understanding of impoundment systems in South Carolina emerged in three basic areas: (1) 

 impoundment ecology; (2) State and Federal impoundment policies and regulations; and (3) 

 impoundment management as practiced throughout the State. 



The South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium, with funding provided by the National Sea Grant 

 College Program, NOAA (U.S. Department of Commerce), initiated a multi-disciplinary study in 

 September 1982 to examine these issues and gather baseline data on impoundment systems. A 

 major goal of the Coastal Wetland Impoundment Project (CWIP) was to provide information 

 useful to decision-makers, impoundment managers, and the informed public in resolving the 

 impoundment debate in South Carolina. The results of the CWIP have been published in a three- 

 volume document (DeVoe and Baughman 1986a; 1986b; 1986c). 



PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPOUNDMENT ISSUE IN SOUTH CAROLINA 



Instead of reviewing the details of the CWIP, let us instead offer several perspectives on how 

 the impoundment issue has manifested itself in South Carolina. These thoughts may not be new 

 to you, but they do reflect the controversial nature of the impoundment issue in South Carolina. 



We would first like to quote a phrase from the Findings-of-Fact of the Administrative Hearing 

 Officer in his 1982 summary of the issues presented before the South Carolina Coastal Council in 

 an appeal of a State permit for the impoundment of 660 acres of salt marsh: "Opinions concerning 

 the impacts of the impoundment on the Santee Delta varied from expert to expert and in some 

 respects depended upon whether or not the opinion came from a waterfowl biologist or from a 

 marine biologist" (Ellison Smith, pers. comm.). 



There are several points we want to make here. It is this division of opinion among scientists 

 and the lack of a clearcut technical answer that impoundments are "good, bad or indifferent" 

 ecologically that has, in the eyes of policymakers, affected the credibility of the scientific community 

 and the potential contribution that scientists can make to resolving the issues. Further, policy- and 

 decision-makers live with and accept a degree of uncertainty in their actions; however, they demand 

 a level of assurance from scientists that science cannot always deliver. This exacerbates the 

 credibility issue. And finally, in the case of the CWIP, project results support scientists and others 

 on both sides of the issue in South Carolina. Yes, managed wetlands are great for waterfowl, other 

 waterbirds, and several endangered species, but at the same time can be detrimental to many 

 marine and aquatic species. Thus, the CWIP has scientifically documented many of the points 

 made for and against impoundments. The issue boils down to a resource management question: 

 what does the State of South Carolina want to do with its impoundment resources, both functional 

 and remnant? 



Secondly, interest by landowners to seek permits for impoundment construction activities has 

 created pressures on State and Federal natural resource and regulatory agencies. Up to 13 local, 

 State, and Federal agencies can be involved with some aspect of the impoundment issue in South 

 Carolina. Each agency has its own mandate, set of responsibilities, and philosophy. We have 

 found, not suprisingly, that impoundment policies vary significantly from one agency to the next, 

 and in some cases even within individual agencies. An example is the South Carolina Wildlife and 

 Marine Resources Department (SCWMRD). Its Division of Marine Resources is concerned with 

 fisheries and marine habitat and has generally opposed applications for re-impoundment activities, 

 while its Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries has been quite supportive, due to their value 

 as wildlife habitat. The bottom line is that their respective goals and objectives, and thus their 

 information needs, are different. 



102 



