenberger
Thanks to the South Carolina `i1 d1i e and iarinc resourcesDepartment, wild turkeys are again present on the refuge .Six turkeys were released in February with more birdsscheduled for 1983 .February 1983
Slide 1 82-3-7 P urdl e
Page 21a
0with the rocket net for ducks and only one shot for geese . All the ducksbanded were caught in a swim-in trap . The post season banding programended with 103 mallards and 17 Canada geese banded . Preseason wood duckbanding was more successful than the post season banding program . Bythe end of August, 111 wood ducks, which was eleven more than our quota,were banded .
H .' PUBLIC USE
1 . General
High prices and unemployment are apparently having an adverse impactupon refuge visitation . There were 19,716 visitors recorded on therefuge during the year, which is a 37 .4 percent decline from the previousyear . Although there was a corresponding decline in activity hours, mostrefuge visitors spent more time on the refuge than last year which result-ed in a decline in activity hours of only 16 .9 percent . Hunting, fishing,and wildlife observation continued to be the most popular activities onthe area . Table 11 provides a summary of public use during the year .
Page 22
Table 11 . Summary of 1982 Public Use
Lctivily Hours, %% ChangeFrom 1981
Conducted Tours 70 0 .1 - 86 .5
Interpretive Exhibits 271 0 .4 NA
Outdoor Classrooms 160 0 .2 + 566 .7
Deer Hunting 28,4.00 36 .7 - 10 .8
Other Hunting 1,310 1 .7 NA
Fishing 17,360 22 .4 + 96 .6
Camping 1,518 2 .0 + 110 .8
Picnicking 5,910 7 .6 - 58 .6
WL/WL Observation 22,250 38 .7 - 39 .5
Photography 133 0 .2 - 2 .2
Totals 77,382 100 .0
2 . Outdoor Classrooms - Students
We have no formalized environmental education program on the refuge . Afew local school teachers used the refuge as an outdoor classroom on oneor two occasions .
3 . Outdoor Classrooms - Teachers
A few college classes visited the refuge during the year for educationalpurposes . These classes were conducted by college instructors, and therefuge staff was not involved .
4 . Interpretive Foot_ Trails
At the present time, there are no self-guided foot trails available onthe refuge . A few conducted tours were given as requested .
5 . Interpretive Tour Routes
The paved visitor's drive is not interpreted, and presently any travelon it is considered as wildlife observation . The refuge did provide aguide for a few groups who requested this service .
6 . Intersretive Exhibits/Demonstrations
This year saw the completion of an exhibit shelter and installation ofexhibit panels at the entrance to the visitor's drive off of Highway 145 .The exhibit received considerable use by refuge visitors .
7 . Other Inter retive Programs.
No effort was made to seek opportunities off of the refuge to presentprograms . News releases were furnished local newspapers concerningvarious refuge activities . Requests for information were responded topromptly .
8 . Hunting
Hunting for white-tailed deer has been permitted on the refuge for manyyears . This year hunting opportunities were expanded with the additionof bobwhite, mourning dove, and woodcock hunting to the hunting program .Hunting was the most popular public use activity permitted on the refugesurpassing even wildlife observation which has ranked first in past years .
Fourteen days of deer hunting were permitted on the& refuge this year .This total included six days of archery hunting, five days of primitive
Page 23
Page 24
weapons hunting, and three days for modern firearms . Hunters were per-mitted to take two deer of either sex on each of the hunts . The huntswere open to anyone, and no permit was required .
This was the first year that quail hunting was permitted on the refuge .Hunting was permitted for the entire state season which started onThanksgiving Day and will end on March 1, 1983 . Hunter turnout wasrelatively heavy early in the season but had declined considerably bythe end of the year . Refuge involvement with this hunt has been minimal,and we have not experienced any problems such as normally occur with thedeer hunts .
Mourning dove and woodcock hunting was permitted when the open season forthese species coincided with the quail season . This included the entirewoodcock season and the latter half of the dove season . Most of thedove hunting in this area takes place during the first few days of theseason, and most hunters in this area do not even know what a woodcockis . As a result there was little interest, and we do not know of a singleindividual who hunted for either of these birds .
9 . Fishing
The opening of two recently restocked ponds helped account for the factthat the number of fishing activity hours almost doubled over the previousyear . Fishing pressure was heaviest during the first part of the season .By late summer only the most dedicated fishermen were turning out .
11 . Wildlife Observation
Wildlife observation has always been one of the most popular recreation-al activities on the refuge . The Martins Lake Recreation Area is a fav-orite spot with most visitors for observing waterfowl and other wildlife,while the small fields adjacent to the visitor's drive provide excellentopportunities for viewing deer . Pre-hunt scouting for deer throughoutthe refuge is also extremely popular with many visitors .
12 . Other Wildlife Oriented Recreation
Organized youth groups are permitted to camp near Lake Bee provided theyare under the supervision of a responsible adult . A refuge permit isrequired, and the group must clean the area before they leave .
Wildlife photography is usually associated with other recreational activ-ities ; however, we do have a few serious photographers every year . Weusually cooperate with these individuals to help them get the photographsthey desire . A photography blind is available at Martins Lake .
s
The completion of a new exhibit shelter added greatly to our
interpretive efforts . This display was well received by the
public .April 1982
Slide # 82-7-1 F urdl e
Fishing gained in popularity with the opening of two recent-
ly restocked ponds . The number of activity hours for this
activity almost doubled over the previous year .
March 1982
Slide ; 82-6--2
hurdle
Faze 24a
14 . Picnicking
Picnicking use at the Lake Bee Recreation Area declined sharply thisyear. Most of the use recorded at the area was in connection with otherwildlife related activities, although there were a few church picnicsand family reunions during the warmer months .
15 . Off-Road Vehiclin
This activity is not legally permitted on the refuge . Unfortunately,we still get some of it . The worst offenders seem to be deer hunterswho are too lazy to walk a short distance from the road to their stands .
17 . Law Enforcement
Eight cases were made on the refuge this year . Six of these occurredon the first weekend of the state deer season and involved individualsillegally hunting on the refuge . Prosecution of two of these cases wasdeclined because they involved juveniles ; the other four cases resultedin the involved individuals paying fines of $200 .00 each . Two other casesinvolving the transportation of uncased guns were pending at the end ofthe year .
The old problem with deer hounds from all the surrounding hunting clubsrunning loose on the refuge during the state deer season was still withus this year . Refuge personnel impounded 74 dogs that were turned backover to their owners upon payment of recovery fees that totaled $646 .00 .
I . EgUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
1 . New Construction
The only new construction carried out this year was the completion ofthe display shelter near Lake Bee . Six display panels received fromWilderness Graphics of Tallahassee, Florida were installed in theshelter . The area around the shelter was landscaped by planting grass,installing a bark walkway, and erecting a split rail fence to preventvehicles from being driven on the grass .
2 . Rehabil itation
The headquarters entrance sign was replaced and a number of new direc-tional signs were erected . These signs were ordered from special pro-ject funding in 1981 but were not received in time to erect them then .
The refuge received $2,000 .00 of special project funding in 1982 to beused for erosion control . The money was used to eliminate a severe erosionproblem occurring along Refuge Trail 2 near Skipper Creek . The work ac-complished included installation of four drain pipes and construction of
Page 25
0 Page 26
a waterway to carry off excess water . The road shoulders were thenreshaped and seeded to permanent vegetation .
Visitor access to Martins Lake was improved by extending the gravelsurface approximately one-fourth mile to the end of the road . Fourdrain pipes were installed under the road to prevent washing. A shortsection of terrace was constructed above the boat ramp parking lot atthe end of the road to stop excessive washing of the area.
Some of the funds from the Quarters 0 & M Account were used to installstorm windows in the north side of the three residences at refuge head-quarters .
3 . Major Maintenance
Routine maintenance involved with the upkeep of roads, dams, buildings,boundary lines, equipment, etc ., is a never ending task. Our effortswere hampered by being unable to fill a maintenance position which wasvacated last year . In spite of this problem, we were able to maintain asatisfactory maintenance level .
4 . Equipment Utilization and Replacement
A new Plymouth Reliant K station wagon was received to replace the 1975AMC Hornet sedan . The new vehicle is equipped with a four cylinder enginewhich gets excellent mileage ; unfortunately the vehicle is too low formuch use on our sand roads .
Our fire protection system was improved with the addition of a trailermounted fire fighting unit . This unit includes a 300 gallon water tankand a high pressure pump . In addition to fire fighting, the unit is ex-tremely helpful for washing mud from under crawler tractors and otherheavy equipment .
6 . Enemy Conservation
During 1982, our levels of consumption in all energy-use categories werebelow base year allotments . This station achieved a significant reduc-tion in the amount of gasoline used . With our current funding situation,mandates to reduce energy consumption are not necessary . The high costof petroleum products and electricity are incentive enough for us to con-serve . Table 12 provides a summary of our energy use levels and the costsinvolved .
The refuge staff prepared an energy contingency plan during the year .This plan details possible impacts upon refuge programs from significantreductions in energy consumption levels .
April 1982
'ay 1982
Slide
82-.6-10
Slide 02-7-16
Hurdle
Hurdle
T
2r a ;,~] L.VGL
Two thousand dollars of special project funding were usedto correct a serious erosion problem at Skipper Creek .:-xcessive washing head stopped up a drain pipe and depositeda large amount of silt in an adjacent field (above photo) .Part of the solution included installing a new drain pipe andconstructing a waterway to carry off excess water (below photo) .
0
April 1982
In connection with the erosion control project, a portionof the road shoulder was reshaped and seeded to permanentvegetation . The above photo shows the area before reshaping,
and the photo below shows the area after reshaping and seeding .
April 1982
"lide
82-6-16
>lide # 82--6-20
Hurdle
H urdl e
Page 26b
0P' ay 1982
Access to :'7artins Lake was improved by extending; the gravelsurface to the end- of the road . 'he above photo shows theungraveled portion, and the bottom photo shows the completedproject .
July 1982
Slide ## 82-7-S
Slide # 32-8 -17
1Turdle
T' urddl e
Page 25c
9
Table 12 . Summary of Energy Consumption and Costs :CY 82 and Base Year at Carolina Sandhills NWR
electricity Fuel Oil-
_Base Deviation
Base DeviationCY 82 Year From Base CY 82 Year From Base
*Electricity is
i
GasolineBase
Y 82 Year
in kilowatt hours (KWH) ; all other units are expressed in gallons .
1$2487 $2076
+ 209
Base Year for fuel oil and electricity is F . Y . 75 ; base year for gasoline and diesel is F . Y . 80 . bp)oaN
NV
*Unit 5629 4659 + 21/ 178 165 + 8% , 744 1210Cost $500 $266 + 8k
i$221 $58 + 281% I $807 $1020
APR-JUN i
I
*Unit 3724 3822 - 2E~'f I 0 0 1043 1228Cost $366 3235 + 561
10 0 $1089 $10.53
I .
JUL-SLP--*Unit 4138 3500 + 18% 11 0 0 1034 1173
Cost `3388 $174 + 123%1
0 0 $1245 $1258
0CT_DT]CY *Unit 4043 6496 - 38% 42 100 - 58% °s 823 1422
Cost $362 $305 + 19°1 1 $52 $35 + 491 $948 $1203
TOTALS*Unit 17534 18477 - / 220 265 17% 3644
~•..4o895033
_Cost 6?1616 1,980 + 651 $273 93 + 19 $4534
DieselDeviation
_-Base
eDeviation
CY 82 Year From BaseFrom Base
- 30, 1 639 834 23%- 21% 1 $728 $654 + 11%
- 151 451 579 - 22%+ 31 $492 $454 + 8°1
- 12/ 839 680 + 23%11 $905 $621 + L4.6%
- 42% 336 443 - 24%- 21% $362 °347 +. 4l
6- 28% 2265 2536 - llo
Page 28
The refuge's efforts to conserve energy included the following : 1) instal-ling new duct work and. relocating the air handler in the office air con-ditioning system (this system can now accomodate a heat pump with a fewminor alterations) ; 2) replacing the Hornet sedan with a Reliant stationwagon which is more fuel efficient and is also capable of storing moresupplies and equipment ; 3) installation of storm windows on the northside of all residences at headquarters ; 4) routine preventive maintenanceto vehicles and buildings ; and 5) monthly monitoring of consumption levelsin all energy-use categories .
J . OTHER ITEMS
1 . Cooperative Programs
a . South Carolina Forestry Commission
Under the terms of a cooperative agreement between the Service and theSouth Carolina Forestry Commission, the Commission is responsible forcarrying out certain forest management practices on the refuge, and theService is responsible for providing technical wildlife assistance andadvice on the adjacent Sand. Hills State Forest, which is leased from theService . All receipts received from the sale of forest products on therefuge went to the Commission to be used in carrying out their activitieson the Sandhills Project .
During the year, the Commission received `92,822 .20 from the sale ofrefuge forest products . In addition, they were responsible for plantinglongleaf pine seedlings on 160 acres and for carrying out prescribed burn-ing on 700 acres with the use of a helicopter (see Section F .9) . TheCommission also paid the cost of hiring a local flight service to aeriallysow sericea lespedeza seed on 150 acres of newly planted pine sites .
Refuge activities on the Sand Hills State Forest were mainly confined toreviewing proposed annual work plans to insure compliance with the lease,to conducting red-cockaded woodpecker nest counts on three compartments,and to assisting with banding red-cockaded woodpeckers on one compartment .The purpose of this last activity was to determine the number of coloniespresent on the compartment and to compare it with the colony estimatederived from nest counts . The Service also provided japonica and sericealespedeza seed to the forest for planting wildlife food patches .
b . Ecological Monitories
In addition to the regularly scheduled refuge wildlife censuses, thestaff participated in the Service's mid-winter waterfowl count, mourningdove call count, and the National Wildlife Federation's eagle count .
2 . Items of Interest,
Litzenberger and Oliver attended a prescribed burning school held anthe Sand Hills State Forest on January 27 and 28 .
0 Page 29
Hurdle and Litzenberger attended the area conference and warrant trainingworkshop which was held in Asheville, N . C .
Litzenberger represented the Service at the Chesterfield High Schoolcareer day activities .
McCutcheon participated in a one day seminar for working women which washeld at Chesterfield-Marlboro Technical College .
Oliver received a `"400 .00 superior performance award for his efforts incarrying out the maintenance program . McCutcheon received a ten yearservice pin and Hurdle finally got his 20 year pin .
All refuge employees engaged in fire management attended a fire manage-ment training school held at Santee NWR .
Robinson and Litzenberger completed the OPM correspondence course"Writing Analytical Reports" .
Hurdle attended the regional programmatic meeting held in Atlanta onDecember 1 and 2 .
3 . Credits
Litzenberger, Robinson, and McCutcheon assisted the refuge manager inpreparing this report .
K . FEEDBACK
The issue of residences on refuges is one of concern to many individuals .A number of policy changes during recent years has brought about a drasticchange in the way that refuge housing is viewed by Service managementpersonnel . It is recognized that the issue of housing must be addressed ;however, some individuals living in refuge housing are paying a price forthese changes . The two most critical concerns at this station are theever increasing rental rates and the loss of the tax advantage : for indi-viduals no longer required to live on the station .
The nearest town to the refuge is McBee, S . C . Although rental rates arereasonable in McBee, few rental properties are available . This meansthat most individuals moving to the refuge either have to live inn refugehousing or commute approximately 18 miles to Hartsville, where rentalrates are considerably higher . Refuge rental rates are based upon Hartsvillerates, which means that refuge housing rental rates have often exceededrental rates in McBee .
It is further recognized that personnel living in refuge housing are tobe treated like any other tenant . In actual practice this is not thecase . Personnel living on the refuge are regarded by the public as being
0
0Refuge Secretary Kay 1!cCutcheon received a ten year servicepin and certificate from Area Manager William Hickling .June 1982
Slide #r` N2-4-4
Hurdle
Page 29a
0
Page 30
on permanent duty and are treated as such . l-lhen this is coupled withthose after-hours situations which must be met, such as banding, firecontrol, law enforcement, etc ., it creates a situation where the onlyway to take off any time is to leave home . It would appear that thissituation should be given more consideration in determining rental rates .
In the past, refuge personnel being transferred between stations wereoften told that they had to live in available refuge housing . The presentrefuge manager at this station was refused permission to make a househunting trip prior to transfer because refuge housing was available . Al-though this meant that he was unable to start building equity in anotherhouse, this loss was partially off-set by being able to take a tax deduc-tion for the cost of rent . After over seven years at this station andafter interest rates had sky-rocketed, he was informed that he was nolonger required to live in the refuge house . This situation must havehappened on many refuges . It would seem that more consideration shouldhave been given to cases such as this, and a grand-father clause shouldhave applied to individuals who had previously been required to live inrefuge housing .
