Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge
and Nansemond
National Wildlife Refuge
Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
July 2006
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fi sh and wildlife, plants and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of
the American people. The Service manages the 96-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System
comprised of 544 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas. It also
operates 65 national fi sh hatcheries and 78 ecological services fi eld stations. The agency enforces
federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally signifi cant fi sheries,
conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered Species Act, and
helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid Program
which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fi shing and hunting equipment to
state wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for management decisions and
set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify the
Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are sometimes
substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service strategic
planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for staffi ng
increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This goose, designed by J.N. “Ding”
Darling, has become the symbol of the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Cover: American black bear
Photo: Pat Cuffee
ii Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
iii
iv Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Guiding Principles of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
We are land stewards, guided by Aldo Leopold’s teachings that land is a community of life and
that love and respect for the land is an extension of ethics. We seek to refl ect that land ethic in our
stewardship and to instill it in others.
Wildlands and the perpetuation of diverse and abundant wildlife are essential to the quality of the
American life.
We are public servants. We owe our employers, the American people, hard work, integrity, fairness,
and a voice in the protection of their trust resources.
Management strategies from preservation to active manipulation of habitats and populations is
necessary to achieve the missions of the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Wildlife-dependent uses involving hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses of
the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Partnerships with those who want to help us meet our mission are welcome and indeed essential.
Employees are our most valuable resource. They are to be respected. They deserve empowering and
mentoring, and support through a caring work environment.
We respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of our neighbors.
vi Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
vii
Table of Contents
Signature Page........................................................................ i
Finding of No Significant Impact.............................................. iii
Table of Contents............................................................................................... vii
Chapter 1:Purpose of and Need for Action.......................................... 1
Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
The Planning Area......................................................................................................... 4
Purpose of and Need for Action..................................................................................... 4
Department of Interior................................................................................................... 6
Fish & Wildlife Service................................................................................................... 6
National Wildlife Refuge System.................................................................................... 7
Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem ................................................................... 8
Relationships with Federal, State, and Local Agencies................................................... 10
Legal Policy Content...................................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: Comprehensive Conservation Plan................................... 15
Wilderness Assessment................................................................................................. 19
Key Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities -GDSNWR...................................................... 20
Key Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities -NNWR.......................................................... 28
Chapter 3:Refuge and Resource Descriptions.................................... 31
Introduction................................................................................................................... 32
Physical Environment
Location and size............................................................................................... 35
Physiography and Topography........................................................................... 36
Geology............................................................................................................. 37
Soils................................................................................................................... 38
Climate.............................................................................................................. 40
Water Resources................................................................................................ 41
Air Quality.......................................................................................................... 45
Contaminants/Hazardous Materials.................................................................... 47
Aesthetics.......................................................................................................... 49
Biological Resources
Refuge Habitats and Regional Context................................................................ 51
Fauna................................................................................................................. 51
Flora.................................................................................................................. 54
Rare Species...................................................................................................... 61
Noxious/Invasive Species................................................................................... 63
The Role of Fire............................................................................................ 64
Cultural Resources
Prehistoric and Historic Native Americans........................................................... 67
Historic Period Euro-Americans and Afro-AmericansNative Americans............... 68
Socio-Economics
Population.......................................................................................................... 70
Employment....................................................................................................... 71
Public Use.......................................................................................................... 71
Political Setting.................................................................................................. 73
viii Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 4:Management Direction.............................................................. 76
Refuge Goals, Programs, Objectives, and Strategies...................................................... 77
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Vision Statement................................................................................................ 78
Refuge Goals................................................................................................................. 79
Goal 1. Habitat............................................................................................................... 80
Goal 2. Trust Resources/Wildlife Species....................................................................... 88
Goal 3. Land Protection................................................................................................. 93
Goal 4. Public Use.......................................................................................................... 95
General Refuge Management......................................................................................... 109
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge
Goal 1............................................................................................................................ 111
Chapter 5: Refuge Administration.............................................................. 114
Refuge Staffing.............................................................................................................. 115
Refuge Funding.............................................................................................................. 117
Buildings and Facilities................................................................................................... 117
Step-down Plans............................................................................................................ 119
Maintaining Existing Facilities........................................................................................ 120
Compatibility Determinations......................................................................................... 120
Monitoring and Evaluation.............................................................................................. 121
Adaptive Management................................................................................................... 122
Additional NEPA Analysis............................................................................................... 122
Plan Amendment and Revision....................................................................................... 123
References and Selected Readings................................................................................ 124
Glossary....................................................................................................................... 129
The Planning Team......................................................................................................... 138
Appendices
A. Relevant Federal Laws................................................................................... 144
B. Species List................................................................................................... 155
C. Substantive Comments.................................................................................. 179
D. Wilderness Review......................................................................................... 205
E. Staffing ......................................................................................................... 214
F. RONS & MMS................................................................................................. 219
G. Compatibility Determinations......................................................................... 227
Maps
1-1 Location........................................................................................................ 5
1-3 Region 5 Ecosystems.................................................................................... 9
1-4 Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.................................................... 10
2-1 Location........................................................................................................ 32
2-3 Forest Cover Communities............................................................................ 56
3-1 Location ....................................................................................................... 94
3-3 Forest Cover Communities............................................................................ 56
4-1 Public Use.................................................................................................... 96
4-2 Deer Hunt Map.............................................................................................. 97
4-3 Bear Hunt Map.............................................................................................. 98
D-1 Wilderness Study Areas................................................................................ 206
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
ix
Tables/Charts
1-2 Organization chart of FWS within DOI........................................................... 7
2-1 Integration of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and NEPA Compliance............................................................................. 17
3-2 Virginia 2002, Particulate Matter Summary......................................... 46
3-4 Population and Employment for GDSNWR region........................................... 70
5-1 Proposed Staffing Increases.......................................................................... 116
5-2 Status List of Step-Down Management Plans for
GDSNWR................................................................................................. 119
E-1 Current Staffing chart................................................................................... 215
E-2 Proposed staffing chart ............................................................................... 217
F-1 Projects that will Require Significant Funding or Additional Staff................... 221
F-2 Existing Maintenance Management System Projects..................................... 223
F-3 Refuge Operating Needs System Project....................................................... 224
x Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Purpose of and Need for Action
􀂃􈌠 Introduction
􀂃􈌠 The Planning Area
􀂃􈌠 Purpose of and Need for Action
􀂃􈌠 Department of Interior
􀂃􈌠 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
􀂃􈌠 National Wildlife Refuge System
􀂃􈌠 The Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear
Ecosystem
􀂃􈌠 Relationships with Federal, State, and
Local Agencies
􀂃􈌠 Legal Policy Content
Chapter 1
2 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
3
1. Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction
The National Wildlife System Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
requires the Service to develop a Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for each
refuge. The
purpose of
developing a CCP
is to provide refuge
managers with a
15-year strategy
for achieving
refuge purposes
and contributing
toward the mission
of the National
Wildlife Refuge
System, consistent
with sound
principles of fi sh
and wildlife science,
conservation, legal
mandates, and
Service policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction
on conserving wildlife and habitats, a CCP identifi es wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities
for hunting, fi shing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. The CCP will be reviewed
and updated at least every 15 years in accordance with the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1969, as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
When fully implemented, this plan will strive to achieve the
management vision. Overriding considerations refl ected in the plan are
1) fi sh and wildlife conservation is fi rst priority in refuge management,
and 2) wildlife-dependent recreation is allowed and encouraged as long
as it is compatible with, or does not detract from the refuge’s mission or
purpose.
Washington Ditch Trail.
Four mile hiking trail to
Lake Drummond paralleling
historic Washington Ditch.
USFWS.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
4 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Planning Area
The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is the
largest intact remnant of a vast habitat that once covered more than one
million acres of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.
Formal protection of this resource began in 1973, when the Union
Camp Corporation (a local forest products company) donated 49,097
acres to The Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy conveyed
the donated land to the federal government, which, combined with
additionally purchased land, was used to establish the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR in 1974. Today, the refuge encompasses 111,203 acres of
this environmentally and biologically important area (Figure 1-1).
Located at the southern boundary of the northeastern administrative
region (Region 5) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the refuge is its
largest and protects nearly 25% of all service owned land found in the
region.
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge
The Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge is a non-staffed, satellite
refuge of the Great Dismal Swamp NWR (GDSNWR). It is not open to
the public. Located on the Nansemond River in Suffolk, Virginia, the
refuge lies approximately fi ve miles to the northwest of the GDSNWR.
The 423 acre refuge was established on December 12, 1973, when three
tracts of tidal marsh were transferred from the Department of Defense
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. An additional tract of upland was
added to the refuge in 1996 after the closing of the Driver Naval Facility,
also as excess lands from the Department of Defense.
Purpose of and Need for Action
The purpose of the plan is to identify the role the refuge will play in
support of the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and to
provide guidance in refuge management activities.
The plan is needed to:
􀂃􈌠 Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of
the refuge.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
5
Figure 1-1.
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Kilometers
§¨¦64
§¨¦264
§¨¦664
§¨¦64
!(168
!(32
£¤17 £¤158
£¤13
£¤460
£¤58
£¤13
£¤17
£¤17
£¤158
£¤460
4
Interstate Highway
US Highway
State Highway
Atlantic Ocean
Chesapeake Bay
Pamlico Sound
Great Dismal Swamp
NWR
Virginia
North Carolina
Suffolk
Chesapeake
Virginia Beach
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Elizabeth
City
Newport News
Nags Head
G r e a t Di s m a l S w a m p
N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e R e f u g e
L O C A T I O N MA P
Nansmond River
NNWR
Dismal Swamp Canal
Chesapeake-Albemarle
Canal
Virginia
North Carolina
GDSNWR
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
6 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
􀂃􈌠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government offi cials with an
understanding of Service management actions on and around the refuge.
􀂃􈌠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection
and recreation and education programs, are consistent with the
mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
􀂃􈌠 Provide long term continuity and direction in management.
􀂃􈌠 Provide a basis for the development of budget request for operations,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Overview of the Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior is the principal landowner of most of
our nationally owned public lands and cultural resources. Management
responsibilities include fostering wise use of our land and water
resources, protecting our fi sh and wildlife, preserving the environmental
and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, managing
the National Wildlife Refuge System, and providing for the enjoyment of
life through outdoor recreation (Figure 1-2).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal organization through
which the Department of the Interior carries out its responsibilities of
working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation’s fi sh
and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefi t of people.
The Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s
largest collection of lands set aside specifi cally for the protection of fi sh
and wildlife populations and habitats. More than 540 national wildlife
refuges covering more than 95 million acres provide important habitat
for native plants and many species of insects, amphibians, reptiles, fi sh,
birds, and mammals. These refuges also play a vital role in preserving
threatened and endangered species, as well as offering a wide variety
of recreational opportunities. Many refuges have visitor centers,
wildlife trails, and environmental education programs. The Service also
manages all national fi sh hatcheries.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
7
Figure 1-2. Organizational Chart of the Fish and Wildlife Service within the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
National Wildlife Refuge System
Mission
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, as defi ned by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 is:
“…to administer a national network of lands and waters for the
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the
fi sh, wildlife, and plant resources, and their habitats within the United
States for the benefi t of present and future generations of Americans.”
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that
wildlife comes fi rst; that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are
vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must be healthy; that
growth of refuges must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves
as a model for habitat management with broad participation from
others.
Department
Of the
Interior
Fish and Wildlife
and Parks
Water and
Science
Indian Affairs Lands and
Minerals
Management
National
Park
Service
Fish and
Wildlife
Service
National
Wildlife
Refuges
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
8 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem
The Ecosystem Approach to Fish and Wildlife
Conservation
Throughout the past decade, the Service has placed more emphasis
on focusing habitat and wildlife protection on entire ecosystems. To
this end, the Service has pursued new partnerships with private
landowners, state and federal agencies, corporations, conservation
groups and volunteers. In implementing an ecosystem approach
to management, 52 ecosystem teams were formed across the
country, typically using large river watersheds to defi ne ecosystems.
Individual ecosystem teams are comprised of Service professionals
and partners who work together to develop goals and priorities for
research and management.
The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge is contained
within two ecosystems: the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear
(RTNCF) watershed and the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River
watershed. The Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge is contained
entirely within the Chesapeake Bay-Susquehanna River watershed
(Figure 1-3).
Most ecosystem activities for the Great Dismal Swamp NWR have
been associated with the RTNCF eco-team, for less than 20% of
the refuge is contained within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Moreover, the habitat within the Great Dismal Swamp NWR is
more similar to that within the RTNCF watershed; thus increasing
the probability of synergistic approaches to habitat protection and
restoration with other Service fi eld stations and partners (Figure
1-4).
One of the prominent characteristics of the RTNCF ecosystem is
that it contains nearly a half million acres of refuge land. Three
refuges (Great Dismal Swamp, Alligator River, and Pocosin Lakes)
exceed 100,000 acres in size --- making these refuges relative
behemoths compared to most other refuges within the eastern
United States. Thus, the RTNCF ecosystem likely contains more
refuge land than any other watershed east of the Mississippi River.
The large refuge component of the RTNCF watershed creates
considerable potential to launch habitat protection and restoration
partnerships using these refuges to anchor meaningful habitat
protection and restoration programs. To begin tapping this
potential, the RTNCF eco-team developed a Resource Conservation
Initiative (RCI) -- a template for applying an ecosystem approach
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
9
to Fish and Wildlife conservation needs of trust resources within the
ecosystem at the landscape level. The RCI shares the talents and
fi scal resources of the Service installations within the watershed,
and it is dependent upon active partnerships.
The RCI is a land protection strategy that emphasizes migration
pathways and corridor linkages between established refuges.
The basic tenets of the RCI are that a strategically oriented land
base is critical to the well being of trust resources, maintenance
of biodiversity, and overall ecosystem health; it is neither feasible
nor desirable that ownership and management of the land base be
limited to the Service; and that the socioeconomic effects of land
protection be given full consideration.
Figure 1-3. FWS Region 5 Ecosystems map. Region 5 USFWS.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
10 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Relationship to Federal, State, and Local
Agencies
Another provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall
ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other
government agencies and state fi sh and wildlife agencies during the
course of acquiring and managing refuges. The Great Dismal Swamp
NWR must collaborate with several federal, state, and local agencies,
since the refuge incorporates large tracts of land in two states, affects
the operation of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and is a prominent
feature within the jurisdictions of fi ve cities and counties.
Virginia Agencies
The refuge is, by far, the largest National Wildlife Refuge within the
Commonwealth of Virginia by including over 85,000 acres within the
Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake. The refuge watershed supports
Figure 1-4. Roanoke/Tar/Neuse/Cape Fear Ecosystem map. USFWS Region 4.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
11
approximately 25-30% of the state’s wintering population of tundra
swans, and the refuge and surrounding area provides habitat for most
of the black bears in eastern Virginia. The refuge collaborated with
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) in
identifying the refuge and surrounding watershed as key links within
the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail in Suffolk and Chesapeake. The
refuge participated on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee during the
preparation of the statewide Black Bear Management Plan. VDGIF
and the refuge have worked together to respond to the care of nuisance
bears within the Hampton Roads area, and they are in support of
establishment of a controlled bear hunting on the refuge.
The refuge has collaborated with the Cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake
in the development of nature-based tourism strategies in the interest of
developing activities that would complement Service interpretive and
educational programs. The refuge also provides feedback to the cities
on development issues for land that abuts the refuge or is located within
the refuge watershed to help with the assessment of the impacts on the
refuge.
North Carolina Agencies
The refuge includes over 26,000 acres within Camden, Pasquotank, and
Gates Counties in North Carolina. The Service manages several large
refuges within the coastal plain of the state, so the land within the Great
Dismal Swamp NWR represents a relatively small amount of refuge
acreage. Nevertheless, the refuge has collaborated with the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission on several issues including
the establishment of special deer hunting seasons for the refuge,
the management of black bear populations (especially those issues
regarding crop depredation), and law enforcement.
The refuge’s North Carolina neighbors view the refuge as a signifi cant
infl uence on nature-based tourism in the area. The Dismal Swamp
Canal Welcome Center, operated by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in Camden County, has literally become the refuge’s de
facto visitor center, as the center’s staff has estimated that at least 30%
of their 600,000 visitors annually request information or directions to the
refuge.
Elizabeth City (Pasquotank County) has waterfront businesses that
cater to the yacht traffi c along the Dismal Swamp Canal, so the refuge’s
infl uence on canal operations can impact their downtown economy. The
refuge also works with the county to address fl ooding issues created by
the hydrologic disruptions along US Highway 158.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
12 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Most of the refuge’s North Carolina acreage is within Gates County,
and many of their residents view the refuge as a critical component
of maintaining their natural resources in the face of mounting
development pressures from the greater Hampton Roads vicinity.
The county’s local newspaper, “The Gates County Index”, has labeled
the county as “Heaven’s Gateway to the Great Dismal Swamp” since
the early 1990’s. More recently, the county has proposed that the
refuge move part of its operations to Sunbury to strengthen the bonds
between the county and refuge.
The 13,344 acre Dismal Swamp State Natural Area, located along the
refuge’s southeastern boundary in Camden County, is managed by the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation. For the most part, the Natural Area
has been managed as a non-staffed, undeveloped satellite of Merchants
Millpond State Park in Gates County since the Natural Area was
established in 1974. The refuge has provided some habitat restoration
and road maintenance on the Natural Area under the terms of a
cooperative agreement since 1992. The state appointed the fi rst park
superintendent for the Natural Area in 2003, and plans to signifi cantly
improve visitor facilities along the west bank of the Dismal Swamp
Canal in the near future. The refuge is represented on the advisory
committee for the Dismal Swamp State Natural Area.
Army Corps of Engineers
The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) maintains and operates the
Dismal Swamp Canal along the eastern boundary of the refuge. The
canal is a link within the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway system, and
Lake Drummond serves as the primary source of water for providing
navigable depths within the canal. The refuge’s establishing legislation
directed that the operation of the canal could not adversely affect
the refuge. Therefore, the COE ceases releasing water from Lake
Drummond during severe droughts under the terms of an informal
arrangement that was developed in 1977. During these periods, the
canal is closed to yacht traffi c, since the canal’s locks at Deep Creek
(Virginia) and South Mills (North Carolina) cannot operate without the
replenishing water from Lake Drummond.
The Corps of Engineers also manages and maintains the Feeder
Ditch/Lake Drummond Reservation access to the refuge. The
Feeder Ditch connects Lake Drummond to the Dismal Swamp Canal
and US Highway 17. The Lake Drummond Reservation is a modest
campground surrounding the Lake Drummond water control structure
operated by the COE. Since 1996, the refuge has operated under a
Lake Drummond
Reservation. Primitive
camping is available
adjacent to the spillway
and boat tram on the Feeder
Ditch. USFWS.
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
13
COE permit to manage public access and interpretive programs at the
Reservation.
The Nature Conservancy
The relationship between The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the
refuge began when Union Camp Corporation donated the fi rst 49,097
acres of land through TNC to establish the refuge. TNC retained some
oversight rights when the land was conveyed to the Service. Therefore,
the refuge collaborates with TNC on major facility development and
resource management issues within the area they donated. More
recently, the refuge has provided technical assistance, equipment,
and personnel for fi re management operations on TNC lands near the
refuge. TNC fi re specialists have worked with refuge personnel on
prescribed burning operations on refuges in Virginia and Maryland.
Legal Policy Context
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and
goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System, Congressional legislation,
Presidential Executive Orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of the refuge are further refi ned by administrative
guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and by policy
guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Management guidance is provided by the refuge’s establishing
legislation, the Dismal Swamp Study Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-478)
and the Dismal Swamp Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-402); the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and the laws and
policies for the operation of the National Wildlife Refuge System that
are listed in Appendix A.
Lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are closed to public
uses unless specifi cally and legally opened. All programs and uses
must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act (Appendix A).
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
14 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 1
Purpose of and Need for Action
The Comprehensive
Conservation Planning
Process
􀂃􈍗Wilderness Assessment
􀂃􈍉Issues and Concerns
Chapter 2
16 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
17
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
2. The Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Process
Given the mandate in the Refuge Improvement Act to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife refuge, the planning process for the Great Dismal
Swamp and the Nansemond National Wildlife Refuges began in August,
2001. It was then the core planning team, consisting of fi eld staff and
staff from the Service’s Northeast Regional Offi ce, began the process of
identifying needs and direction for development of the comprehensive
plan.
A mailing list was compiled of nearly 600 contacts of individuals and
groups including adjacent landowners, federal, state and local governing
representatives, North
Carolina and Virginia resource
agencies, environmental
organizations, sportsmen’s
groups, local businesses and
other interested and affected
people. In December, 2001,
a newsletter was sent to
everyone on the mailing list
explaining the CCP process
and identifying current issues
on the refuges. The newsletter
was also made available at the
refuge headquarters, open
house and scoping meetings, and
distributed at all refuge outreach
events during that winter and
spring.
Contained in the newsletter
was a workbook which included
questions to aid in the collection
of the public’s ideas, concerns,
and suggestions on important issues associated with managing the Great
Dismal Swamp and the Nansemond National Wildlife Refuges. More
than 100 workbooks were returned with written responses by summer,
2002, with additional written responses received before the close of the
year.
Four scoping and open house information meetings were held on
The
Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning
Process
& NEPA
Compliance
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀂃􈍐 Purpose and Need
B. Initiate Public
Involvement &
Scoping
NEPA
􀂃􈍎 Notify the public
􀂃􈍉 Involve the public
􀂃􈍓 Scope the issues
C. Review Vision
Statement & Goals
and Determine
Significant Issues
NEPA
􀂃􈍉 Identify significant
issues
D. Develop &
Analyze
Alternatives
NEPA
􀂃􈍒 Reasonable range
of alternatives
􀂃􈍎 No Action
alternative
􀂃􈍁 Assess
environmental
effects
􀂃􈍐 Proposed Action
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
Document
NEPA
􀂃􈍐 Prepare & distribute
draft CCP and NEPA
documentation
􀂃􈍐 Public comment &
review
H. Review &
Revise Plan
NEPA
􀂃􈍎 NEPA compliance
& public
involvement when
applicable
G. Implement
Plan, Monitor &
Evaluate
NEPA
􀂃􈍎 NEPA compliance &
public involvement
when applicable
F. Prepare &
Adopt Final Plan
NEPA
􀂃􈍒 Respond to public
comment
􀂃􈍉 Identify preferred
alternative
􀂃􈍐 Prepare & distribute
final CCP and NEPA
documentation
􀂃􈍐 Prepare & distribute
FONSI for EA, or ROD
for EIS
18 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
January 8, 10, 22, and 24, 2002, in Elizabeth City and Gatesville,
North Carolina, and in Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia, respectively.
Meetings were advertised locally through news releases, paid
advertisements, and through our mailing list. Approximately 290 people
attended the meetings. Each began with an opportunity for guests to
visit a gallery of prepared refuge exhibits and speak with attending
staff. This period was followed by a staff presentation on the refuges,
the Refuge System, and the planning process. Registered speakers
were then allowed to make comments or ask the staff questions before
the group. Each meeting concluded with questions and comments from
the fl oor. Participants were encouraged to actively express their opinions
and suggestions. Public comments and questions included those on
forest management, water management, wildlife concerns, and public
use. However, public use issues and improvement of visitor services
dominated discussion during all four meetings.
The complete planning team, which consisted of the core team with the
addition of representatives from FWS Virginia Field Offi ce, the Army
Corps of Engineers, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, met in February,
2002, to review the public comments and explore management options.
An Update newsletter was distributed in March, 2002, summarizing
public comments from the workbook, other written comments, and
comments from the scoping meetings. Another meeting of the planning
team was held in June, 2002, to review considerations for management
objectives and strategies, and to discuss a Wilderness Study Area
proposal. The core planning team then began working to formulate
specifi c alternatives, objectives, and strategies that addressed each of the
envisioned goals.
Additional meetings and workshops were held with Congressional
representatives, refuge partners and other interested parties to discuss
issues of habitat management and public use, among other topics. This
phase of the process lasted into the spring of 2003 when a range of
management alternatives was fi nalized. By June, 2003, the team was
ready to consider environmental consequences for each alternative.
Revisions and internal reviews continued until the spring of 2006 when
the draft became ready for public review.
The Service solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for Great Dismal
Swamp and Nansemond National Wildlife Refuges from March 13 to
April 24, 2006. The original comment period was for 30 days as outlined
in the Notice of Availability, advertised in the Federal Register on March
13, 2006. This period met the requirement for public involvement under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The news release
published by the Refuge provided a public comment period of 33 days,
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
19
March 13, 2006 through April 14, 2006. Due to delays in providing
compact disks and hard copies, the comment period was extended an
additional 10 days to provide adequate time for the state agencies to
comment.
During the comment
period three open house
meetings were held to
make staff available to the
surrounding communities
for questions, clarifi cations,
distribution of draft CCP
copies and Highlights, and
to take written comments.
A meeting was held in
Suffolk, VA, on March
21; in Gates County,
NC, on March 23; and in
Chesapeake, VA, on March
30, 2006. In addition,
refuge staff participated in a symposium at Elizabeth City State
University on March 24 and had the opportunity to answer questions
and distribute draft copies and Highlights to interested parties. A total
of 43 attendees registered at the three open house meetings. By the
close of the comment period, 46 written comments had been received.
Editorial suggestions, along with general notes of concurrence with or
opposition to certain proposals that did not contain factual arguments
were recorded in the planning record and included in the decision
making process, but do not receive formal responses. We have included
our responses to substantive comments in Appendix C. We have made
changes to the CCP where appropriate.
Implementation of the CCP can occur once the Finding of (No)
Signifi cant Impact (FONSI) is signed. We will evaluate our
accomplishments under the CCP each year. Monitoring or new
information may indicate the need to change our strategies. We will
modify the CCP documents and associated management activities as
needed; following the procedures outlined in Service policy and NEPA
requirements. The CCP will be fully revised every 15 years or sooner if
necessary.
Wilderness Review
As part of the CCP process, the planning team conducted a Wilderness
Review, as required by Refuge Planning Policy, to determine if any
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Lake Drummond. Sunrise at
the Lake. Waverley Traylor.
20 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
lands and waters in fee title ownership were suitable to be proposed for
designation as a Wilderness Area. A decision not to advance a Wilderness
proposal was make in part as a reconfi rmation of the 1974 Secretary
of the Interior’s report to Congress that the “pristine character of the
swamp no longer exists as a result of physical alterations.” This same
report stated that the “ability to restore the Great Dismal Swamp as
aggressively as it was altered must be maintained”. At some time in
the future, habitat restoration and scientifi c knowledge about the Great
Dismal Swamp ecosystem may reach a level where designation of some
portions of the refuge as wilderness would be desirable. However,
continued restoration, management, and research will be needed before
a credible recommendation can be developed. The full Wilderness
Review is found in Appendix D.
Nansemond NWR was not of suffi cient size (423 acres) to fulfi ll the
eligibility requirements for a Wilderness Study Area as defi ned by the
Wilderness Act.
Key Issues, Concerns, and
Opportunities
Issues, concerns, and opportunities were brought to the attention of
the refuge planning team through early planning discussions with local
governments, State and Federal representatives, and through the public
scoping process. We received comments from the public both verbally
at open houses and in writing, through Issues Workbooks and individual
letters. Some issues were identifi ed by the Service and others were
raised during the public review of the Draft CCP/EA. Many issues
that are very important to the public often fall outside the scope of the
desicion to be made within this planning process. In some instances,
the Service cannot resolve issues some people have communicated to
us. We have considered all issues throughout our planning process, and
have developed plans that attempt to balance the competing opinions
regarding important issues.
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Biodiversity Conservation
Due to its geographic location and climate, the Great Dismal Swamp
is known for its unique blending of northern and southern species.
Even though it is a highly disturbed ecosystem, it has retained at
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
21
least remnants of most of the historic vegetative components and
habitats. Its mosaic of vegetative communities supports an astounding
variety of vertebrates and invertebrates and its very size permits the
maintenance of a viable bear population. Our stewardship includes not
only the game species such as deer and bear, but the tiny hairstreak
butterfl y and orb weaving spider as well.
The Great Dismal Swamp is the largest, most complex ecosystem in
public ownership in the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Inventories of the mammals, birds and reptiles have been
completed and the amphibians, fi sh and plants have been surveyed.
Little is known about the majority of the invertebrates. Untold
decades will be needed to unravel the relationships of the vegetative
communities to their inhabitants in this swamp environment.
With its proximity to urban populations, the Great Dismal Swamp
has the potential to be a preeminent environmental laboratory for
research and education. Working with the academic community and
governmental partners we must develop research priorities that will aid
in understanding and managing this complex ecosystem.
The refuge management must maintain the gene pools of the remnant
communities and their associated fauna while research is prioritized,
conducted and answers found. Ongoing management efforts must
focus on maintaining the habitat diversity. The following management
priorities have been identifi ed.
􀂃􈌠 Wilderness management- Several areas on the refuge meet the
“roadless” requirement for wilderness study areas. Concerns about
restrictions to future habitat and public use management must be
considered.
􀂃􈌠 Forest (Habitat) management- Many communities within the GDS
are pioneer or early successional species, which will be replaced by
longer-lived climax species if not disturbed. These communities include
the Atlantic white cedar, shrub pocosin, marsh and sphagnum bog.
Each of these vegetative communities was historically a result of wildfi re
and/or maintained by fi re. Wildfi res have been aggressively suppressed
since the 1940’s resulting in reduced size and vitality of dominant
species. With the changes in water regime throughout the swamp and
the surrounding urbanization, permitting drought-driven wildfi res to
burn today is not an option.
Management of these communities must create the disturbance
required for regeneration or maintenance. Strategies include the
use of herbicides, and /or timber sales to reduce competition, surface
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
22 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
preparation completed by scarifying with heavy equipment, and/or
carefully conducted site preparation prescribed burns. Pre-treatment
and post-treatment fi eld studies must be conducted to establish success
of each management effort and quantify ancillary impacts to soil, water,
faunal components, and adjacent vegetative communities.
􀂃􈌠 Hydrologic management-The historic water regime within the Great
Dismal Swamp has been altered; some elements beyond restoration.
The upland watershed has been timbered and the fi elds tilled to
quickly remove excess water from the crops. Water enters the swamp
in a matter of hours instead of days after a rain event and must be
discharged or wasted when it exceeds the swamp’s storage capacity.
The majority of the ditches were dug to provide material for logging
roads. The roads are now dams to the historic sheet fl ow of surface
water. In addition, the ditches were dug deep enough to remove the
confi ning clay layer over the sustaining aquifer sands and now the
ditches shunt vital ground water through the swamp.
The refuge cannot manage the adjacent cropland to slow incoming
surface water, nor can it abandon or remove the roads within the swamp
because compaction has already altered the substrate and road access
must be maintained to fi ght wildfi res. The refuge cannot abandon the
ditches because the clay-confi ning layer cannot be replaced over the
aquifer.
The refuge can operate and maintain a number of water control
structures that slow discharge of both surface and ground water
from the swamp and serve to mitigate many of the impacts of these
developments. Currently, 30 structures are maintained for this purpose
with considerable success.
Concerns include excess storage resulting in spring fl ooding through
nesting season for warblers and other neotropical migratory birds,
including the Swainson’s warbler. The fl ooding reduces food supplies for
the adult birds and subjects the fl edglings to death from exposure when
they fall in the water upon fi rst leaving the nest. Excess spring storage
can also reduce needed discharge from adjacent upstream agricultural
fi elds reducing the productivity of these privately owned lands.
Water conservation within the swamp is only one part of habitat
maintenance and restoration. The ground water-surface water
relationship must be understood; water table requirements for the
various vegetative communities in both development and other phases
must be established; methods to move water throughout the ditch
network in order to sustain existing communities should be considered.
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Lake Drummond Spillway.
Water control spillway
releasing into the Feeder
Ditch. USFWS.
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
23
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
An additional concern has arisen regarding the beaver’s return to
the swamp after a hiatus of nearly 60 years. They have their own
management objectives that include excess fl ooding. They attain
their ends by damming culverts and water control structures within
the swamp and the upstream watershed. Their success once more
alters the productivity of adjacent cropland and interferes with refuge
management objectives.
􀂃􈌠 Fire management- Prescribed fi re is considered an essential tool
for habitat restoration and maintenance as well as for fuel reduction. In
addition, lightning-caused wildfi res are a high probability during dry
years. The use of prescribed fi re, as well as fi re suppression, for resource
management in the GDSNWR is highly complex due to the burning
on organic soils and the refuge’s location within a heavily populated
area. The use of refuge facilities and staff support for the Region 5 fi re
operations program should also be taken into consideration for facility
needs.
􀂃􈌠 Endangered Species and Wildlife Management/Research- Limited
information on habitat requirements is available for the majority of the
swamp’s faunal components. It is important to review the needs of the
high-profi le species and state and federal listed species.
Several colonies of red-cockaded woodpeckers exist within the RTNCF
watershed. The refuge has large acreages of maturing loblolly and
pond pine which could serve as primary habitat for this highly selective
bird. The Great Dismal Swamp NWR has been identifi ed as a potential
site for relocation under the Safe Harbor agreement. Management of
mature pine stands is within the mandate of refuge programs, unlike the
need to cut mature stands before loss of timber value when in private or
corporate ownership.
Through ongoing Swainson’s warbler research on Jericho Ditch, nearly
50 years of data regarding this species as well as all neotropical species
using this habitat have been collected. Staff from the Smithsonian
Institution are continuing the mist-netting and banding of birds started
by the well known naturalist and ornithologist Brook Meanley in the
1950’s. This type of research needs to be expanded to other habitats
within the refuge.
The black bear is a species of great interest to the general public. First,
it fascinates the urban dwellers that they really live in reasonable
proximity to hundreds of bears living wild. On the other hand, some
farmers periodically have major concerns regarding varying levels
of bear damage to agricultural crops. Area homeowners can become
distressed when bears damage personal property or simply wander
24 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
through their neighborhood. Bears crossing highways are struck and
killed by motorist. Management of the bear population must incorporate
elements of the swamp’s carrying capacity, the seasonal variability
in mast and the number of undesirable contacts with the public. A
recreational bear hunt is being proposed and is supported by the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.
Other birds of interest include the bald eagles that have returned to nest
after nearly 50 years, and the tundra swans and snow geese that use
Lake Drummond as a resting area and adjacent farmlands as feeding
areas.
���􈌠 Zero management- Some see the refuge as a de facto wilderness and
propose a “hands off ” approach to management. Some propose to go as
far as removing the existing developments including the roads and ditch
plugs.
􀂃􈌠 Academic Partnerships-The stewardship of a refuge established to
restore and protect a unique ecosystem requires a multi-disciplinary
approach to resource management. Resource management and direction
must be evaluated and guided by studies and surveys conducted by
biologist, ecologist, foresters, hydrologists, ornithologists, ichthyologists,
entomologists, soil scientists, mammalogists, herpetologists, mycologists,
geologists, archeologists, botanists, taxonomists, botanists, plant
physiologists, and morphologists, geneticists, historians, limnologists,
remote sensing specialists, wildlife epidemiologists, and GIS specialist ---
to name a few of the disciplines. The need exists for refuge management
to collaborate with academic institutions to develop and support research
on the wide range of natural and cultural issues that affect refuge
resource management.
􀂃􈌠 Hurricane Isabel: Hurricane Isabel infl icted considerable changes
to the refuge landscape on September 18, 2003. Several thousand acres
of Atlantic white cedar forests were destroyed, and countless trees were
blown down throughout the refuge, creating a potentially volatile fi re
situation. Without restoration, signifi cant Atlantic white cedar acreage
will be lost. The potential for catastrophic fi res due to the added fuels
created by the hurricane will continue to pose a risk.
Land Protection
􀂃􈌠 Urban interface- Urban sprawl places commercial and residential
development near the refuge boundary and threatens wildlife corridors.
It increases habitat management complexity related to water and
fi re management, and increases nuisance wildlife concerns. Wildlife
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Urban interface. North
refuge development/fl ooding
issues. USFWS.
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
25
corridors connect the refuge to other natural areas within the Great
Dismal Swamp (GDS) watershed. They are important for maintaining
a healthy gene pool for bears and other wildlife. There is a need for
highway designs that incorporate bear crossings and therein improve
highway safety by reducing the probability of vehicle collisions with
bears. Refuge water conservation strategies and beavers often are
blamed for downstream fl ooding of private lands. The refuge staff
believes most fl ooding problems are related to disruption of surface
water fl ow by highways, railroads, and general development within the
historic GDS fl oodplains.
􀂃􈌠 Land acquisition- All refuge land has been acquired from willing
sellers. About 3,000 acres were added to the refuge since 1998 through
Migratory Bird funds after years of failing to pick up suffi cient Land
and Water Conservation Funds. Some propose extending the refuge
acquisition boundary to pick up existing or restorable swamp habitat
south of US Highway 158 and east of US Highway 17. Some call for the
protection of infl ows from the west of the refuge and to establish a buffer
from development along the western boundary to White Marsh and
Desert Road. Even so, pockets of opposition to public land ownership
remain. Easements are a potential tool to protect habitat short of fee
title acquisition.
􀂃􈌠 Boundary issues- Considerable portions of the refuge boundary
have not been posted due to inadequate staffi ng and some ambiguous
boundary descriptions. Several known disputes are the result of
neighboring owners failing to heed easements and boundaries. Some
disputes are a result of contradictory and vague legal fi lings.
Public Use
􀂃􈌠 The public- There is growing interest world-wide in nature based
tourism. The refuge’s establishing legislation and refuge size would
deem the “big six” wildlife dependent uses (hunting, fi shing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and
interpretation) on the refuge to be compatible. Lack of staffi ng and
facilities is the primary limiting factor.
􀂃􈌠 Hunting- Only deer (archery and shotgun, without dogs) hunting is
allowed at the present. The refuge will be considering a bear hunt in the
Railroad Ditch and Jericho Ditch areas. Some contend the use of dogs
for both should be allowed. Other groups vigorously oppose hunting
with dogs, particularly for bear hunts. Permits for motorized access are
issued during the hunting season for retrieval of hunt dogs that stray
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
26 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
onto refuge land from adjacent private lands. There was some interest in
waterfowl hunting for snow geese on Lake Drummond expressed during
scoping.
􀂃􈌠 Fishing/boating- The refuge fi shing season is from April 1- June 15,
allowing by permit motorized vehicle/boat access to Lake Drummond
via the Railroad Ditch entrance. Fishing is primarily for black crappie,
although the lake is not considered to be a sport fi shery since most of
the more popular game fi sh do not reproduce well in the naturally acidic
waters. Improved access for fi shing and boating was requested at the
public scoping. Although the refuge has never had a concessionaire
agreement, one could be considered to provide rental equipment for
boating and fi shing. Some outfi tters have provided various types of
guided tours. Some have operated under a refuge permit, but most
have not since they do not contact the refuge offi ce for special services.
Commercial operations are supposed to be covered by a refuge permit.
􀂃􈌠 Environmental education- This is one of the priority uses associated
with the establishing legislation. Currently, facilities and staffi ng are
limited. Sites have been identifi ed as potential outdoor classroom areas,
but have not been developed.
􀂃􈌠 Interpretation- Refuge interpretive programs need to be expanded
to include not only natural history, but cultural history themes.
􀂃􈌠 Wildlife observation/photography- Public access is limited due to
lack of facilities and inadequate roads for general vehicle access.
􀂃􈌠 Horseback riding- The North Carolina Horse Council is coordinating
efforts to open more public lands to horseback riding. The GDSNWR is
one of their focus areas.
􀂃􈌠 Visitor/Administrative facilities- Visitor services support
facilities are woefully inadequate. Refuge administration operations
have outgrown the current headquarters. The refuge is currently
modestly developed, primarily for self-guided visitation, even though
the refuge is located within an area populated by 1.5 million people.
Public expectations for further development range from little or no
development to heavy development. The 1979 Public Use Plan called
for visitor facilities in Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia. Gates County,
North Carolina, desires to establish an operations offi ce and visitor
facility in a reconditioned school building. Some Virginia interests are
opposed to this location.
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
27
Partnerships
􀂃􈌠 Army Corps of Engineers- Operation and maintenance of both the
Dismal Swamp Canal and the Lake Drummond Reservation is by the
COE. Lake Drummond is the primary source of water for the canal.
Establishing legislation directed the canal operation not to adversely
affect the refuge. An informal agreement between the FWS and the
COE may prompt the closing of the canal to Intracoastal waterway
traffi c during dry periods. The COE has agreed to cease to release water
from Lake Drummond when the lake level falls to a specifi ed point so
as to comply with the mandate found within the refuge’s establishing
legislation. The COE allows no-fee, no permit camping at the Lake
Drummond Reservation. The refuge operates under a COE permit to
manage public use activities at the site. Supported guided tour services
have occurred intermittently, but none are in place now. The lack of
suffi cient refuge staff prohibits the appropriate management to occur.
􀂃􈌠 Dismal Swamp State Natural Area- Adjacent to the refuge, this
area has been an unstaffed satellite of the Merchants Millpond State
Park since establishment in the early 1970’s. Staffi ng and site plan
development began in early 2004.
􀂃􈌠 Nansemond Indians- Historically, the Great Dismal Swamp lands
were a primary hunting ground for this state recognized tribe.
Other Key Issues/Concerns
􀂃􈌠 Law enforcement/public safety- Considerable staff time is
needed for investigation of criminal activities. Illegal vehicle access,
car clouting, marijuana cultivation, bear and deer poaching, lewd and
lascivious activities, trash dumping, vandalism, violation of refuge-specifi
c hunt regulations, and homicide investigations, along with search
and rescue, are among the chief law enforcement (LE) issues occurring
on the 111,200 acre refuge. There is a lack of suffi cient LE and public
use personnel to assure a reasonably safe visit to the refuge at all times
and locations.
􀂃􈌠 Mosquitoes- Eastern Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Virus have
been found in the area. Aerial mosquito control occurred in October,
1999, during fl ood emergencies.
􀂃􈌠 Support- Generally, there is positive public support throughout
the refuge area, although some communities seem to have competing
interests.
􀂃􈌠 Mercury contamination- The Virginia Department of
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
28 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Environmental Quality issued a fi sh consumption advisory for mercury
contamination for fi sh taken from the Feeder Ditch and Dismal Swamp
Canal in October 2003. These waterways are not within the refuge,
but they do drain from the refuge --- suggesting the possibility of
contaminants issue extending into Lake Drummond and other ditches
that drain into the lake.
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge
Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge has been managed as a closed,
non-staffed satellite refuge of the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge since the 1973 establishment. Even so, management issues
and concerns were presented by both refuge staff and public comment
during the planning process. These include:
Habitat
􀂃􈌠 Management considered- Salt marsh dominates the Nansemond
NWR acreage. Grasslands management had been once considered
as a management strategy during the base closure process. Recent
information suggests that acreage available for grasslands or for forest
management would be too small to have signifi cant impact on the
area. No-active-management was also suggested. There has been no
prescribed burning on the refuge.
􀂃􈌠 Species inventory- Bald eagles have reportedly nested in nearby
marshes along the Nansemond River. The refuge has tidal bottoms that
may be suitable for establishing oyster beds to improve water quality.
Phragmites has invaded the river’s marshes.
Land Protection
􀂃􈌠 Acquisition- The entire refuge was established from lands declared
excess by the Department of Defense. No further acquisition has been
considered to date. There has been no condemnation in the past and
none is anticipated. Today, the surrounding area is under tremendous
development pressure.
􀂃􈌠 Boundary disputes- The refuge boundary has not been marked
adequately. Encroachment by agricultural operations has occurred in the
past.
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
29
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Public Use
􀂃􈌠 The Public- The Nansemond NWR
is virtually unknown since it has not been
opened to the public.
􀂃􈌠 Hunting- No refuge hunting is allowed.
Waterfowl hunting does occur on the
Nansemond River.
􀂃􈌠 Fishing/boating- Boating occurs on
the Nansemond River. The City of Suffolk,
Virginia, has obtained a route on adjacent
land to provide boat access to the Nansemond River.
􀂃􈌠 Environmental education/wildlife observation/general access-
Nansemond NWR is not opened for public use.
􀂃􈌠 Facilities- There are no public use or administrative facilities on the
site.
Partnerships
􀂃􈌠 City of Suffolk, Virginia- The City of Suffolk is looking at the
Nansemond River basin as part of an ecotourism opportunity. In
addition to the improvements for the adjacent public boat ramp, the City
has also considered plans to build a recreation area (ball park) on their
portion of the site nearest to Sleepy Hole Road.
􀂃􈌠 Old Dominion University- ODU had been considered to be a
potential habitat management/research partner on an adjacent 150
acres. However, they have recently indicated that they were not going to
obtain the site.
Other Key Issues/Concerns
􀂃􈌠 Law enforcement/public safety- LE staff and/or other staff is non-existent.
􀂃􈌠 Contaminants- Much of the refuge was contaminated by PCB’s in
the past. However, considerable remediation did occur before the base
was closed. Nonetheless, the former presence of contaminants on the
refuge will constrain future management options.
Nansemond National
Wildlife Refuge. Tidal marsh
on Nansemond River.
USFWS.
30 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapter 2
The CCP Planning Process
Blank page
Refuge and Resource
Descriptions
􀂃􈌠 Introduction
􀂃􈌠 Physical Environment
Location and Size
Physiography and Topography
Geology
Soils
Climate
Water Resources
Air Quality
Contaminants/Hazardous Materials
Aesthetics
􀂃􈌠 Biological Resources
Refuge Habitats and Regional
Context
Fauna
Flora
Rare Species
Noxious/Invasive Species
The Role of Fire
􀂃􈌠 Cultural Resources
Cultural History
Archaeological Resources
Underground Railroad
􀂃􈌠 Socio-Economics
Population
Employment
Public Use
Political Setting
Chapter 3
32 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
33
3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Introduction
The Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is the
largest intact remnant of a vast ecosystem that once covered more
than one million acres of southeastern Virginia and northeastern North
Carolina.
Formal protection of this resource began in 1973, when Union Camp
Corporation (a local forest products company) donated 49,097 acres
to The Nature Conservancy. The Nature
Conservancy conveyed the donated land to
the federal government, which, combined
with additional purchased land, was used to
establish the Great Dismal Swamp NWR in
1974.
The Dismal Swamp Act of 1974 directs the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to:
“Manage the area for the primary
purpose of protecting and preserving
a unique and outstanding ecosystem,
as well as protecting and perpetuating
the diversity of animal and plant life
therein. Management of the refuge will be
directed to stabilize conditions in as wild
a character as possible, consistent with
achieving the refuge’s stated objectives.”
With a secondary purpose to:
“Promote a public use program when not
in confl ict with the primary objectives of the refuge.”
This document also addresses management of the Nansemond NWR,
a 423-acre parcel located on the southeastern side of the Nansemond
River approximately fi ve miles north of the Great Dismal Swamp
NWR. The Nansemond NWR was created in 1973 when 207 acres
were transferred from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services
Act of 1949, as amended, 63 Stat. 377 (40 U.S.C. 471). In 1999, an
additional 216 acre parcel of upland grassland and forested stream
corridor was added as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure
Great Dismal Swamp
Watershed. The Great
Dismal Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is
the largest intact remnant
of a vast ecosystem that
once covered more than one
million acres of southeastern
Virginia and northeastern
North Carolina. Satalite
image. USFWS.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
34 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Figure 3-1
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Kilometers
§¨¦64
§¨¦264
§¨¦664
§¨¦64
!(168
!(32
£¤17 £¤158
£¤13
£¤460
£¤58
£¤13
£¤17
£¤17
£¤158
£¤460
4
Interstate Highway
US Highway
State Highway
Atlantic Ocean
Chesapeake Bay
Pamlico Sound
Great Dismal Swamp
NWR
Virginia
North Carolina
Suffolk
Chesapeake
Virginia Beach
Norfolk
Portsmouth
Elizabeth
City
Newport News
Nags Head
G r e a t Di s m a l S w a m p
N a t i o n a l W i l d l i f e R e f u g e
L O C A T I O N MA P
Nansmond River
NNWR
Dismal Swamp Canal
Chesapeake-Albemarle
Canal
Virginia
North Carolina
GDSNWR
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
35
(BRAC) process. The Nansemond NWR is an unstaffed, satellite
refuge administered through the Great Dismal Swamp NWR. It is not
open to the public.
Physical Environment
_____________________________
Location and Size
The name “Dismal Swamp” originated in colonial days, referring to the
poorly drained area that lies between the James River in southeastern
Virginia and the Albemarle Sound in North Carolina (Oaks and
Whitehead, 1979). The Great Dismal Swamp originally extended over
more than one million acres in southeastern Virginia and northeastern
North Carolina (Public Law 93-402). Clearing and draining for
agricultural uses and residential development have greatly reduced the
size of the original ecosystem and signifi cantly altered the water cycle
and fi re regime of the remaining area.
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR is but one component of an extensive
conservation network providing protection to the remaining resources.
Within the GDS watershed other lands are protected by the City
of Chesapeake, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
(VDGIF), Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(VDCR), North Carolina State Parks, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Navy, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and conservation easements on private
lands. The total area protected by this network of organizations is
approximately 185,000 acres (B. van Eerden, pers.com., 2001).
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR currently occupies 111,203 acres.
Additional planned acquisitions are anticipated to increase the
refuge size to approximately 115,000 acres. The refuge is located
approximately 30 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. It is delineated on the
north by U.S. Highway 58, on the east by the Dismal Swamp Canal, on
the south by U.S. Highway 158, and on the west by the Suffolk Scarp
(Figure 3-1). The Refuge occupies portions of two cities in Virginia,
Suffolk and Chesapeake, and three counties in North Carolina, Gates,
Camden, and Pasquotank.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
36 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR is one of seventy-one wildlife refuges
in the northeastern administrative region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The refuge is the largest in Region 5, representing nearly 25
percent of all service owned land found in the northeast region. The
refuge straddles the region’s southern boundary with approximately
33 percent of the refuge overlapping into the Service’s southeastern
region, Region 4.
Physiography and Topography
Great Dismal Swamp NWR lies in the Embayed Section of the Atlantic
Coastal Plain, which consists of three wide, gently sloping terraces
separated by longitudinal, eastward-facing escarpments. The middle
terrace, known as Dismal Swamp Terrace, is bisected by the Deep
Creek swale, also running north-south. The refuge is located on the
western portion of this terrace, between the Suffolk Escarpment
(Scarp) and the Deep Creek Swale. Churchland Flat bounds the refuge
on the north.
The refuge can be divided into three physiographic zones: Lake
Drummond, the forested wetland, and a transition zone. Lake
Drummond, a 3,108 acre shallow lake, is located near the center of the
refuge. The forested wetland portion, the predominant feature of the
refuge, is sharply disrupted on three sides by the Dismal Swamp Canal
and U.S. Highways 58 and 158. Along its western edge, the transition
zone from swamp to uplands is more gradual, creating an area of mixed
characteristics.
Along the Suffolk Scarp, on the western side of the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR, elevations rise and relief is variable. Traveling eastward
across the refuge from the Suffolk Scarp, elevation drops at a rate of
one foot per mile to the Deep Creek Swale (east of the Dismal Swamp
Canal). In the Virginia portion of the refuge, elevations range from
15 to 25 feet; in Pasquotank County, North Carolina, elevations range
from 10 to 20 feet; Camden County varies from 21 feet or lower. The
topography exhibits a gentle west to east slope imposed on an even
gentler north to south slope. The normal surface elevation of Lake
Drummond is 18.65 feet.
Nansemond NWR also lies within the outer part of the Atlantic Coastal
Plain physiographic province. The generalized physiography of the
area is known for a “stair-step” appearance, consisting of wide, gently
eastward sloping planes separated by linear, steeper, eastward-facing
scarps. The planes slope eastward at less than two feet per mile,
whereas the scarps have slopes of as much as 50-450 feet per mile
through short distances.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
37
The Nansemond NWR is situated on the east bank of the Nansemond
River, east of the Suffolk Scarp. Elevation varies from sea level to 21
feet above sea level. Much of the Nansemond NWR is a well-drained
knoll, with drainages emptying into the river and marshes.
Geology
Great Dismal Swamp NWR and Nansemond NWR are underlain
by several geologic formations: the four most signifi cant are the
Yorktown, the Norfolk, the London Bridge, and the Sandbridge
formations (USDOI, 1979).
The Yorktown Formation is the oldest and deepest unit of the four,
consisting chiefl y of impermeable clay. The top of the Yorktown
Formation is within 15 feet of the surface throughout much of the
western part of the refuge and within 25 feet of the surface in the
eastern part.
The Norfolk Formation overlays the Yorktown Formation beneath
most of the refuge and is closely associated with the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR’s water budget. The Norfolk Formation is composed of
two layers. Its lower level consists primarily of coarse sand and is very
permeable. The upper layer consists of eight strata, three of which
play an important role in the hydrology of the refuge. The coarse-sand
stratum under the Suffolk Scarp and the extreme western part of
refuge serves as a shallow aquifer. The Norfolk Formation is exposed
at elevations between 25 to 70 feet in a belt less than a mile wide that
runs north-south along the Suffolk Scarp. This is the groundwater
recharge area for the aquifer. The formation then grades eastward
under the refuge into the medium-sand stratum. This stratum
underlies most of the Great Dismal Swamp NWR and in turn grades
into fi ne sand beneath the area east of refuge. Groundwater input from
the Norfolk Formation accounts for the majority of water that upwells
in the swamp.
The London Bridge Formation, clay silt that overlays the Norfolk
Formation, occurs throughout the eastern and most of the western
portions of the refuge. The Sandbridge Formation generally overlies
the London Bridge Formation, where the London Bridge is present, or
directly overlies the Norfolk Formation. It is composed of two sheet-like
deposits: a lower layer of sand and an upper layer of silty clay.
The London Bridge and Sandbridge Formations confi ne the Norfolk
aquifer. More recent deposits over these formations consist of a layer
of inorganic soils and an overlying organic layer of peat.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
38 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Soils
Organic Soils
The soils of Great Dismal Swamp NWR play a critical role in
supporting its wetland communities. Organic soils predominate, with
mineral soils confi ned to the toe of the Suffolk Scarp and to historic
outfl ows of tributaries to the Elizabeth, Northwest, and Pasquotank
Rivers. The organic soils are divided into two taxonomic classes: Typic
Medisaprists and Terric Medisaprists. The mineral soils are divided
into several classes with widely varying characteristics.
Typic Medisaprists are organic soils more than 51 inches thick,
underlain by mineral subsoil. There are two types of Typic
Medisaprists within the Great Dismal Swamp NWR: those composed
of fi nely divided and those composed of coarsely divided soil material.
Terric Medisaprists are organic soils more than 16 inches and less than
51 inches thick, underlain by loamy or sandy mineral subsoil.
In general, the organic soils of the refuge are black, fi ne-grained, highly
decomposed mucky peat. Partially decomposed logs and stumps are
buried in the decomposed organic material at depths ranging from a
few inches to fi ve feet. These soils are characterized by poor or very
poor drainage, high acidity, and mean annual soil temperatures between
59o and 72o Fahrenheit. Permeability varies with the composition of the
subsoil.
During much of this century, the suitability of the swamp’s organic
soils for cultivation resulted in conversion of extensive tracts of swamp
woodlands to agricultural lands. Although the organic soils are often
saturated and extremely acid, they are quite fertile, and high yields
of corn, soybeans, and grain are reported from drained organic soils
on the periphery of the refuge. However, remaining areas of organic
soils within the refuge have low potential for agriculture due to their
thickness, buried debris, and inaccessibility.
Remaining organic soils on the refuge are subject to a number of other
forces. The organic soils are highly susceptible to fi re. When burned,
the average combustible component of the soil is 93%, leaving a 7% ash
content (Otte, 1985). Historically, uncontrolled fi res directly removed
organic soils from the swamp. In more recent times fi re suppression
has countered this trend, allowing organic soils to accumulate.
Uncontrolled drainage has also contributed to organic soil loss on
the ditch side of the road-ditch corridors within the refuge. In their
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
39
natural saturated state, the swamp’s organic soils are 85-95% water.
In areas that have undergone excessive drying due to drainage, these
soils aggregate into a granular form that will not re-wet even under
inundated conditions. The dehydrated soils oxidize at a rapid rate and
their granular nature reduces saturation in the vegetation root zone,
possibly facilitating the intrusion of vegetation typical of drier sites.
Where water is impounded in the refuge by elevated roads and
functioning water control structures, saturated organic soils
accumulate. The interplay between organic soil loss and accumulation
caused by the opposing forces of burning, fi re suppression, drainage,
and impounding, as well as inherent soil instability, have resulted
in very complex soil dynamics in the swamp. As peat accumulates,
the distance between surface soils and the water table increases,
renewing the oxidation/ subsidence process in the unsaturated layer
with subsequent soil loss, until the cycle begins again. The key to
maintaining saturated soils for wetland vegetation is, therefore, to
keep the optimum distance between surface elevations and the water
table.
In any case, due to their saturation and high organic matter content
the organic soils are generally unsuitable for sanitary facilities,
building site development, recreational development, and trails. They
are highly corrosive to both steel and concrete construction.
Mineral Soils
Mineral soils are defi ned as those having an organic layer of less than
16 inches. Those present within the refuge include several taxonomic
classes: Histic Humaquepts, Typic Ochraquults, Typic Hydroquents,
Typic Umbraquults, and Typic Humaquepts.
Histic Humaquepts are soils with organic layers 8 to 16 inches thick
over mineral subsoil of varying composition (sand, loam, and clay).
Permeability depends upon the texture of the subsoil. They are
usually poorly drained and moderately subject to fi re and compaction.
Typic Ochraquults include loam and fi ne sandy loam soils and are
mildly to strongly acidic. Drainage and permeability vary with the
texture of the subsoils. Seasonal ponds form in some areas.
The Typic Hydroquent class is heavy gray clay that occurs frequently.
It is a deep, very poorly drained soil. Ponds commonly form during
wet seasons.
Other mineral soils occur to a limited extent along the Suffolk Scarp.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
40 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
They are generally better drained and less subject to fl ooding than
the soils described above. Although some mineral soils have high
water tables and are subject to brief fl ooding, they are more suited for
sanitary facilities, construction, and recreational development than the
organic soils because their load-bearing strength is generally much
higher.
Nansemond NWR Soils
Several soil series exist on the Nansemond NWR, including the
Nansemond, Kenansville, and Bohicket series. The Nansemond series
consists of a loamy fi ne sand surface layer with a sandy loam or sandy
clay loam subsoil about 47 inches thick (USDA, SCS, 1981). The
permeability of the Nansemond series is moderately rapid, and the soil
has a seasonally high water table at depths of two to three feet.
The Kenansville series has a dark, grayish-brown loamy sand surface
layer about three inches thick. The subsurface layer is an olive-yellow
loamy sand about 20 inches thick. The subsoil is usually 20 inches deep
and composed of brown fi ne sandy clay loam. The permeability of the
Kenansville series is moderately rapid and it has a seasonally high
water table of four to six feet.
The Bohicket series is a dark, grayish brown, silty clay loam, typically
13 inches thick. It is underlain by approximately 60 inches of clay. The
permeability of the Bohicket series is very low. This series is typical of
salt water marshes.
Climate
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR and Nansemond NWR are located
in the humid-subtropical zone, characterized by long, humid summers
and mild winters. The climate is moderated by the proximity of
water bodies, including the Atlantic Ocean, Albemarle Sound, and
Chesapeake Bay. The average annual temperature is approximately
60oF (15.6oC), ranging from monthly averages of 45oF(7.2 oC) in
January to 79oF(26.1oC) in July. Extremes have been recorded as high
as 105oF (40.6oC) and as low as 2oF (-16.7oC).
Rainfall is well distributed throughout the year and long periods
of drought seldom occur. Average annual precipitation at Norfolk,
Virginia, is 45.74 inches (116.2 cm), with the normal annual snowfall
at 8.8 inches (22.4cm) (National Weather Service, Wakefi eld, Virginia).
The annual potential evapotranspiration is 32 inches (81.3 cm).
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
41
Southwesterly winds dominate during the warmer months, while
northwesterly winds dominate the cooler months. Northeast winds
are less common and are usually associated with storm events and the
passage of cold fronts. The mean wind speed is 10.5 miles per hour.
Water Resources
The Great Dismal Swamp is less than 9,000 years old; it was formed
on a hillside instead of a basin and without the benefi t of rivers fl owing
into or beside it. These facts set it apart from all other southern
swamps. Regionally unique geologic formations and the presence of
a shallow artesian aquifer changed the prehistoric, climax oak hickory
forest into the cypress gum wetland complex of recent history. It is
these same hydrologic factors that are maintaining the swamp today.
Hydrology
Many people perceive swamps as having standing water year round.
This is not the case in the Great Dismal Swamp; in fact, most of the
swamp’s vegetation could not survive permanent inundation. The
Great Dismal Swamp has an annual hydrologic cycle that results in
changing water levels throughout the year. Historically, the swamp’s
natural hydrologic cycle has followed the seasons. Otte (1985) provides
a description of this cycle:
“In autumn the swamp was at its driest, with little or no
standing water (except for Lake Drummond and some of
the larger channels) and a low water table. There was little
downstream movement of water; most water moved upward and
out of the soil by evapotranspiration.
In the winter -- as rains increased, temperatures declined,
and evapotranspiration rates slowed, stream fl ow swelled and
the water table rose until it reached the surface. At this point
streams overfl owed into the swamp and surface sheetfl ow
toward the east and south predominated.
By spring the swamp was fl ooded to its maximum extent with
little lateral water movement. As temperatures rose and
plants began to grow in the late spring, evapotranspiration
removed large quantities of water from the swamp and the
water table began to drop below the ground surface. This
allowed soils to aerate and vegetation to obtain oxygen needed
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
42 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
for growth. While there were fl uctuations in the annual cycle of
surface water within the swamp, subsurface water losses were
moderated by the large water holding capacity of the peat soils.”
Water Dynamics:
Great Dismal Swamp NWR’s water budget is infl uenced by several
natural input-output events. Direct precipitation is a major source of
water, contributing about 28.5 billion gallons to the refuge annually and
accounting in part for the fact that more water fl ows out of the refuge
than enters it as surface infl ow. Precipitation is highest during the
summer months.
Surface water infl ow occurs in the form of stream and sheet fl ow from
the west along the Suffolk Scarp. About 82 square miles of upland
area drain into the refuge, primarily via Cypress and Taylor Swamps,
supplying approximately 22 billion gallons of surface water each year.
Eighty-nine percent of this infl ow occurs from November through
April. Evapotranspiration in areas upstream from the swamp severely
limits infl ow during summer despite higher rainfall rates.
Evapotranspiration accounts for the biggest portion of water removal
from the swamp ecosystem. It exceeds rainfall during the growing
season and causes a lowering of water levels in the refuge throughout
the summer. Estimated annual evaporation loss from the refuge is
about 39 inches (data from Dismal Swamp Canal hydrology substation).
The rate of transpiration is not known.
Surface water runoff through the swamp is also a major means of
outfl ow. Historically, the principal drainages have been the Northwest,
Pasquotank, and Elizabeth Rivers, and Shingle Creek. Much of the
winter discharge within the swamp was in the form of sheet fl ow.
During low fl ow periods, the water would follow the random channels
cut during high fl ow. Over the last two centuries natural outfl ow
patterns have been altered; most surface water now drains through the
refuge in the network of canals and ditches with minimal sheet fl ow.
Ground water discharge is a secondary output event. Wherever the
upper layer confi ning the shallow aquifer is absent, ground water
wells up into the overlying peat and is discharged from the peat by
evapotranspiration. Ground water is also discharged by seeping
directly into Lake Drummond. Where the aquifer is breached, ground
water is discharged from the refuge as surface fl ow through outlet
channels that are left uncontrolled.
Washington Ditch . By late
winter, streams have swelled
and overfl owed into the swamp.
Sheetfl ow. USFWS.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
43
Current hydrologic setting:
The hydrology of the Great Dismal Swamp has been modifi ed through
years of human activities. The ramifi cations of these changes are not
fully understood but a few generalizations can be made. The amount
and rate of annual surface infl ows into the refuge have increased due
to upland land use practices such as fi eld tiling, road building, and
housing along the Suffolk Scarp. Water that used to recharge the
shallow aquifers and enter the swamp as much delayed ground water,
is now intercepted and diverted into the refuge as surface water.
This increase in the volume of surface water contributes to higher
surface water levels during winter and storm events and may be in
part responsible for reduced volumes of water to recharge the swamp
during dry summer periods.
Ditches
Within the refuge, the construction of 158 miles of canals and ditches
with their attendant spoil bank roads have combined to form the
single most signifi cant alteration to the swamp’s water regime. The
elevated spoil bank roads serve as dams blocking overland water fl ow.
Conversely, those ditches without controls can quickly shunt water
through to the swamp. In those areas where the confi ning layer was
removed from the underlying artesian aquifer, ground water can
also be shunted through during periods of low water. The loss of the
artesian waters may reduce an important buffer needed for spring and
summer evapotranspiration drawdown.
Many of the refuge’s ditches form a network that channels much of the
current surface fl ow into Lake Drummond, which in turn drains into
the Feeder Ditch through a gated spillway and then into the Dismal
Swamp Canal. Other ditches, including Corapeake, Big Entry, and
several smaller ditches, drain directly into the Dismal Swamp Canal.
Several ditches in the southern portion of the swamp drain into Cross
Canal and ultimately into the Pasquotank River basin. Jericho Ditch
drains northwest to Shingle Creek and also south to Lake Drummond.
Due to fl at terrain, the fl ow in several ditches is reversible, depending
on rainfall, obstructions, and other factors.
The Dismal Swamp Canal has had a powerful effect on the hydrology
of the swamp. The canal intercepts a majority of the surface water
fl owing out of the swamp and has breached the artesian aquifer. Lake
Drummond is the primary source of water to operate the canal. Water
fl ow through the canal is managed by locks at either end of the canal
and by the spillway on Feeder Ditch at Lake Drummond.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
44 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Of all available incoming water (precipitation, surface infl ow, and
ground water), Lake Drummond receives approximately 25 billion
gallons; the lake has a capacity for 4.62 billion gallons. Lock operations
indicate 3.5% of outfl ow from the lake is used for the two locks on
the Dismal Swamp Canal. The remaining 96.5% of available water is
discharged as it exceeds the holding capacity of the swamp.
The effects of the roads on ground water are not clearly understood, but
it is assumed that associated soil disturbance, compaction, and addition
of outside materials to swamp soils have signifi cantly altered historical
patterns of ground water movement through the swamp. Questions
remain as to the permanence and irreversibility of these subsurface
dams.
Prior to federal acquisition of the Great Dismal Swamp, the private
owners recognized the need for water conservation and control to
reduce water losses. Previous owners installed 115 water control
devices and culverts over the years. Many of the structures
deteriorated over time, but the Service has repaired or replaced most
of the critical water control structures since the refuge’s establishment.
These control structures have reduced water losses in the swamp .
Surface water levels and the ground water table are highest from
December through April and lowest from May through November.
Lake Drummond
Lake Drummond, located near the center of the refuge, is one of
only two naturally occurring lakes in Virginia. This 3,108-acre lake is
shallow and nearly circular in shape (2.7 miles north-to-south and 2.4
miles east-to-west). At its deepest point, Lake Drummond is only 6 to 7
feet deep. It is perhaps the most widely recognized feature of the Great
Dismal Swamp NWR.
The water level in Lake Drummond is intensively managed. A 1977
informal agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers defi nes a minimum lake level of
15.75 feet above mean sea level to retain suffi cient water in the swamp
ecosystem. When the water level is below this, water cannot be
released from the lake for Dismal Swamp Canal operations.
Surface water quality is generally good. The dark tannic color and
3.5-6.7 pH level impart a distinct taste and heighten the water’s ability
to remain fresh.
Feeder Ditch . Water from
Lake Drummond spills into the
Feeder Ditch and then into the
Dismal Swamp Canal.
Photo:Waverley Traylor.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
45
Water Quality
Fertilizers and pesticides used on corn, soybeans, cotton and peanuts,
and runoff from hog operations are potential surface water pollution
sources. In addition, sediment fl owing into the refuge from upstream
agricultural and timber lands may eventually affect the free fl ow of
water through the swamp and diminish water quality.
Water from the Norfolk aquifer is commonly soft with a generally low
mineral content, although some areas have excessive iron and free
carbon dioxide that may cause corrosion problems. The shallow aquifer
is potentially susceptible to contamination from agricultural, industrial,
or domestic runoff.
Nansemond NWR Water Quality
According to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ), some water quality problems exist in the Nansemond River.
A fi sh eating advisory for Kepone exists for the James River and all
its tributaries from the fall line at Richmond to the Hampton Roads
Bridge Tunnel. It became effective on July 1, 1988, but there are no
restrictions on fi sh consumption.
For all tributaries and mainstems of the Nansemond River, the
watershed is classifi ed as “nutrient enriched” under Virginia Water
Quality Standards. This is likely due to non-point source contributions
from agricultural, urban/suburban and forestry activities. DEQ
has given the Nansemond River an overall water quality ranking of
medium. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations
require the states to give a priority ranking to identify those waters
scheduled for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). A ranking of
medium identifi es those waters scheduled for TMDL development by
the year 2006.
Air Quality
The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated national
ambient air quality standards in 1997 for PM2.5 (particulate matter
equal to or less than 2.5 microns in diameter), however monitoring
devices were not fully installed and operational until January, 1999.
PM2.5 is one of six “criteria” pollutants for which standards have
been established by the EPA Offi ce of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. The EPA determined that these standards are necessary
to protect human health and the environment (Virginia Department of
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
46 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Environmental Quality website, February, 2003). Primary standards
set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive”
populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary
standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection
against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and
buildings (www.epa.gov/airs/criteria.html). For PM2.5, the threshold
for the annual arithmetic mean is 15 ug/m3 for primary and secondary
standards, while the threshold for the 24-hour average is 65 ug/m3 for
primary and secondary standards (See Figure 3-2).
VIRGINIA 2002
PM2.5 PARTICULATE MATTER SUMMARY BY REGION
METHOD CODE 118 - GRAVIMETRIC, R & P MODEL 2025 SEQUENTIAL
Micrograms Per Cubic Meter (ug/m3)
LOCATION
NO. OF OBSERVATIONS
BY QUARTER
HIGHEST VALUE PER
QUARTER
QUARTERLY
ARITHMETIC MEAN
I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV
TIDEWATER REGION
CHESAPEAKE
Oscar Smith
Stadium
79 89 82 82 23.3 25.3 49.4 30.1 10.4 12.1 13.7 11.2
HAMPTON
Va. School
for the Deaf &
Blind
28 30 26 30 19.7 17.5 32.9 22.5 10.4 11.0 13.6 11.6
NEWPORT
NEWS
Pump Station
#103
28 30 28 28 17.7 18.8 33.7 33.5 9.8 11.8 14.6 11.4
NORFOLK
NOAA Facility
29 27 31 31 19.9 22.1 50.8 21.2 10.7 11.9 16.6 11.4
VIRGINIA
BEACH
Tidewater
Regional Offi ce
28 26 28 31 21.9 22.5 50.2 26.8 10.8 11.2 15.8 12.1
Figure 3-2. Particulate matter is the primary pollutant released during wildfi res and during
prescribed fi re operations. Prescribed fi re is used at Great Dismal Swamp NWR to improve wildlife
habitat, maintain fi re-dependent plant communities, and to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations
near buildings and development. The data presented above represents sampling stations that may
detect signifi cant PM2.5 emissions from prescribed fi re activities on the Refuge (the Chesapeake
location is closest). As this data demonstrates for 2002, the threshold value for PM2.5 was never
exceeded for the 24-hour average or the annual average.VDEQ.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
47
Contaminants/Hazardous
Great Dismal Swamp NWR Environmental
Concerns
Resources of the Great Dismal Swamp NWR may have been (or
continue to be) exposed to environmental contaminants from
a variety of sources. To investigate the level of contaminants,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sampled for three groups of
pollutants: heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, and alkanes (a
constituent of petroleum products). Samples were collected from
sediments, surface waters, and from the tissues of fi sh and small
mammals during 1987, 1989, and 1992 (Kane, 1997). None of the sites
demonstrated high levels of contaminants, though several areas on
the refuge demonstrated higher levels than other sites. The areas
exhibiting elevated levels of contaminants include the East Ditch
area, where potential sources of contamination are the heavily used
US Highway 58 and an automobile junkyard; the Cypress Swamp
area demonstrated elevated levels of metals, but a potential source
was not identifi ed; and Lake Drummond fi sh showed elevated levels
of mercury, chromium, nickel, and iron. Kane (1997) noted that
it is well-documented that wetlands and swamps may act as sinks
for metal contaminants, particularly mercury. Mercury is known
to bioaccumulate and it is signifi cant that top predators in Lake
Drummond demonstrated the highest mercury levels, despite the fact
that mercury was not detected in Lake Drummond water samples.
It should be reiterated that no high levels of contaminants were
detected, only elevated levels in select areas. Kane (1997) suggests
that this data be used as a baseline and that periodic monitoring of
sediments and biota be conducted.
Nansemond NWR Environmental Concerns
A site survey was performed on April 15, 1997, by the Virginia Field
Offi ce (VAFO), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological
Services. During the survey, staff from the VAFO and the Great
Dismal Swamp NWR walked the entire perimeter and most of the
inner area of the 208 acres transferred to the Service in 1999. The
purpose of the survey was to ascertain the likelihood of the presence
and/or extent of hazardous substances or other environmental
problems associated with the property. As environmental
investigations and remediation have been ongoing at this site under
the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the property has been
divided into several sites. The following descriptions and restrictions
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
48 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
correspond to designations defi ned through Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission (BRAC) activities.
The fi rst area surveyed comprises all of BRAC Sites 5 and 11 and
most of the areas adjacent to these sites. Site 5 is the polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB) spill area near Star Creek. Soils in this area were
contaminated by leaking transformers that were previously stored
there, and historical reports indicate that oil in the transformers
was drained into 55 gallon drums before being discarded into the
marshy area. Results from soil sampling showed levels of PCB’s up
to 15,000 parts per million (ppm) in soil and 1 ppm in sediment, levels
that are consistent with PCB clean-up goals at Superfund sites in the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 3. Clean fi ll was layered
over site soils to minimize potential exposure of ecological receptors to
remaining levels of PCB’s in soils.
Restrictions for Site 1 prohibits the extraction of shallow groundwater
and any disturbance of the surface and/or subsurface area without
prior written approval of the Department of the Navy. Disturbance
shall mean any intrusive activity that involves the penetration of the
surface soil; such as excavation, trenching, tilling of the soil, and/or
any mechanical or manual drilling. These prohibitions are intended
to control the risk of direct contact with or consumption of water from
the shallow aquifer and to control the risk of direct contact with or
consumption of subsurface soils in contact with the groundwater in the
shallow aquifer where contamination (124-trichlorobenzine) has been
found to exceed the maximum contaminant level for drinking water.
The Site 7 restrictions prohibit disturbance of any surface or subsurface
soils as above. The contaminant present in this case is low levels of
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH’s).
Site 11 is adjacent to Site 5 and is designated as “The Disposal Pits.”
Construction debris was found at this site during PCB remediation
activities at Site 5. The debris included shingles, wood and metal fascia.
During the April 15, 1997, site visit, a large dirt pile with a grass cover
was observed. It is likely that this dirt pile is leftover clean fi ll that was
brought in for remedial activities at Site 5. Other debris observed in
the vicinity included a telephone pole, a wooden pole, a metal structure
with wire conduits on the backside, and a metal container in Star Creek.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
49
Aesthetics
The assessment of the Great Dismal Swamp NWR’s aesthetic quality
assumes that: (1) Unaltered natural areas possess greater natural
scenic potential than modifi ed areas, although some scenic value
can be ascribed to the altered landscape if it is in character with the
wildlife mission of the refuge; (2) scenic areas that are separated or
buffered from intensive development, eyesores, or other unattractive
environments are more valuable than those that are not; and (3) while
visual resources are important, the policy of habitat protection on the
refuge precludes the most visually obtrusive activities.
Visual resources were qualitatively assessed for each of six general
zones in the refuge, as follows:
Aerial Views
Great Dismal Swamp NWR is dramatic from the air, as the vast
expanse of forest offers a startling contrast to the surrounding
mosaic of farms and urban areas. At the center of the refuge, Lake
Drummond forms a prominent focal point. Bald cypress snags jut
above the general forest canopy. The ecological continuity within the
swamp is broken only by the road and ditch network, and even this is
seasonally obscured by the canopy. The scarcity of such landscapes
on the east coast adds greatly to the refuge’s value as an aesthetic
resource.
Lake Drummond
The lake is the most signifi cant visual feature in the refuge. Its
expanse of water has a shoreline punctuated by cypress snags. The
lake possesses qualities of vividness, near/far contrast, and pictorial
composition that are unmatched in the rest of the refuge. Colors and
light change constantly, and overall wildlife viewing opportunities,
especially of resting and wintering waterfowl, are better than
elsewhere on the refuge.
Feeder Ditch/Dismal Swamp Canal
These waterways offer some visual interest for visitors entering the
refuge by boat from the east. Overhanging branches and views of
wildlife balance the visual defi cit of artifi cial ditch banks. Development
along these water routes is generally in keeping with their function.
Lake Drummond . The most
signifi cant visual feature in
the refuge. USFWS.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
50 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Road/Ditch Corridors
The corridors lacing the swamp are long, narrow, and straight. In many
cases, the value of the roads as viewsheds is lessened because care must
be taken in negotiating around potholes, eroded edges, obstructions,
etc. Views through the trees are possible when the leaves are gone;
during the growing season a solid wall of vegetation forms along the
roads, creating a tunnel effect. Seasonal color adds to the visual quality
of the swamp forests. Wildlife viewing opportunities vary: open areas
along the road and open water in the ditches offer the best chance for
sighting wildlife. Because of off-road access constraints, refuge public
use and resource management activities often coincide along these
corridors, making visual management an important factor in retaining
the aesthetic values of the refuge.
Wooded Interior
Inaccessible to viewing by most refuge visitors, the forests in the
swamp interior add to the mystery of the swamp. They harbor wildlife
activity and buffer activity and noise between different swamp areas.
Swamp Periphery
The edge of the swamp offers only a hint of the vast forested area lying
beyond. Along most of its periphery, the swamp acts as a backdrop for
various landscapes including highways, farms, and residences. Because
of the sudden disruption of forest lands by development or clearing, the
swamp’s essential character as a potential ecological isolate, or “island”,
is emphasized.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
51
Biological Resources
__________________________
Refuge Habitats and Regional Context
The Great Dismal Swamp NWR is a matrix of unique habitat types,
many of which are rare. Within the refuge are found typical pocosins
of the southeast (here they exist at the northern extent of their range),
some of the largest remaining Atlantic white cedar woodlands to be
found anywhere, and potential restorable habitat for the federally-endangered
red-cockaded woodpecker.
Fauna
Birds
Two hundred and nine avian species have been reported in the Great
Dismal Swamp NWR. Within this group, 92 species nest in the swamp,
49 of which are year-round residents; the remainder are migratory
breeders. Most of the breeding birds of Great Dismal Swamp NWR
can also be found in smaller wetlands outside the refuge, but not in
such abundance and high density. One hundred and eleven migrant
bird species use the refuge during fall and spring migrations. See
Appendix B.
Insects
Refuge invertebrates include many individual species. Matta (1979)
listed 182 species of aquatic and semi-aquatic insects, but little
information was provided regarding terrestrial insects. Much of this
data gap has been fi lled by recent surveys of butterfl ies and skippers
(Roble et al., 1999) and damselfl ies and dragonfl ies (Roble and Cuyler,
1999). These recent reports include 52 butterfl ies, 41 skippers, 22
damselfl ies, and 43 dragonfl ies from within the current boundaries of
the Great Dismal Swamp NWR. Six of these species are dependent
upon switchcane as their only larval food plant.
Birds. Two hundred and
nine avian species have been
reported in the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR. Woodduck. Waverly
Traylor.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
52 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Fish
Twenty-seven species of fi sh occur in Lake Drummond and the ditches.
Seventy-fi ve percent of the total fi sh population consists of the yellow
bullhead. The abundance of yellow bullhead and low recruitment of
black crappies, a species preferred by fi shermen, may be attributed in
part to yellow bullhead eating the eggs of the crappie.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Sixty-two species of heptofauna (reptiles and amphibians) have been
found at Great Dismal Swamp NWR, and six additional species may
be present (Mitchell et al., 1999). These include 19 toad and frog,
nine salamander, ten turtle, eight lizard and 22 snake species. Three
venomous snake species are present: the copperhead is the most
abundant, while the canebrake rattlesnake and eastern cottonmouth are
much less abundant than formerly thought.
Mammals
At least forty-seven species of mammals are found in the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR. The fi rst scientifi c collection of mammals inhabiting the
Dismal Swamp was initiated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
the late 1890’s (Handley, 1999). Modern occurrences are described in
Bulmer et al. (1999), Handley (1979), Paschal et al. (1979), Rose (1999b),
Rose et al. (1999), and Webster (1999).
The most recent studies, occurring in the 1990’s, have sought to fi ll
the gaps within the mammal record, particularly small mammals and
bats. At least eight studies of small mammals in the Dismal Swamp are
reported during the 1980’s and 1990’s (Rose 1999b), and four studies of
bats (Rose et al. , 1999). It should be noted that while study areas often
included the Great Dismal Swamp NWR, many studies sampled the
historical Great Dismal Swamp and were not limited to the refuge.
Recent studies have recorded 16 species of small mammals in the Great
Dismal Swamp (Bulmer et al., 1999, Rose, 1999b). Findings include four
species of shrew, six species of mice, one species of rat, two species of
mole, two species of vole, and the southern bog lemming (Synaptomys
cooperi helaletes).
Ten species of bats have been documented in the Great Dismal Swamp
Mammals. At least forty-seven
species of mammals are found
in the Great Dismal Swamp
NWR. Red fox.
Photo: Waverley Traylor.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
53
NWR, with one additional species occurring just beyond the margin of
the swamp (Rose et al., 1999). Beyond inventory data, little additional
information is known about bats in the Great Dismal Swamp. The
exception may be the red bat (Lasiurus borealis), which was the most
numerous species presented in the summary by Rose et al. (1999). The
habits of the red bat in the Great Dismal Swamp are better understood
thanks to records of bat activity (Rose et al., 1999) and analysis of
stomach contents (Whitaker et al. , 1997).
Larger mammalian residents of the swamp include nutria (Myocastor
coypus), river otter (Lutra canadensis), beaver (Castor canadensis),
ground hog (Marmota monax), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), mink (Mustela vison), grey fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes fulva), grey squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), southern fl ying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), black bear (Ursus americanus),
and bobcat (Felis rufus).
The Great Dismal Swamp contains a signifi cant coastal breeding
population of black bears in eastern Virginia and extreme northeastern
North Carolina. Hellgren (1988) and Tredick (2005) estimated the
population to contain 250 - 350 bears. The refuge’s mission of habitat
restoration and managing public access into the swamp enables the
refuge to sustain a healthy bear population. In addition, the refuge
serves as a reservoir to supply bears to colonize privately-owned lands
near the refuge.
Harvest data for the cities that contain the refuge has remained
relatively unchanged, with an average harvest of 19 bears for the past
11 years. For the cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, 1998 (33) and 2003
(26) were the two highest harvests and 2001(6) and 2004(11) showing
the lowest harvest (VDGIF, 2004). Though harvest rates over the past
11 years do not indicate an increasing bear population, additional data,
including nuisance bears, observational data, and age structure indices
provide evidence of an increasing black bear population (VDGIF, 2002).
One goal identifi ed in the Virginia Black Bear Management Plan is
to stabilize the black bear population at current levels in the cities
of Suffolk and Chesapeake. In looking at the two studies (Hellgren,
1988 and Tredick, 2005) that were completed over 15 years apart,
both indicating a refuge population of 250 - 350 bears, and coupled
with rates for high human population growth and development in
southeastern Virginia, the Great Dismal Swamp NWR has begun to
examine management alternatives to proactively address potential
confl icts.
The refuge’s carrying capacity for white-tailed deer increased during
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
54 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
the fi rst half of the century when logging created additional deer
habitat. Because there has been little timbering on the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR since 1976, the openings that deer depend on for food
are reforesting, reducing their value as deer habitat. However, these
impacts have been mitigated by the development of experimental
forest management plots, prescribed burning, wild fi res, and road
maintenance (clearing and mowing).
To maintain an appropriate relation between the deer herd and its
swamp habitat, white-tailed deer are annually hunted on the refuge.
The health of the deer population continues to be evaluated through
off-refuge deer hunt check station data (weight, age class distribution,
antler development, physical deformities). These data have indicated a
gradual but steady improvement in deer health since refuge deer hunts
began in 1979.
Flora
The refuge contains several plant communities comprising various
associations made up from a total of 340 vascular plant species.
Botanically, the swamp is the interface between northern and
southeastern coastal plain swamp vegetation types. Current vegetation
patterns in the refuge refl ect past human activities and associated
changes in the water regime. Timbering, ditching, road building,
and fi re suppression have infl uenced recent vegetation diversity. In
many cases, a vegetation community includes both species typical of
historical water regimes and species indicative of the recent hydrologic
alteration. However, some areas within the swamp are typical historical
communities whose existence predates the extensive development of the
1940’s and 1950’s (See Figure 3-3).
Classifi cation of the natural communities in the Great Dismal Swamp
NWR follows The Natural Communities of Virginia (Fleming et
al., 2001). These classifi cations closely follow those used in the
North Carolina classifi cation (Schafale and Weakely, 1990). Natural
communities present at the Great Dismal Swamp NWR include:
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests
Natural Lake Draw-Down Shores
Non-Riverine Pine-Hardwood Forests
Non-Riverine Swamp Forests
Pond Pine Woodlands and Pocosins
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forests
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
55
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests
Mesic (medium-moist site) hardwoods are stands of mixed deciduous
tree species occurring at the higher elevations and better-drained
mineral soils of the refuge. These forests are situated in the extreme
northern end of the refuge near North Ditch and Jericho Ditch, on
the Suffolk escarpment along the western boundary, and on a series of
sand ridges (mesic “islands” in the midst of the swamp wetlands) near
Weyerhaeuser Road.
Tree species in this community include sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), beech (Fagus
grandifolia), willow oak (Quercus phellos), water oak (Q. nigra),
laurel oak (Q. laurifolia), white oak (Q. alba), swamp chestnut oak (Q.
michauxii), cherrybark oak (Q. pagoda), southern red oak (Q. falcata)
on drier sites, blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), ash (Fraxinus spp.), elm
(Ulmus spp.), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Evergreen species occasionally found in this type include American
holly (Ilex opaca), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandifolia),
sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda).
The highest concentrations of Virginia least trillium (Trilium pusillum
var. virginianus) [globally rare] occur in areas of this forest type near
Jericho Ditch and Jericho Lane.
The mesic mixed hardwood community occupies 600-900 acres, or less
than 1% of the refuge. It is not known if these species historically
occupied any greater area within the refuge, but it is known that most
peripheral swamp lands with this habitat type have been converted for
agricultural use.
Recently, approximately 50-acres of this forest type has been
reestablished, and another 65-acres preserved as part of a wetland
restoration effort on private lands along the Suffolk escarpment,
immediately south of Jericho Lane.
Natural Lake Draw-Down Shores
The only representation of this community type in Virginia lies along
the margins of Lake Drummond in the Great Dismal Swamp NWR.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
Virginia least trillium. High
concentrations of this globally
rare species are found in the
refuge. Photo: Waverley Traylor.
56 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
4
Maintained
-Legend-
Maple-Gum Forests
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests
Non-Riverine Pine Hardwood Forests
Cypress-Gum Forests
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forests
Natural Lake Draw-Down Shores
Pond Pine Woodlands and Pocosins
Unmaintained
G r e a t Di s m a l Sw amp
N a t i o n a l Wi l d l i f e R e f u g e
Forest Cover Communities
Figure 3-3.
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
57
Non-Riverine Pine-Hardwood Forests
These appear to be successional stands that have replaced the once
widespread “canebrakes” because of fi re suppression. This community
type presents opportunities for restoration of canebrakes. Rare
species associated with the Non-Riverine Pine-Hardwood Forests
include Virginia least trillium and Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis
swainsonii). Additionally, Roble et al. (1999) identifi ed six species of
Lepidoptera that are dependent upon switchcane as their only larval
food plant.
Non-Riverine Swamp Forests
This community type is globally uncommon to rare. For the purposes
of this document the Non-Riverine Swamp Forests are divided into two
cover types: cypress-gum and maple-gum.
Cypress-gum forests are typical southern swamp communities adapted
to surface inundation (hydric conditions) for at least part of the
growing season. The association covers 12% of the refuge, occurring
in western areas of the swamp where standing water is abundant.
Principal species include cypress (Taxodium distichum), tupelo
gum (Nyssa aquatica), and swamp blackgum (Nyssa biflora). Both
mineral and organic soils support the community, with the organic
layers ranging in depth from a few inches to several feet.
Cypress-gum was formerly the most extensive association in the
swamp. Cypress trees now occur in fairly low density, and tupelo gum
is present only in scattered areas. Although cypress and tupelo gum
are climax species for undisturbed wet sites, blackgum and red maple
have replaced them over much of their range due to selective cutting of
cypress, drainage, and fi re.
Maple-gum forests cover sixty percent of the Great Dismal
Swamp NWR and consist primarily of red maple and blackgum (often
in association with redbay, sweetbay, sweetgum, and yellow poplar).
The range of the maple-gum association has increased in the swamp
over the past 30 to 40 years, and it is the only refuge habitat type that
is continuing to expand.
Red maple is sensitive to wounding, fungus rot, insect attack, and
fi re injury (although fi re-killed trees sprout vigorously and may
fl ourish as second-growth stands). The species is also susceptible to
animal damage. Red maple reproduction may be almost completely
Vegetation trends.
Cypress-gum is considered to
be relatively stable community
in the Dismal Swamp.
USFWS.
Chapter 3
Refuge and Resource Descriptions
58 Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehemnsive Conservation Plan
suppressed where deer populations are excessive.
Pond Pine Woodlands and Pocosins
These are globally rare community types. Most of the pine woodlands
occurring within the Great Dismal Swamp NWR consist of pond
pine (Pinus serotina). Pond pine occurs on soils of high organic
matter content in the swamp interior. Historically, this community
type was maintained by fi re, limiting hardwood composition. Pond
pine woodland still dominates many acres in the southern portion of
the refuge, however fi re suppression has allowed an increase in the
hardwood component.
Pocosin vegetation is commonly found in the understory of pond pine
woodlands. A pocosin is a specifi c successional stage of many coastal
palustrine wetlands, dominated by broadleaved evergreen shrub
vegetation less than 20 feet tall. Pocosins occur in areas of poorly
developed internal drainage on organic soils.
Fleming et al. (2001) does not distinguish between pond pine and
pocosin communities because they generally occur together in
southeastern Virginia (the northern extent for both communities).
North Carolina does distinguish these communities and further
separates pocosin into low pocosin and high pocosin (Schafale and
Weakely, 1990). This background information is provided because
approximately 800 acres of broad-leaved evergreen pocosin is located
south of Feeder Ditch and north of Corapeake Ditch. This pocosin
habitat covers less than 1% of the refuge, but represents one of the few
occurrences of this community type in Virginia.
The community boundaries are indistinct, grading into the pine type.
Species commonly found in this type include bitter gallberry (Ilex
coriacea) or inkberry (Ilex glabra), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), downy
leucothoe (Leucothoe axillaris), titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), myrtle
(Myrica cerifera), redbay (Persea borbonia), and scattered pond pine.
Much of this community is being overtopped by maple and pine.
Peatland Atlantic White Cedar Forests
Atlantic white cedar forests are a globally rare community type.
Atlantic white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) occurs in both pure,
even-aged stands and in stands mixed with swamp hardwoods such as
red maple, blackgum, sweetbay, and redbay (Persea borbonia). Pond
pine is al