Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

              R W R
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 114 W. Water Street Windsor, NC 27983 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - 1 800/344 WILD http://www.fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Photo provided by
Jim Abernethy’s Scuba Adventures
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Manager: Harvey Hill
114 W. Water Street
Windsor, NC 27983
E-mail: roanokeriver@fws.gov
Phone Number: 252-794-3808
http://roanokeriver.fws.gov
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
1 800/344 WILD
http://www.fws.gov
Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge
Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement
Heron
USFWS Photo
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................1
I. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................3
Purpose And Need For The Plan...........................................................................................4
Purpose And Need For The Environmental Impact Statement..............................................4
Decisions To Be Made...........................................................................................................5
Planning Study Area ..............................................................................................................5
Other Relevant Activities And Plans ......................................................................................5
The U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service ........................................................................................6
National Wildlife Refuge System ...........................................................................6
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency ..................................................................7
South Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecosystem................................................................................8
Overview ...............................................................................................................8
Threats And Problems...........................................................................................8
Conservation Priorities ........................................................................................12
Challenges ..........................................................................................................13
The Refuge ..........................................................................................................................13
Location...............................................................................................................13
Introduction And History ......................................................................................14
Purposes and Ecosystem Context ......................................................................16
Refuge Vision Statement.....................................................................................17
Refuge Goals ......................................................................................................17
Step-Down Management Plans...........................................................................18
Legal Policy .........................................................................................................20
The Planning Process..........................................................................................................20
Plan Review and Revision ...................................................................................................21
Planning Issues And Concerns............................................................................................21
Hydrology ............................................................................................................21
Fish and Wildlife Populations ..............................................................................24
Habitats ...............................................................................................................25
Public Use ...........................................................................................................25
General Administration........................................................................................26
Resource Protection............................................................................................27
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................29
Geographic Ecosystem Context ..........................................................................................29
Location ...............................................................................................................................29
Physical Environment ..........................................................................................................29
Climate ................................................................................................................29
Geology ...............................................................................................................30
Minerals...............................................................................................................31
Archaeological Resources...................................................................................31
Soils.....................................................................................................................31
Hydrology ............................................................................................................32
ii
Fluvial Geomorphology .......................................................................................35
Water Quality.......................................................................................................35
Air Quality............................................................................................................36
Visual Resources ................................................................................................36
Biological Environment ........................................................................................................37
Vegetative Communities .....................................................................................37
Fire in Bottomland Hardwoods ............................................................................39
Wildlife.................................................................................................................39
Insects and Diseases ..........................................................................................42
Exotic Organisms ................................................................................................43
Threatened and Endangered Species.................................................................43
Socioeconomic Conditions and Land Use ...........................................................................43
Demographics .....................................................................................................44
Land Use .............................................................................................................44
Forestry ...............................................................................................................47
Employment ........................................................................................................48
Outdoor Recreation .............................................................................................48
Outdoor Recreation Economics ..........................................................................49
Tourism ...............................................................................................................50
Transportation .....................................................................................................50
Cultural Environment...........................................................................................51
Recreational Uses of the Refuge .........................................................................................51
Hunting ................................................................................................................51
Fishing.................................................................................................................51
Environmental Education ....................................................................................51
Interpretation .......................................................................................................51
Wildlife Observation ............................................................................................52
Wildlife Photography ...........................................................................................52
Other ...................................................................................................................52
Refuge Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................52
Roads and Trails .................................................................................................52
Utility Corridors and Distribution..........................................................................55
Communication System ......................................................................................55
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal...................................................................55
III. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................57
Formulation Of Alternatives .................................................................................................57
Description Of Management Alternatives ............................................................................57
Alternative 1 - No Action......................................................................................57
Alternative 2 - Moderate Program Improvement .................................................58
Alternative 3 - Comprehensive Program Improvement .......................................61
Preferred Alternative ............................................................................................................62
Comprehensive Conservation Plan .....................................................................................62
Goals, Objectives, And Strategies .......................................................................................63
Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative.....................................................................................63
Goal 1. Fish And Wildlife Populations ................................................................63
Goal 2. Habitats..................................................................................................73
Goal 3. Public Use..............................................................................................79
Goal 4. Resource Protection ..............................................................................86
Goal 5. Refuge Administration ...........................................................................94
iii
Staffing And Funding .........................................................................................................122
Partnership Opportunities ..................................................................................................122
Monitoring And Evaluation .................................................................................................124
Management Common To All Alternatives ........................................................................124
Compatible Uses ...............................................................................................124
Other Management ...........................................................................................125
Land Acquisition ................................................................................................125
Refuge Revenue Sharing ..................................................................................125
Education And Visitor Services .........................................................................125
Refuge Administration .......................................................................................126
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................127
Comparison Of Effects Among Management Alternatives.................................................127
Overview ...........................................................................................................127
Biological Environment......................................................................................127
Physical Environment........................................................................................130
Social Environment ...........................................................................................131
Economic Environment .....................................................................................131
Effects Common To All Management Alternatives ............................................................133
Health and Safety Effects..................................................................................133
Regulatory Effects .............................................................................................133
Cultural and Historic Resources Effects ............................................................133
Uncertainty of Future Action Effects..................................................................135
Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................136
Mitigation Measures ..........................................................................................136
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...........................................................................139
SECTION B. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................143
I. Glossary ............................................................................................................143
II. References And Literature Cited .......................................................................149
III. Relevant Legal Mandates..................................................................................157
National Wildlife Refuge System Authorities .....................................................157
Key Legislation/Policies for Plan Implementation..............................................157
IV. Refuge Acquisition ............................................................................................165
V. Refuge Biota......................................................................................................167
Animals..............................................................................................................167
Vegetation .........................................................................................................177
VI. History Of The Counties In The Lower Roanoke River Valley...........................183
Bertie County.....................................................................................................183
Martin County ....................................................................................................185
Washington County ...........................................................................................186
Northampton County .........................................................................................186
Halifax County ...................................................................................................187
VII. Agricultural And Demographic Statistics ...........................................................189
VIII. Public Participation............................................................................................195
IX. Decisions And Approvals ..................................................................................205
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ....................................................205
Compatibility Determinations.............................................................................209
X. Management Methods And Priorities ................................................................225
iv
Partnerships ......................................................................................................225
Avifaunal Analysis .............................................................................................227
Archaeological And Historic Resource Protection.............................................230
Ecosystem Management...................................................................................230
XI. Refuge Operation Needs System (RONS) Projects ..........................................233
XII. Maintenance Management System (MMS) Projects .........................................249
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecosystem .................................................................9
Figure 1-2. Location and Tracts of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
in Bertie County, North Carolina ...........................................................................15
Figure 1-3. Hydrograph of River Flow Before and After Dam Construction at Roanoke
Rapids, North Carolina .........................................................................................22
Figure 2-1. Hydric and Nonhydric Soils of Roanoke River Floodplain Area ............................33
Figure 2-2. Vegetative Habitat Types of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge ..................38
Figure 2-3. Current Visitor Facilities at the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
(Askew and Conine Island Tracts) ........................................................................53
Figure 2-4. Current Visitor Facilities at the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
(Company Swamp, Broadneck Swamp, Town Swamp Tracts).............................54
Figure 3-1. Existing Acquisition Boundary Expansion Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge ......................................................................................................59
Figure 3-2. Proposed Staffing Plan for the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge ..........123
v
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Threatened and Endangered Species of North Carolina ......................................10
Table 1-2. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Step-Down Management Plans
Arranged by Issue Sequence in the Goals and Objectives Portion of the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan.......................................................................19
Table 2-1. Known Ranges of Priority Birds at the Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge...................................................................................................................41
Table 2-2. Species of Concern at the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge.....................44
Table 2-3. Demographic Data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley.......................................45
Table 2-4. Land Use Data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley.............................................46
Table 2-5. Forestry Data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley ...............................................47
Table 2-6. Employment Data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley ........................................48
Table 3-1. Projects Supporting Wildlife Strategies .................................................................72
Table 3-2. Projects Supporting Habitat Strategies .................................................................78
Table 3-3. Projects Supporting Public Use Strategies............................................................85
Table 3-4. Projects Supporting Resource Protection Strategies ............................................92
Table 3-5. Projects Supporting Refuge Administration Strategies .........................................98
Table 3-6. Summary of Strategies Proposed in Each Wildlife Alternative............................100
Table 3-7. Summary of Strategies Proposed in Each Habitat Alternative ............................102
Table 3-8. Summary of Strategies Proposed in Each Public Use Alternative ......................104
Table 3-9. Summary of Strategies Proposed in Each Protection Alternative .......................107
Table 3-10. Summary of Strategies Proposed in Each Administration Alternative .................109
Table 3-11. Summary of Projects Proposed in Each Alternative ............................................111
Table 3-12. Summary of Costs of Projects Proposed in All Alternatives ................................114
Table 3-13. Cost of Projects Proposed in Alternative 1 ..........................................................115
Table 3-14. Cost of Projects Proposed in Alternative 2 ..........................................................117
Table 3-15. Cost of Projects Proposed in Alternative 3 ..........................................................119
Table 4-1. A Comparison of the Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1 ..................135
Table 5-1. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Team Members ...................................................................................139
Table 5-2. Biological Review Team ......................................................................................140
Table 5-3. Expert Contributors to the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and their Area(s) of Expertise ....................141
Table VII-1. Bertie County Agricultural Statistics ....................................................................187
Table VII-2. Production of Commodities, Bertie County, 1987-1997 ......................................187
Table VII-3. Martin County Agricultural Statistics....................................................................188
Table VII-4. Production of Commodities, Martin County, 1987-1997......................................188
Table VII-5. Washington County Agricultural Statistics...........................................................189
Table VII-6. Production of Commodities, Washington County, 1987-1997.............................189
Table VII-7. Northampton County Agricultural Statistics.........................................................190
Table VII-8. Production of Commodities, Northampton County, 1987-1997...........................190
Table VII-9. Halifax County Agricultural Statistics...................................................................191
Table VII-10.Production of Commodities, Halifax County, 1987-1997.....................................191
Table VII-11.Summary of Economic and Population Data in Northeastern
North Carolina Counties ......................................................................................192
1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement to guide the management of the Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge in Bertie County, North Carolina. The plan outlines programs and corresponding resource
needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997.
Before the Service began planning, it conducted a biological review of the Refuge’s wildlife and
habitat management program and conducted public scoping meetings to solicit public opinion of the
issues the plan should address. The biological review team was composed of biologists from
federal and state agencies and non-government organizations that have an interest in the refuge.
The staff held the public scoping meetings at four locations on four evenings. Another round of
public meetings was held to solicit reaction to the proposed alternatives.
The management of flows in the Roanoke River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood
control and Dominion Power for hydroelectric power generation is the major issue affecting the
refuge. The managed flows extend the duration of flooding on the refuge lands. The absence of a
legal right-of-way to the refuge from the uplands limits public access. Extensive flooding limits
administrative access for maintenance, biological surveys, and law enforcement. There is a need
for more extensive biological surveys and monitoring and a demand for education and interpretive
programs that cannot be met.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative 1 was a proposal to maintain
the status quo. The staff does not currently actively manage habitat on the refuge. The staff
surveys populations of neotropical migratory songbirds and forest health and regeneration in
bottomland hardwood forests. The refuge allows the six priority public use activities: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The staff conducts environmental education and interpretation on a request basis only. The zone
law enforcement officer enforces regulations on the refuge, as well as supervising the law
enforcement officers on other area refuges. Six staff members are stationed in Windsor, North
Carolina.
Alternative 2 proposed moderate program increases. The refuge would develop a habitat
management plan and manage all refuge habitats. The staff would survey a wide range of wildlife
on the refuge. The refuge would continue to allow the six priority public use activities, but would
have the capacity to increase the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct regularly
scheduled environmental education and interpretation programs. The Service would build a shop
and equipment storage facility. There would be eleven staff members stationed at Roanoke River,
including a law enforcement officer and public use specialist.
Alternative 3 proposed substantial program increases. The refuge would develop a habitat
management plan and manage all habitats on the refuge and selected easements large enough to
warrant consideration. The staff would survey all wildlife on the refuge. The refuge would increase
further the number of public use opportunities. The Service would build a shop and equipment
storage facility. There would be twenty-two staff members, including a law enforcement officer,
public use specialist, media specialist, and technical specialists (e.g., hydrologist and entomologist.)
The staff selected Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. It advances the refuge program
considerably and outlines programs that would meet both the biological needs of refuge resources
and needs of the public.
2
3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan to
provide a foundation for the management and use of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in
Bertie County, North Carolina. The plan is a working guide for the refuge’s management programs
and actions over the next 15 years.
The refuge is being managed in the floodplain of the Roanoke River, the flows of which are
managed for flood control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and for hydropower generation by a
private power company. These managed flows are not similar in natural timing, frequency, and
duration to the natural flows under which the ecosystem evolved. The controlled flooding events
often occur during the growing season in contrast to the natural flooding events that occurred
predominantly during the dormant season. The controlled events also occur for weeks in contrast to
the natural flooding which rarely lasted more than a single week. The flows are being managed in
such a way that they may have devastating effects on the overall health and diversity of the
200,000-acre bottomland hardwood ecosystem. The managed flows affect every aspect of refuge
management from biological monitoring to habitat management, maintenance, and public use.
The Service developed this plan in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 and Part 602 (National Wildlife Refuge System Planning) of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual. The actions described within this plan also meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The refuge staff achieved compliance with this Act
through the involvement of the public and the incorporation of an Environmental Impact Statement in
this document, with a description of the alternatives considered and an analysis of the environmental
consequences of the alternatives (Chapters III and IV). When fully implemented, this plan will strive
to achieve the vision and purposes of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge.
The plan’s overriding consideration is to carry out the purposes for which Congress established the
refuge. Fish and wildlife are the first priority in refuge management, and the Service allows and
encourages public use (wildlife-dependent recreation) as long as it is compatible with, or does not
detract from, the refuge’s mission and purposes.
A planning team prepared the plan. Members of the planning team included representatives from
various Service programs, including Refuges, Fisheries, Ecological Services, Realty, and Migratory
Birds. In developing this plan, the planning team and refuge staff have incorporated the input of
local citizens and the general public through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings.
The plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being put forward after considering
three alternatives, as described in the plan. After reviewing a wide range of public comments and
management needs, the planning team developed these alternatives in an attempt to determine how
to best meet the goals and objectives of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The proposed
alternative is the Service’s recommended course of action for the future management of the refuge,
and is the basis for this comprehensive conservation plan.
4
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of this comprehensive conservation plan is to identify the role that Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge will play in supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
and to provide guidance to the refuge’s management programs and activities for the next 15 years.
The plan will:
• Provide a clear statement of direction for the future management of the refuge;
• Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of the
Fish and Wildlife Service’s management actions on and around the refuge;
• Ensure that the Service’s management actions, including land protection and recreational
and educational programs, are consistent with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997;
• Ensure that the management of the refuge is coordinated with federal, state, and county or
parish plans; and
• Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for the refuge’s operational,
maintenance, and capital improvement needs.
Perhaps the greatest need of the Service is to communicate with the public and include public
participation in its efforts to carry out the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Many
agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses, and private citizens have developed relationships
with the Service to advance the goals of the refuge System. This plan supports the Partners-in-
Flight Initiative, South Atlantic Coastal Plain Migratory Bird Conservation Plan, North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and National
Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
The purpose of the environmental impact statement for the plan is to determine and evaluate a
range of reasonable management alternatives for Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The staff
generated each alternative with the potential to be fully developed into a final plan. The
environmental impact statement also predicts and evaluates the biological, physical, and
socioeconomic effects of implementing each alternative. From this range of alternatives, the Service
identified the proposed management action.
In accordance with the guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Service identified a
number of issues, concerns, and needs through discussions with the public, agency managers, and
professionals. From these issues and concerns, the Service’s planning team identified a range of
three alternatives, evaluated the possible consequences of implementing each, and selected
Alternative 3 as the preferred management action. In the opinion of the Service and the planning
team, Alternative 3 is the best approach to guide the refuge’s management direction.
To date, general guidance in the 1988 Habitat Preservation Proposal and the National Wildlife
Administration Act of 1966 has guided refuge management. The National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 requires that all national wildlife refuges have a comprehensive
5
conservation plan in place within 15 years to meet the original purposes of the refuge and help fulfill
the mission of the System to ensure integrated management.
DECISIONS TO BE MADE
The Service has identified and evaluated three management alternatives and has identified one of
these as its preferred course of action at this time. However, this does not represent a firm decision.
The Service will consider comments it receives from other agencies and organizations and the
public on this Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The Service will include these comments, along with
consideration of the refuge’s purpose, the Service’s mission, and other relevant factors in its
decisions as to which of the three alternatives it will actually implement. The Service will announce
this choice, along with its rationale, in a Record of Decision. The refuge will then implement the
selected alternative, monitor the response to management, and revise the plan as necessary.
PLANNING STUDY AREA
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge is in northeast North Carolina, and starts less than one mile
northwest of the mouth of the Roanoke River on the Albemarle Sound. The cities of Greenville and
Rocky Mount are the nearest major cities and are located 50 miles southwest and west of the
refuge, respectively. The major towns within the Roanoke River basin moving downstream from the
dam at Roanoke Rapids include Roanoke Rapids, Weldon, Williamston, and Plymouth.
The planning study area for this environmental impact statement includes lands outside the existing
refuge boundary that the Service is studying for inclusion in the National Wildlife Refuge System
and/or partnership planning efforts. The Service presently owns and manages 20,978 acres of the
33,000 acres identified as lying within the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary. The Service will
seek to acquire, from willing sellers, the remaining acres. This environmental impact statement will
identify management on refuge lands. The refuge staff will revise this plan to identify management
of lands within the approved acquisition boundary and update the plan to reflect new lands as the
Service acquires them.
OTHER RELEVANT ACTIVITIES AND PLANS
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the comprehensive conservation plan. Other federal, state, and local agencies;
local communities; non-governmental organizations; and private individuals develop and coordinate
planning initiatives to help restore habitats for fish and wildlife on and off public lands.
The Service is initiating cooperative partnerships in an effort to reduce the declining trend in
biological diversity. Biological planning for species groups targeted in this plan reflects the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, which encompasses the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture and
the Joint Venture between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Fish and
Wildlife Service. The plan also reflects the provisions of the Partners-in-Flight Plan and the South
Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan of 1986 brings together international teams of
biologists from private and government organizations from Canada and the United States. The
partnerships, called Joint Ventures, are working to restore waterfowl and other migratory bird
populations to the levels of the early 1970s by protecting about 6 million acres of priority wetland
habitats from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian Arctic. The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is
6
that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture was the joint
venture formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, and private conservation organizations. The Joint Venture designated the Roanoke River
system as its primary black duck focus area.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds
returning from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration
habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations. Restoration of migratory
songbird populations is also a high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan.
The Partners-in-Flight Plan emphasizes land bird species as a priority for conservation. Habitat
loss, population trends, and the vulnerability of species and habitats to threats are all factors used in
the priority ranking of species. Further, biologists have identified focal species for each habitat type
from which population and habitat objectives and conservation actions will be determined. This list
of focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid migratory bird management on the
refuge.
THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary federal agency responsible for the conservation,
protection, and enhancement of the Nation’s fish and wildlife populations and their habitats.
Although the Service shares some conservation responsibilities with other federal, state, tribal, local,
and private entities, it has specific trustee obligations for migratory birds, threatened and
endangered species, anadromous fish, and certain marine mammals. In addition, the Service
administers a national network of lands and waters for the management and protection of these
resources.
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges totaling over 93
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands and waters specifically managed for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands,
77 million acres, lie in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and
several island territories.
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
The mission of the System, as defined by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, is:
“... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and
where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats within the
United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.”
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 established, for the first time, a clear
mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Act states that the
Service will manage each refuge to:
• Fulfill the mission of the Refuge System;
• Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
• Consider the needs of fish and wildlife first;
7
• Fulfill the requirement of developing a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each unit of the
Refuge System, and fully involve the public in the preparation of these plans;
• Maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System;
and
• Recognize that wildlife-dependent recreation activities including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation are
legitimate and priority public uses.
Following passage of the Act in 1997, the Service immediately began efforts to carry out the
direction of the new legislation, including the preparation of comprehensive conservation plans for all
refuges. The development of these plans is now ongoing nationally. Consistent with the Act, the
Service is preparing all refuge comprehensive conservation plans in conjunction with public
involvement, and is requiring each refuge to complete its plan within a 15-year schedule.
Approximately 37.5 million people visited the country’s national wildlife refuges in 1998, mostly to
observe wildlife in their natural habitats. As this visitation continues to grow, the visitors generate
significant economic benefits to the local communities that surround the refuges. Economists have
reported that national wildlife refuge visitors contribute more than $400 million annually to the local
economies. In addition, the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation
reports that nearly 40 percent of the country’s adults spent $101 billion on wildlife-related
recreational pursuits in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).
Volunteerism continues to be a major contributor to the successes of the Refuge System. In 1998,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million person-hours on the refuges nationwide, a service
valued at more than $20.6 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first;
that ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges
must be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the refuge system serves as a model for
habitat management with broad participation from others.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and subsequent
agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure timely and effective cooperation and collaboration
with other federal agencies and state fish and wildlife agencies during the course of acquiring and
managing refuges. This cooperation is essential in providing the foundation for the protection and
sustainability of fish and wildlife throughout the United States.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission is a state-partnering agency with the Service,
charged with enforcement responsibilities for migratory birds and endangered species, as well as
managing the state’s natural resources. It also manages approximately 1.8 million acres of game
lands in North Carolina, including 29,311 acres within the Roanoke River system.
The Commission coordinates the state’s wildlife conservation program and provides public
recreation opportunities, including an extensive hunting and fishing program, on several game lands
and from several boat ramps located near Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The
Commission’s participation and contribution throughout this comprehensive conservation planning
process has been valuable, and it is continuing its work with the Service to provide ongoing
opportunities for an open dialogue with the public to improve the condition of fish and wildlife
populations on the floodplain of the Roanoke River. Not only has the Commission participated in
8
biological reviews, stakeholder meetings, and field reviews as part of the planning process, it is also
an active partner in annual hunt coordination, planning, and various wildlife and habitat surveys.
The Commission also assists refuge staff in providing special wildlife observation opportunities.
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge provides hunting opportunities for small game, deer,
waterfowl, and wild turkey in cooperation with the Commission. A key part of the planning process
is the integration of common mission objectives between the Service and the Commission.
SOUTH ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN ECOSYSTEM
OVERVIEW
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge lies within a physiographic region known as the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain (Figure 1-1). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 10 million acre
complex of forested wetlands and uplands, dunes, and marshes that extended from Florida to North
Carolina. Historically, the extent and duration of seasonal flooding along the ecosystem’s rivers
fluctuated annually, recharging the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s aquatic systems and creating a
rich diversity of dynamic habitats that supported a vast array of fish and wildlife resources.
THREATS AND PROBLEMS
Forest Loss and Fragmentation
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization
spread throughout the area. It has been estimated that land conversion has cleared 40 percent of
the natural vegetation. The greatest changes to the landscape have been in the form of land
clearing for agriculture and urban development (Hunter et al., 2001).
Although these changes have allowed people to settle and earn a living in the area, they
have had a tremendous effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes have reduced vast areas of bottomland hardwood
forests to forest fragments ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few
large areas that have maintained many or the original functions and values of forested values.
Severe fragmentation has resulted in a significant decline in biological diversity and integrity.
Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that have become extinct, threatened, or
endangered include the red wolf, Bachman’s sparrow, Carolina parakeet, and passenger pigeon.
The Cerulean warbler is a candidate for being listed as federally threatened. A complete list of
threatened and endangered animals in North Carolina is in Table 1-1.
Breeding bird surveys show continuing declines in species and species populations. The avian
species most adversely affected by fragmentation include those that are area-sensitive (dependent
on large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that
depend on special habitat requirements such as mature forests or a particular food source; and/or
those that depend on good water quality.
More than 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds occupy the region. Some of these species,
including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean
warbler, have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and
sustain their existence.
9
Florida
Georgia
Virginia
Alabama
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
South Carolina
West Virginia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
District of ColumbiaDelaware
Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge
0 60 120 240
Miles
Figure 1-1. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic Area.
10
Table 1-1. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species of North Carolina
Region Status Common name Scientific Name
Endangered Falcon, Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum
Endangered Manatee, West Indian Trichechus manatus
Endangered Sea Turtle, Hawksbill Eretmochelys imbricata
Endangered Sea Turtle, Kemp’s Ridley Lepidochelys kempii
Endangered Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea
Endangered Stork, Wood Mycteria americana
Endangered Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
Endangered Tern, Roseate Sterna dougallii
Endangered Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus
Endangered Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae
Endangered Whale, Right Balaena glacialis
Endangered Whale, Sea Balaenoptera borealis
Endangered Whale, Sperm Physeter catodon
Endangered Wolf, Red Canis rufus
Endangered Woodpecker,
Red-cockaded
Picoides borealis
Threatened Alligator, American Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Threatened Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus
Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead Caretta caretta
Coastal
Plain
Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
Endangered Butterfly, Saint Francis’ Satyr Neonympha mitchellii
francisci
Endangered Heelsplitter, Carolina Lasmigona decorata
Endangered Shiner, Cape Fear Notropsis mekistocholas
Endangered Spinymussel, James Pleurobema collina
Endangered Spinymussel, Tar River Elliptio steinstansana
Piedmont
Endangered Wedgemussel, Dwarf Alasmidonta heterodon
Endangered Bat, Gray Myotis grisescens
Endangered Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis
Endangered Bat, Virginia Big-Eared Corynorhinus townsendii
virginianus
Endangered Elktoe, Appalachian Alasmidonta raveneliana
Endangered Mussel, Oyster Epioblasma capsaeformis
Endangered Pearlymussel, Littlewing Pegias fabula
Endangered Spider, Spruce-Fir Moss Microhexura montivaga
Endangered Squirrel, Carolina Northern
Flying
Glaucomys sabrinus
coloratus
Threatened Chub, Spotfin Cyprinella monacha
Mountain
Threatened Turtle, Bog Clemmys muhlenbergii
11
Fragmentation has also brought the forest edge closer to the natural nesting sites of many forest
interior-nesting birds. This structural alteration of the habitat has introduced the brown-headed
cowbird into the nesting zones of forest-interior species. The brown-headed cowbird is a parasitic
nester that lays eggs in the nests of other birds, rather than building a nest of its own. Nestling
cowbirds are typically bigger and more aggressive and out-compete the host species. This results
in poor reproductive success and declining populations of forest interior-nesting species that are
forced to nest near forest edges.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests has left many of the remaining forested tracts
surrounded by agricultural lands. Intensive agriculture has removed most of the forested corridors
along sloughs that formerly connected the forest patches. The loss of connectivity between the
remaining forested tracts hinders the movement of wildlife between tracts and reduces the functional
values of many remaining smaller forest tracts. The lost connections also result in a loss of gene
flow, further endangering the population of natural species. Restoring the connections to allow gene
flow and reestablish travel corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as
the black bear.
Alterations to Hydrology
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland forested wetlands, there have been significant
alterations in the region’s hydrology due to managed stream flows from flood control and
hydroelectric power generation reservoirs, drainage ditches, river channel modification, flood control
levees, deforestation, and degradation to aquatic systems from excessive sedimentation,
contaminants, and urban development.
The natural hydrology of a region connects forested wetlands and indirectly responsible for the
complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on topography and soils. Natural resource
managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to forested wetlands and waterfowl-habitat
relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
Instead of natural hydrology, large-scale man-made hydrological alterations have changed the
spatial and temporal patterns of flooding throughout the entire South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In
addition, these alterations have modified both the extent and duration of annual seasonal flooding.
The alteration of this annual flooding regime has had an adverse effect on the forested wetlands and
their associated wetland-dependent species. In view of the hydrologic changes, it is very difficult – if
not impossible – to fully emulate and reconstruct the structure and functions of a natural wetland.
Restoration of wetland functions is especially difficult since wetlands depend on a dynamic interface
of hydrologic regimes to maintain water, vegetation, and animal complexes and processes (Mitsch
and Gosselink 1993).
Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems
Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers,
sloughs and bayous. Clearing of bottomland hardwood forests has led to an accelerated
accumulation of sediments and contaminants in aquatic systems. Sediment now fills many water
bodies, greatly reducing their surface area and depth. Concurrently, the non-point source runoff of
excess nutrients and contaminants is threatening the area’s remaining aquatic resources. The
Service lists six species of aquatic organisms as threatened and twelve species as endangered in
North Carolina (Table 1-1).
12
Hydrologic alterations have basically eliminated the geomorphologic processes that created oxbow
lakes, sloughs, and river meander scars. Consequently, the protection, conservation, and
restoration of these aquatic resources are of added importance in light of the alterations associated
with flood control and navigation.
Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic
(non-native) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic
systems. These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to
aquatic systems, and choke waterways to a degree that often prevents recreational use.
CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s bottomland hardwood forests and their associated
fish and wildlife resources have prompted the Service to designate this forest type as an area of
special concern. A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is
now underway to implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively
maintain and possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. In addition,
some areas are prioritized as focus areas for reforestation.
It is widely recognized, however, that much of the forested wetlands that have been cleared and
converted to other uses in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain will not be reforested. Some areas would
have lower value for reforestation and are targeted for intensive management for non-forest-dependent
species, such as waterfowl and shorebirds. Through cooperative efforts, apportioning
resources, and the focusing of available programs, the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s biological
diversity can be improved.
Conservationists have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities and establish focus areas
to counter the effects of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. The North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, was established in 1988 to help provide
sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term
management objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs. These needs include those
of wintering migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other
wide-ranging species. Often management for one species or species group conflicts with the
management objectives for another species or species group. The tendency is to pursue short-term
priorities that frequently change as scientific knowledge expands and interests in special resources
shift. Biologists must exercise caution to prevent the start-up of management and restoration
actions that are difficult to reverse and fail to meet the long-term, comprehensive management
needs of the ecosystem or a specific area within the ecosystem. An example might be a tendency
to totally manage Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in an effort to provide habitat for many
species of neotropical migratory songbirds that require a mature forest with a dense shrub
understory. Such an approach may overlook the critical habitat needs of cerulean warblers that
prefer a forest with super emergent trees and a sparse understory.
13
The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to establish breeding bird
objectives for shorebirds and neotropical migratory forest-nesting birds. Partners-in-Flight has
developed bird conservation plans to focus a number of private, state, and federal restoration
programs into specific areas in an effort to provide maximum program benefits for neotropical
migratory forest interior-nesting birds. The goal of this collaborative restoration effort is to provide
islands or blocks of forested habitat in an otherwise highly fragmented landscape. The targeted
block sizes range from 10,000 to 100,000 acres. Such areas are large enough to support viable
populations of various suites of neotropical migratory songbirds. Of course, these areas will also
support other species that depend on large forested blocks. Existing or proposed state wildlife
management areas or national wildlife refuges anchor the plans. The expansion of forested blocks
on public or private land enhances and supports these public lands.
Active management of croplands, moist-soil areas, and forested wetlands on both public and private
land is necessary to meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (Reinecke and Baxter
1996). Effective management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration)
compensates for the spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and hydrologic
alterations have caused throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Appropriately managed, the
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge will make a significant contribution to meeting the objectives
of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. Setting habitat and species objectives from the perspective of
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain is advantageous because it considers the overall landscape and
enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of species throughout their range.
Although forest stand management is probably the best solution for restoring the vast forests that
have been altered by commercial timber management, hydrology (flooding) drives the ecological
system in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The plant and animal community throughout the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain is dependent upon the hydrologic cycle. It is incumbent upon land managers
to manage hydrology in an effort to restore the ecological diversity that once characterized the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain. Land managers can plug canals and install water control structures in an
effort to mimic historic flood cycles and to meet wildlife habitat objectives. However, the best land
management practices will not mitigate the continued disruption of the river’s hydrologic regime to
satisfy the needs of humans.
CHALLENGES
In order for Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge to meet its multiple objectives of national,
regional, and local scope - ranging from forest management to reducing forest fragmentation to
providing for public use – the Service must fund and staff it well above current levels. Securing
adequate funding and personnel and successfully addressing forested wetland alterations and
hydrological functions is the refuge’s biggest challenge. In the interim, as the needed funding and
personnel become available, the refuge must concentrate on its highest priorities without committing
irreversible actions that would preclude future implementation of the desired management programs.
THE REFUGE
LOCATION
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge is in Bertie County, North Carolina. The refuge is named for
the Roanoke River, a 442-mile-long river with a 9,875-square-mile drainage area in North Carolina
and Virginia. The approved acquisition boundary lies in Bertie, Martin, and Halifax Counties; the
Service has only acquired land in Bertie County. The city of Plymouth (population 4,328) lies at the
14
southeast end of the refuge, the city of Windsor (population 2,056) lies 10 miles northeast of the
refuge, and the city of Williamston (population 5,503) lies just southwest of the refuge (Figure 1-2).
The refuge covers a total of 20,978 acres and its southeastern end is the outlet of the Roanoke
River into the Albemarle Sound. This region is part of the physiographic area known as the South
Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service administrative ecosystem known as the
Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program and the North Carolina Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy jointly identified key tracts of the Roanoke River bottomlands and swamps that
contained old-growth timber stands and unique populations of fish and wildlife resources (Lynch and
Crawford 1980; Lynch 1981). In 1981, the Service identified approximately 145,000 acres in the
Roanoke River floodplain supporting significant fish and wildlife resources worthy of protecting
(USFWS 1981). In 1983, Frayer, et al., indicated that in recent years forested wetland habitat
losses have been occurring at a high rate on a national basis. During the 20-year period between
the mid-1950s and 1970s, 92 percent of the national losses in forested wetlands occurred in the
southeastern United States (Hefner and Brown 1984). The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, a 1986 cooperative agreement between the United States and Canada, noted the significant
declines in black duck populations over the previous 30 years. This plan identified the protection of
50,000 acres of black duck migration and wintering habitat along the east coast of the United States.
It also identified concerns about the loss of wood duck breeding and wintering habitats and the need
to maintain pre-breeding, migrating, and wintering habitat for mallards.
The Service, in 1985, focused on the potential of the Roanoke River bottomlands for enhancement
of waterfowl habitat (USFWS 1985). In House Report 99-86, Part 1, filed in May 1985 and in the
Congressional Record of October 14, 1986, the U.S. Congress identified the Roanoke River as a
national priority under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act (16 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.). The Act
would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other federal agencies and state
conservation agencies, to develop a national wetlands priority conservation plan to identify the types
of wetlands and interests in wetlands that should give priority with respect to federal and state
acquisition. The Act cited the last large contiguous tracts of bottomland hardwoods, such as those
of the Roanoke River in North Carolina and others, as examples of areas that should receive
consideration of funding. Experts considered this wetland area of national significance to be the
largest intact, and least disturbed, bottomland forest ecosystem remaining in the mid-Atlantic region
(North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, 1988).
15
PITTPITT
BERTIEBERTIE
MARTINMARTIN
BEAUFORT
WASHINGTON
Plymouth
Williamston
Windsor
Jamesville
Lewiston Woodville
Everetts
Hamilton
Askewville
Bear Grass
NC 32
NC 171
US 17
NC 45
US 64
NC 308
NC 305
US 13
NC 903
US 17
NC 308
NC 45
NC 308
Albemarle
Sound
Chowan
River
0 2 4 8
Miles
Refuge Ownership
Primary Roads
County Boundaries
Major Cities
Open Water
Figure 1-2. The Location and Tracts of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in Bertie County, North Carolina.
16
The Category Concept Plan for Preservation of Black Duck Wintering Habitat specifically identified
the protection of 25,000 acres of forested wetland habitat along the Roanoke River as the Service's
top priority for this category in North Carolina (USFWS 1988). The Service identified approximately
30,000 acres that largely adjoin state lands and would further accomplish its fish and wildlife
resource objectives. The Service prepared a Wildlife Habitat Preservation Proposal for the Roanoke
River National Wildlife Refuge and Final Environmental Assessment in 1988 with an approved
acquisition boundary of 33,000 acres. The Service issued a Finding of No Significant Impact on
May 25, 1988, and established the refuge on August 10, 1989.
The proposed acquisitions qualified for funding under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929,
as amended, (16 U.S.C. 715-715R), the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act of
March 18, 1934, as amended (16 U.S.C. 718-718H), and the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Act of l985 (16 U.S.C. 460d, 460e-4 to 460e-11). The Service dedicated the refuge on October 26,
1991.
The Service acquired the 2,782-acre Rainbow Tract in 1990, the 1,276-acre Askew Tract in 1991;
the 3,748-acre Conine Island Tract, the 1,502-acre Company Swamp Tract, the 1,122-acre
Hampton Swamp Tract, the 2,000-acre Broadneck Tract in 1992; the Great Island, Goodman Island,
and Sunken Marsh Tracts (4,993 acres); the 554-acre Rhodes Tract in 1997; and the 3,001-acre
Town Swamp Tract in 2003 (Figure 1-2) and (Appendix IV).
The Service acquired a Farmers Home Administration tract of 45 acres in fee title ownership in Nash
County in 1992 and a tract of 129 acres in fee title in Sampson County in 1995.
The Service has acquired 98 easements with 75 landowners of 2,870 acres in 19 counties from the
Farmers Home Administration, now the Farm Services Agency (Appendix IV).
Administration
The refuge staff administers the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge from an office located in
Windsor along the Cashie River. They administer 20,978 acres of fee title land in Bertie County, two
satellite fee title tracts acquired by the USDA, Farm Services Agency (174 acres in 2 counties) and
98 conservation easements acquired by the USDA, Farm Services Agency (2,870 acres in 19
counties) throughout eastern North Carolina. The refuge’s current staff includes a Project Leader
(GS-0485-13), a Deputy Project Leader (GS-0485-5/7/9), a Wildlife Biologist (GS-0486-12), an
Office Assistant (GS-0303-06), a Biological Science Technician (GS-0404-006), and an Engineering
Equipment Operator (WG-5716-08).
PURPOSES AND ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The purpose of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge, as reflected in the refuge’s authorizing
legislation, is to protect and conserve migratory birds, and other wildlife resources through the
protection of wetlands, in accordance with the following laws:
...the conservation of wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public benefits they provide and
to help fulfill international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties and conventions….
16 U.S.C., Sec. 3901(b), 100 Stat. 3583 (Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986);
...for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds…. 16
U.S.C. Sec. 664 (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929);
17
...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources…. 16 U.S.C. Sec 742f(a)4; and
...for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and
services…. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f(b)1 (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
The Service’s Environmental Assessment for the proposed establishment of the refuge in 1988
described the refuge’s purpose and importance to migratory birds, particularly waterfowl: To
preserve wintering habitat for mallards, American black ducks, and wood ducks and production
habitat for wood ducks to meet the habitat goals presented in the Ten-Year Waterfowl Habitat
Acquisition Plan and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
The Service further described the refuge purpose in the Approval Memorandum for the purchase of
lands for the establishment of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The Approval Memorandum
states that the primary reason for acquisition and inclusion of the area into the National Wildlife
Refuge System was to preserve wintering habitat for mallards, American black ducks, wood ducks,
and production habitat for wood ducks (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Approval
Memorandum 1988). The Approval Memorandum identified three objectives for which the area
would be managed: to preserve an area which has traditional high use for wintering waterfowl; to
provide additional waterfowl habitat through refuge management; and to establish a waterfowl
sanctuary.
The North American Waterfowl Management Plan’s Atlantic Coast Joint Venture office, working
through a collaborative effort with private, state, and federal agencies, has established additional
habitat objectives for the physiographic area.
REFUGE VISION STATEMENT
The vision for the refuge is as follows:
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge will protect, enhance, and manage high quality habitat for a
diversity and abundance of migratory birds, fish, and other wildlife. Through new and existing
partnerships, the refuge will foster and practice sound conservation in land management and river
flow management to assure the physical and biological integrity of the Roanoke River floodplain.
The refuge will provide compatible wildlife-dependent public use opportunities, including
environmental education, interpretation, and recreation. The refuge will provide increased
opportunities to learn about the ecological and cultural importance of the Roanoke River floodplain.
The refuge will become a national destination, and activities on the refuge will contribute to the local
economy.
REFUGE GOALS
Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Populations: Protect, maintain, and enhance healthy and viable
populations of indigenous migratory birds, wildlife, fish, and plants including federal and state
threatened and endangered species.
Habitat: Restore, maintain, and enhance the health and biodiversity of forested wetland habitats to
ensure improved ecological productivity.
18
Public Use: Provide the public with safe, quality wildlife-dependent recreational and educational
opportunities that focus on the wildlife and habitats of the refuge and the National Wildlife Refuge
System. Continue to participate in local efforts to achieve a sustainable level of economic activity,
including nature-based tourism.
Resource Protection: Protect refuge resources by limiting the adverse impacts of human activities
and development.
Administration: Acquire and manage adequate funding, human resources, facilities, equipment,
and infrastructure to accomplish the other refuge goals.
STEP-DOWN MANAGEMENT PLANS
A comprehensive conservation plan is a strategic plan that guides the future direction of the refuge.
Before the staff can implement some of the strategies and projects, they must prepare or update
detailed step-down management plans. To assist in preparing and implementing the step-down
plans, the staff will develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations. The staff will
develop these plans (Table 1-2) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which
requires the identification and evaluation of alternatives and public review and involvement prior to
their implementation.
Land Protection Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will describe the land
necessary to meet the needs identified by the Service and cooperating agencies and organizations
for fish and wildlife resources in the Roanoke River Valley. It will also describe strategies to protect
that land: fee simple acquisition, acquisition of easements, cooperative agreements with agencies
and organizations, and agreements with private landowners.
Habitat Management Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2008: This plan will describe the overall
desired future habitat conditions needed to fulfill the refuge’s purpose and objectives. The plan will
include sections dealing with each habitat on the refuge. Procedures, techniques, strategies, and
timetables for achieving desired future conditions will be incorporated into an overall plan.
Moist Soil/Water Management Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will describe the
strategies and procedures (timing and duration of flooding and disturbance) for manipulating the
refuge’s water management units to meet habitat management objectives.
Forest Management Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will describe strategies for
meeting refuge forest management objectives. It will include direction on reforestation, wildlife
habitat improvement, and harvest. Also, the plan will address scrub/shrub habitat management.
Fire Management Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan will describe wild and
prescribed fire management techniques that will be employed on the refuge. Wildfire control
descriptions will include initial attack strategies and cooperative agreements with other agencies.
There will be limited use of prescribed fire and its use will consist of hazardous fuel reductions and
as a habitat management tool.
Road Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will describe the layout
of roads on the refuge, the anticipated improvements of each road, the method and timing of
maintenance, and intended function of each road, e.g., public or administrative access.
19
Table 1-2. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Step-Down Management Plans, arranged
by issue sequence in the Goals and Objectives Portion of the Comprehensive
Conservation Plan
Plan Completion Date
Land Protection 2007
Habitat Management 2008
Moist Soil/Water Management 2007
Forest Management 2007
Fire Management 2006
Road 2007
Integrated Pest Management 2009
Nuisance Animal Control 2009
Exotic Plant Control 2009
Visitor Services 2007
Environmental Education 2007
Fishing 2006
Hunting and Trapping 2006
Sign 2006
Wildlife Inventory 2008
Law Enforcement 2006
Integrated Pest Management Plan (Develop and Update), Draft Completion 2009: This plan will
address the complex issue of bringing exotic and nuisance plants and animals to a maintenance
control level on the refuge. It will cover chemical pesticide use (aerial and ground application),
mechanical eradication, and biological controls. The Nuisance/Exotic Animal and Plant control
plans will be incorporated into this plan.
Nuisance Animal Management Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2009: This plan (as part of the
Integrated Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring
techniques for both terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic animals (vertebrate and
invertebrate). The plan will include feral swine, dogs, feral cats, and beaver control.
Exotic Plant Control Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2009: This plan (as part of the Integrated
Pest Management Plan) will describe survey, removal or control, and monitoring techniques for both
terrestrial and aquatic nuisance and exotic plants.
Visitor Services Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will describe the refuge’s
wildlife-dependent recreation, environmental education, and interpretation. Specific issues or items
that will be addressed include facility requirements, site plans, and handicapped accessibility. The
environmental education, fishing, hunting, and sign plans will be incorporated into this plan.
Environmental Education Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2007: This plan will reflect the
objectives and strategies of the comprehensive conservation plan and address environmental
education guidelines following Service standards.
Fishing Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will
address specific aspects of the refuge’s fishing program. It will define season structures, fish areas,
methods, handicapped accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific regulations.
20
Hunting and Trapping Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan (as part of the Visitor
Services Plan) will address specific aspects of the refuge’s hunting program. It will define species to
be hunted/trapped, season structures, hunt areas, methods, all-terrain vehicle use, handicapped
accessibility, facilities needed, and refuge-specific hunting regulations.
Sign Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan (as part of the Visitor Services Plan) will
describe the refuge’s strategy for informing visitors via signage. It will incorporate Service
guidelines.
Biological Inventory/Monitoring Plan (Develop), Draft Completion 2008: This plan will describe
inventory and monitoring techniques and time frames. All plant communities and associations in the
refuge, as well as all trust species (migratory birds, including songbirds, neotropical passerines, and
waterfowl), listed species (federal and state threatened, endangered, and species of concern), and
key resident species shall be inventoried and population trends will be monitored.
Law Enforcement Plan (Update), Draft Completion 2006: This plan will provide a reference to
station policies, procedures, priorities, and programs concerning law enforcement.
LEGAL POLICY
A variety of international treaties, federal laws, and Presidential executive orders guide the
administration of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The documents and acts listed in
Appendix III contain management options under the refuge’s establishing authority and the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 and National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (the legal and policy guidance for the operation of national wildlife
refuges).
THE PLANNING PROCESS
At initial planning meetings, the refuge and planning staff discussed strategies for completing the
plan, identified their issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government
agencies, non-government organizations, businesses, and individual citizens. The Service invited
these agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens to participate in two public scoping
meetings on May 22 and 24, 2001 in Windsor and Halifax, North Carolina. The staff introduced
attendees to the refuge and its planning process and asked them to identify their issues and
concerns. The staff published announcements giving the location, date, and time for the public
meeting in the Federal Register and legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent the
announcements as press releases to local newspapers and as public service announcements to
television and radio stations. In addition, the planning staff placed fifty posters announcing the
meeting in local post offices, local government buildings, and stores.
The Service expanded the planning team’s identified issues and concerns to include those
generated by the agencies, organizations, businesses, and citizens from the local community.
These issues and concerns formed the basis for the development and comparison of the objectives
in the different alternatives described in this environmental impact statement.
The refuge manager and planning staff presented the alternatives to the staff of the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission on March 20, 2002. The Commission staff gave their opinion of the
alternatives and made suggestions for improving them.
21
The objectives were subjects of discussion at a second round of public meetings on April 9 and 11,
2002 in Windsor and Halifax, North Carolina. The planning staff again published announcements
giving the location, date, and time for the public meeting as legal notices in local newspapers. They
also sent press releases to local newspapers and as public service announcements to television and
radio stations. The staff placed seventy-five posters announcing the meeting in local post offices,
local government buildings, and stores.
PLAN REVIEW AND REVISION
The staff will review this comprehensive conservation plan annually to determine the need for
revision. A revision would occur if and when significant information becomes available, such as a
change in ecological conditions or a major refuge expansion. Under the Technical Settlement
Agreement issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to Dominion Power in 2004,
Dominion Power has agreed to an adaptive management approach to address the impacts of
hydropower generation on downstream terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The first 5 years of the
agreement term is a period of baseline data collection. After the initial 5-year period, those impacts
will be assessed and flow releases will be adapted to minimize impacts. The staff review of this plan
will consider those adaptations.
Concurrently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized to review its flood control
operations on the Roanoke River under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. That review
may also result in a change of release of flood waters on the downstream ecosystem. The staff
review of this plan will consider those adaptations.
The staff will augment the final plan by detailed step-down management plans to address the
completion of specific strategies in support of the refuge’s goals and objectives. Revisions to the
comprehensive conservation plan and the step-down management plans will be subject to public
review and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
PLANNING ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The input of local citizens and public agencies, the team members’ knowledge of the area, and the
resource needs identified by the refuge staff and biological review team all contributed to the issues
and concerns addressed in the plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service assembled a planning team (see
Table 5-1) to evaluate the resource needs. The team then developed a list of goals, objectives, and
strategies to shape the management of the refuge for the next 15 years.
These issues provided the basis for developing the refuge’s alternative management objectives and
strategies. These issues played a role in determining the desired future conditions for the refuge
and were considered in the preparation of this long-term comprehensive conservation plan. The
issues and concerns are described below. They are of local, regional, and national significance and
reflect similar issues that were, in part, identified by the public at the planning meetings.
HYDROLOGY
Roanoke River Surface Hydrology
The surface hydrology dominates the management of the refuge and affects all of its resources.
The operators of dams upstream of the refuge on the Roanoke River manage the flows in the river.
The management provides flood control and generation of hydroelectric power. The result of the
managed flow regime designed to accommodate hydropower needs and/or flood control rule curves
22
is a highly altered system with which the floodplain ecosystem did not evolve. Presently, the dam
operators release flows in a way that reduces the magnitude of short duration floods by creating
long-duration moderate floods in the spring and summer months (Figure 1-3). In other words, areas
that once flooded may never flood and areas that do flood are flooded for a much longer period of
time. Prolonged flooding of the floodplain during the wrong time of year has caused water quality in
the river to deteriorate as a result of water low in dissolved oxygen draining back into the river. This
is of special concern when fish eggs and fry are present in the river during the late spring and
summer. At this life stage low levels of dissolved oxygen will kill the eggs and fry. These flows also
affect aquatic resources by minimizing floodplain spawning habitat in the spring, eliminating the
exposure of spawning and resting habitat around bars in the summer, and saturating the banks and
promoting bank erosion. The managed flows affect terrestrial resources by inhibiting plant
regeneration and natural plant successional stages, and the actual killing of viable hardwoods.
Flows flood nests and foraging habitat of birds that nest on or near the ground, and artificially
disperse other wildlife populations. There are also concerns with the quality of the water being
released from the reservoirs behind the dams. In summary, documented science supports the
conclusion that current managed flow regimes have in the past, and are continuing to disrupt normal
evolutionary ecological successional processes that will significantly alter or destroy the ecological
balances normally associated with free flowing hardwood river bottom floodplain systems over time.
Figure 1-3: Hydrograph of river flow before and after dam construction at Roanoke Rapids.
Arrows indicated periods of prolonged flooding during the growing season.
Pre-Dam Flows 1942
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
11/1
12/1
DATE
FLOW (cfs)
23
Post-Dam Flows- 1975
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
9/1
10/1
11/1
12/1
DATE
FLOWS (cfs)
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise
The downstream end of the refuge is at sea level. Seasonally flooded baldcypress and swamp
tupelo trees cover the majority of the refuge. Scientists predict that sea levels along the North
Carolina coast will rise from 2 to 3 feet in the next 100 years due to global warming. That rise in
water levels will change the types of vegetative cover on the refuge. The grass-dominated
freshwater marshes that occupy the fringe of the riverbanks will expand into areas currently covered
by baldcypress and swamp tupelo trees. Baldcypress and swamp tupelo forests will expand into
areas currently occupied by bottomland hardwood forests.
As the habitats change, the wildlife species that inhabit those habitats will also change. Colonial
nesting birds such as herons and egrets that currently utilize tall trees along the river will loose their
roost sites as trees die and fall. New candidate roost trees further upslope will be separated from
open water by freshwater marshes. Cavity nesting
waterfowl, songbirds, and mammals will loose their cavities as the trees they currently use fall, but
other trees further upslope will replace them as cavity trees. The freshwater marshes that will
expand into the former baldcypress - swamp tupelo forests will provide habitat for species of
songbirds and waterfowl not currently inhabiting the refuge.
Drainage
Previous managers of the lands before it was a refuge have dug drainage ditches to facilitate timber
harvest and access for hunting. The canals effectively lower the water table draining subsurface
water during periods of low water. They allow an increase rate of surface water flow from the river
to flood areas behind the natural river levees at moderate river flows. The drainage affects the plant
community on the refuge by providing habitat for species adapted to better drainage close to the
canals and on the tops of spoil banks. Flooding of areas behind natural river levees during the
growing season inhibits plant regeneration and favors species that are better adapted to more
frequent flooding than would have occurred otherwise.
24
The combination of managed stream flows and drainage canals in bottomland forests exposes the
forests to more frequent flooding and draining as documented on the Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge.
FISH AND WILDLIFE POPULATIONS
Threatened and Endangered Species
Recovery and protection of threatened and endangered plants and animals is an important
responsibility delegated to the Service and a priority of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Two
threatened or endangered animals are thought to use (or could use) Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge: the bald eagle (federally threatened) and shortnose sturgeon (federally endangered).
Bald eagles have historically nested on lands now included in the Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge. While eagles are not currently nesting on the refuge, they do nest in adjacent counties and
travel the river corridor. Eight eagles are currently nesting along the Roanoke River below the dam
at Roanoke Rapids. The refuge’s habitat protection and management activities provide suitable
habitat for nesting eagles, and as recovery progresses it is likely that the bald eagle will nest within
refuge boundaries.
Shortnose sturgeon historically occurred in the river. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission caught a shortnose sturgeon in a gillnet in the western Albemarle Sound in 1998. The
refuge can support shortnose sturgeon recovery efforts by protecting and managing riverine habitat
and providing technical assistance to other Service divisions or resource management agencies.
Waterfowl
The scoping process identified the management of all refuge forestland for waterfowl as an issue.
The refuge’s waterfowl objectives guide operation and management actions. In order to meet the
refuge’s waterfowl purpose, the refuge must maintain the forest to meet waterfowl habitat needs and
provide sufficient resting and feeding areas for waterfowl.
Staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and organizations conducted a
Biological Review of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 2000 as part of the
comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives and strategies to enhance
waterfowl habitat.
Neotropical Migratory Birds
Neotropical migratory birds present special management concerns. There are thirty-five breeding
species found along the Roanoke River. Providing habitat (i.e., interior forest) for these birds is one
of the refuge’s major objectives. Strategic forest management compatible with the refuge’s
waterfowl habitat objectives would contribute to the interior forest needs of neotropical migratory
birds. Staff of the Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies and organizations conducted
a Biological Review of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in 1999 and 2000 as part of the
comprehensive conservation planning process. They identified objectives and strategies needed to
meet the minimum feeding and nesting habitat requirements of neotropical migratory birds. The
neotropical migratory birds are also a major focus of the refuge wildlife observation program as
many birders visit the refuge to observe them.
25
Data Needs
Wildlife data collection on the refuge has focused on neotropical migratory birds in one habitat.
Cooperating federal and state agencies, non-government organizations, and the public have all
encouraged the Service to continue that data collection and expand it to include all the wildlife
species on the refuge and the effects of managed river flows, refuge management, and public use
on the diversity and health of the wildlife.
HABITATS
Bottomland Hardwood Management
The refuge was established to protect and manage the forest in the Roanoke River floodplain.
Fishing and hunting are traditional parts of the area’s culture and forest management is seen as a
first step toward maintaining the opportunities for hunting (primarily for white-tailed deer). In
addition, forest areas provide habitat for neotropical migratory bird populations and the associated
public use. Beaver pond management is a significant issue in maintaining forest tracts.
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge is near several large forested tracts in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain Physiographic Zone. Cooperative private-state-federal partnerships under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
recommend for maintenance and stabilization of forested wetland patches of the following quantity
and size: 10 patches over 100,000 acres, 15 patches over 20,000 acres, 7 patches over 10,000
acres, and 30 patches over 6,000 acres. With strategic management, the staff can provide
significant amounts of interior forest with the proper overstory and understory conditions, restored
hydrology, and managed beaver ponds.
Data Needs
Data collection on the refuge has focused on the reproduction and health of bottomland hardwoods.
Cooperating federal and state agencies, non-government organizations, and the public have all
encouraged the Service to continue that data collection and expand it to include all the habitats on
the refuge and the effects of managed river flows, refuge management, and public use on the
diversity and condition of the habitats.
PUBLIC USE
Visitor Services and Education
The refuge is located in Bertie County (2000 population 19,773) within 10 miles of the county seat of
Windsor, North Carolina (population 2,056). There are several local initiatives to promote nature-based
tourism in northeastern North Carolina. The non-profit groups, Partnership for the Sounds
and Roanoke River Partners, promote ecotourism in several rural counties in the region that have an
abundance of natural resources to attract tourists, but are dominated by wetlands that limit
traditional economic development. A few commercial businesses have interests in guiding canoeing
and angling adventures. The refuge is an important link to the other natural areas that together
make these experiences possible. Carefully selected and managed staff, programs, and facilities
will provide the wildlife-dependent environmental education, interpretation, and recreation
opportunities refuge visitors expect.
26
Hunting
Hunting and fishing are integral parts of rural North Carolina culture. It is not surprising that there is
a considerable state and local interest in expanding hunting opportunities. The initial strategy must
be to maintain the quality of hunting at existing levels. Any additional hunting opportunities will be
dependent on providing safe, quality experiences that are compatible with the purposes for which
the Service established the refuge. However, hunting opportunities would be made available to a
greater number of people over a larger land base through the refuge’s continuation of a land
acquisition program.
Fishing
Under current conditions, the refuge cannot expand the area available for fishing opportunities
without compromising the safety of the public. One possible alternative is to develop safe access to
bank fishing areas.
Refuge Access
In general, lack of access, both interior and exterior, limits some public uses on the refuge. No all-weather
roads or trails exist.
The managed flow regime and floodplain hydrology have and will continue to limit road access
regardless of the construction type or location. Future road access improvements will be
appropriately sensitive to floodplain hydrology and ecology. Vehicular access to the Conine Island
and Askew Tracts is available via U.S. Highway 13/17. Private lands between state highways and
refuge access roads limit public vehicular access to other refuge tracts. Presently, these refuge
tracts are only accessible from the river by the public. The general lack of improved access to the
refuge does not limit travel by foot or canoe. The development of seasonal habitat management
roads will also provide improved seasonal public access following acquisition of rights-of-way
through some private holdings. The Service maintains 15 miles of roads and trails that exist within
the refuge. Floodplain hydrology and seasonal weather limit vehicular access to most of the refuge.
Roads that run through sloughs will remain seasonal.
Farm Services Agency Fee Title Tract Access
The refuge staff manages two Farm Services Agency fee title tracts large enough to provide public
use opportunities. The tract located in Sampson County is part of North Carolina’s State Game
Lands program open to public hunting managed by the State of North Carolina. Limited public
access exists. Future refuge land acquisition could provide public access and increased compatible
public use opportunities on these tracts.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
Funding and Staffing
Funding has been insufficient to support refuge programs. Inadequate staff and facilities have
prevented the refuge from realizing its purpose and management objectives. The refuge is not
meeting its wildlife habitat objectives; conducts too few wildlife inventories; has few public use
facilities; has incomplete habitat/wildlife management plans; provides little environmental education,
interpretation, or wildlife observation opportunities; and has limited public access.
27
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources exist on Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. There have been limited
archaeological investigations within the refuge. Within the refuge, previous investigations have
located two archaeological sites (Phelps 1982; Kanaski 2002). The staff must conduct management
activities so as to avoid compromising sensitive sites.
Members of the federally recognized Tuscarora Native American tribe live on a reservation in
Lewiston, Niagara County, New York north of Buffalo. The Service will coordinate any cultural
resource investigations involving Native American sites with the Tuscarora tribe pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.
Land Acquisition and Forest Fragmentation
Congress established the refuge to protect forested areas (bottomland hardwood forests) important
to migratory birds, especially wintering and nesting waterfowl. Since the refuge’s establishment,
conservationists have realized its value as breeding habitat for neotropical migratory songbirds,
many of which require contiguous blocks of several thousand acres of forest. There is a concerted
effort by a number of state and federal agencies and non-government organizations to protect those
contiguous blocks. They have identified the 190,000 acres of the lower Roanoke River floodplain as
an area that should be protected by some means as wildlife management areas, working farms, and
forests. The Service is a partner in that effort. The refuge’s current acquisition boundary reflects the
importance of protecting and managing the Roanoke River’s forested corridor. Many private
properties lie between the forests owned by government agencies and non-government
organizations in the Roanoke River Valley, but they are outside the refuge acquisition boundary.
The refuge has an approved preliminary project proposal that outlines 44,730 additional acres of
high priority habitat that the Service should consider protecting. Such properties are important links
in connecting the conservation areas and providing a continuous forested riparian corridor along the
river. To maintain the potential to protect these lands, the Service must have the authority to
manage and protect (through acquisition of fee title interest or conservation easements) the habitat
between the refuge’s current acquisition boundary and other protected natural resource areas.
Law Enforcement and Refuge Regulation
In the past, the refuge has enforced the applicable laws and regulations through the use of two dual
function law enforcement officers. Those officers are no longer on the refuge staff. Currently, the
refuge depends on the zone law enforcement officer to enforce laws and regulations, and the
amount of time that can be devoted to refuge law enforcement activities is limited. This is
particularly evident during hunting season when the law enforcement workload is at its highest. The
refuge must rely on full-time state law enforcement officers to assist the zone law enforcement
officer. Their workload limits the amount of time they can spend on the refuge.
Other Resource Protection
There are other threats to refuge resources that require closer monitoring and management. Pest
plants and animals and wildlife disease are all concerns to which the refuge should be paying closer
attention.
28
29
II. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
GEOGRAPHIC ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national
wildlife refuges - Alligator River, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay Island,
Mattamuskeet, Pea Island, Pocosin Lakes, Swanquarter, and Roanoke River; and the Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia - are all in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and
Cape Fear Rivers, which the Fish and Wildlife Service classifies as Ecosystem Unit #34.
LOCATION
The refuge’s acquisition boundary is in the middle portion of the Roanoke River's coastal plain
floodplain. The refuge ownership is in the lower portion of the watershed and extends from below
the Fall Zone near Hamilton in Bertie County, North Carolina, downstream to the Albemarle Sound
in Bertie County, North Carolina. Presently, the refuge is divided into four distinct areas below the
fall zone: (1) Broadneck Swamp/Town Swamp (upper middle part of the acquisition boundary); (2)
Company Swamp (upper middle); (3) Askew-Conine (lower middle); (4) Hampton Swamp (lower)
and; Great/Goodman Islands (lower).
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
CLIMATE
Since the flow of air over North Carolina is predominantly from west to east, the continental
influence is much greater than the ocean or marine influence. Therefore, the state experiences a
fairly large variation in temperature from winter to summer.
The Gulf Stream current flows only a short distance off the North Carolina coast. One might think
this "river" of warm water would have a profound effect on the climate. However, the prevalence of
westerly winds limits its direct effects.
Lows usually reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the coast.
Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south
contrasts.
Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the winter
precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer, when rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North
Carolina's driest season, is to many people the most pleasant with its many clear, warm days and
cool nights with little rain. This weather usually lasts until November.
Impacts of occasional hurricanes in Bertie and Martin Counties are secondary; the storms usually
pass off the coast east of the area. The most recent hurricanes that scored direct hits were Floyd in
1999 and Isabel in 2003. Most North Carolina tornadoes occur in the Piedmont and the interior of
the coastal plain, which spares Bertie and Martin Counties. However, tornadoes have touched
down three times since 1992 causing damage to refuge lands and, in one case, maintenance
facilities.
30
The average annual precipitation the past 45 years was 48.88 inches, and the average snowfall was
6.3 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year: average monthly rainfall ranges from
2.75 in November to 5.87 in July.
Of the total annual precipitation, about 27 inches usually falls in April through September. The
growing season for most crops falls within this period. In two years out of ten, the rainfall in April
through September is less than 22 inches. The heaviest one-day rainfall during the period of record
was 14.35 inches at Lewiston on September16, 1999. Thunderstorms occur on about 45 days each
year.
The average seasonal snowfall is about 6 inches. The greatest snow depth at any one time during
the period of record was 14 inches. On an average of three days, at least one inch of snow is on the
ground. The number of such days varies greatly from year-to-year.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 50 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 85 percent. The sun shines 60 percent of the time possible in summer
and 55 percent in winter. The prevailing wind is from the southeast. Average wind speed is highest,
9 miles per hour, in spring.
The average daily maximum temperature from 1958-1981 was 72 degrees F, and the average daily
minimum was 46.8 degrees.
In winter the average temperature is 42 degrees, and the average daily minimum temperature is 30
degrees. The lowest temperature on record, which occurred at Lewiston on January 13, l962, is -1
degree. In summer the average temperature is 76 degrees, and the average daily maximum
temperature is 88 degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which occurred on August 1, 1980,
is 105 degrees.
The last freezing temperature in spring is: one year in ten, May 5; two years in ten, April 29; and five
years in ten, April 16. The first freezing temperature in the fall is: one year in ten, October 8; two
years in ten, October 13; and five years in ten, October 21.
GEOLOGY
Pliocene and lower Pleistocene sediments in the Carolinas were deposited in several distinct basins
believed to be the result of structural downwarping, possibly due to reactivation of older fault
systems. These depocenters were the loci of marine embayments and are bounded by arches over
which less sedimentation has occurred. The major Pliocene-Pleistocene depocenter in North
Carolina, the Albemarle embayment, occupied most of northeastern North Carolina and extended
into southeastern Virginia (Ward, et al., 1991).
The Roanoke-Albemarle system can be divided into three distinctive parts: upper Roanoke River,
lower Roanoke River, and Albemarle Sound estuarine system. The upper Roanoke River (above
the Roanoke Rapids Dam) constitutes the major portion of the river drainage system (87 percent)
and is located within the Piedmont Province. The lower Roanoke River basin (below the Roanoke
Rapids Dam to about 5 miles northeast of Plymouth) constitutes a much smaller portion of the river
drainage basin (13 percent) and is within the Coastal Plain Province. The Roanoke River drains into
the western end of the Albemarle Sound.
The Coastal Plain Province lies east of the Piedmont Province. The Piedmont begins at the "Fall
Line," which is a broad transition zone where the crystalline rocks of the Piedmont (i.e., the igneous
31
and metamorphic rocks that cause the rapids in the Roanoke River at Roanoke Rapids) become
buried by the marine sediments of the Coastal Plain. The Mush Island Tract, the tract of the
acquisition boundary furthest upstream, is immediately downstream from the "Fall Line" or in the
western edge of the Coastal Plain.
Thin beds of Quaternary sediments were deposited on the surface of the Coastal Plain during the
past three million years (Riggs and Belknap 1988). This Quaternary history and the resulting
surface veneer of unconsolidated sediments directly dictates the general characteristics of the
Coastal Plain, including the regional morphology and character of the drainage systems and flooded
estuaries, soil types, and potential land use. Quaternary sediments were deposited by the coastal
system, which rapidly migrated back and forth across the Coastal Plain-Continental Shelf as sea-level
fluctuated in response to repeated episodes of glaciation and deglaciation. Within this rapidly
changing coastal system, extremely varied sediments, including gravel, sands, clays, and peat in all
possible combinations, were deposited in river, estuarine, barrier island, and continental shelf
environments. The Quaternary sediments range from a few meters in thickness in places along the
lower Roanoke River up to 70 meters in the outer Albemarle area (Riggs, et al., in prep.). The
Quaternary history continues today.
MINERALS
Sand is the only mineral resource occurring in economic quantities. Two sand pits are adjacent to
the refuge's Askew tract north boundary in Bertie County. There is a private sand pit west of U.S.
Highway 13/17, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation operates a sand pit east of
U.S. Highway 13/17.
On refuge lands the Service owns all mineral rights on the Broadneck, Rhodes, Company Swamp,
and Conine Island Tracts. The Nature Conservancy has retained the minerals rights on Hampton
Swamp. An unknown party reserved oil and mineral rights on Great and Goodman Islands.
Ownership of oil and mineral rights on the Askew tract are unknown; additional deed research needs
to be done.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
There are two documented sites on the refuge (Phelps 1982; Kanaski 2002). Both sites are located
partially in the river. Due to chronic bank sloughing, it is unknown whether one of the sites still
exists and how much longer the second site will remain intact.
SOILS
Annual floods over the centuries have overtopped the riverbanks, dropping suspended sediments
from upriver to form the levees and ridges of the floodplain. The coarser, heavier sediments fall out
closest to the river, forming the natural levees immediately adjacent to the river channel, while the
finer, lighter sediments (clays) gradually settle in the slack water areas ponded behind the levees.
These sediments are supplemented each year by humus from abundant leaf litter decay resulting in
deep, rich soils. The presence of the three reservoirs upstream has reduced the amount of
sediment deposition in recent years. Soil types identified from the Roanoke River floodplain include
Altavista, Augusta, Bibb*, Chewacla, Conetoe, Congaree, Dorovan*, various Hapludults, Roanoke*,
Una*, Wahee, Wehadkee*, and Wickham. Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in “Hydric Soils
of the United States” (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). Hydric soils are "soils that in their
undrained condition are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season to
develop anaerobic conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic (water loving)
32
vegetation" (USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). (See Figure 2-1 for the hydric and non-hydric
soil location of the Roanoke River floodplain area.)
Soils of the refuge floodplains are predominately of the Wehadkee and Chewacla series that are
nearly level, poorly drained (high water table 6 to 12 inches below the surface), and somewhat
poorly drained (high water table 12 to 18 inches below the surface) and have a loamy surface layer
and subsoil. The soils from North Carolina Highway 11/42 downstream to and including Conine
Island and the Askew Tracts are frequently flooded Wehadkee loams on the lowest elevations and
frequently flooded Chewacla loams on the natural levees and hardwood flats. The soil in the Devil's
Gut area is also the frequently flooded Chewacla loam. The soil on Great and Goodman Islands is
the frequently flooded Dorovan mucky peat. Frequently flooded soils are those that flood at least
once every two years.
HYDROLOGY
The refuge consists entirely of Roanoke River wetlands. These wetlands are in the coastal plain
province or lower portion of the Roanoke River system that begins in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
central Virginia and drains 9,875 square miles. Water is the driving force of the Roanoke River
Refuge's bottomland hardwood communities. Water forms and maintains the floodplain by
transporting and redistributing sediments. It provides seasonal access for aquatic organisms to the
floodplain and transports nutrients and detritus across the floodplain and to estuarine areas.
Sources of water to the Roanoke River system include precipitation and runoff, and the groundwater
that originates from them.
The lower portion streams included in the system that drain, run through, flood, or potentially effect
refuge lands in addition to the Roanoke River are (from upstream to downstream): Indian Creek;
three unnamed river levee breeches in the Broadneck Swamp; Black Gut; one unnamed river levee
breach in Company Swamp; Coniott Creek; one unnamed river levee breach in Askew Tract;
Conoho Creek; one unnamed river levee breach on Conine Island; Conine Creek; Sweetwater
Creek; Spellers Creek; Devil's Gut; Gardner Creek; Cashie River; Broad Creek; Grennell Creek;
Middle River; and Eastmost River.
Patterns of water flow within alluvial systems such as the Roanoke are distinctly seasonal when
unregulated. Highest flows generally occur as a result of winter-spring rains. Lowest flows usually
occur during late summer and fall months. Peaks in the flow may occur at any time due to extreme
storms such as hurricanes. The magnitude of flooding at any site along the lower basin is a function
of the location, as well as river discharge (Wharton, et al., 1982). Discharge peaks are usually
higher in the narrower, upper portions of alluvial rivers and attenuate as the waters reach the
broader, flatter floodplain.
The Roanoke River exhibits the seasonal cycles described above; however, the flow within the
system is greatly regulated by three upstream impoundments. The net effect of the cumulative
operation of these reservoirs is to reduce the peak but extend the duration of flooding in the lower
basin and to cause rapid fluctuations in both discharge and temperature immediately below
Roanoke Rapids Reservoir. The result is that higher elevation areas that once flooded now rarely
flood, and those lower elevation areas that do flood do so for a longer period.
33
BERTIE
MARTINMARTIN
WASHINGTON
CHOWANCHOWAN
Plymouth
Williamston
Windsor
Jamesville
Lewiston Woodville
Everetts
Askewville
Hamilton
NC 45
US 64
NC 308
US 17
NC 171
NC 32
NC 308
NC 45
NC 308
US 17
Albemarle
Sound
Chowan
River
0 1 2 4
Miles
Primary Roads
County Boundaries
Major Cities
Refuge Ownership
Open Water
Farmland
Hydric
Nonhydric
Figure 2-1. Hydric and Non-hydric Soils of the Roanoke River Floodplain Area
34
Organisms that depend on alluvial river systems for life requisites have co-evolved with the seasonal
fluctuations inherent in these systems. Winter and spring flooding provides accessibility and creates
seasonal habitat for fish and waterfowl, which forage and depend on the abundant emergent growth,
mast (acorns), and macroinvertebrates on the floodplain or, which utilize the floodplain for
reproduction. Accessibility to and foraging upon these seasonally available macroinvertebrates are
necessary for wintering waterfowl to ensure that they are in satisfactory condition for successful
breeding after their return migration (Fredrickson 1980; Drobney 1982, 1984; Rundle and Sayre
1983). Fish production in such systems not only depends upon access to this macroinvertebrate
prey but also is dependent upon access to the floodplain for breeding sites (Bryan and Connor 1981;
Wharton et al., 1981). Biologists have documented species such as carp, white catfish, spotted
sunfish, pirate perch, fliers, yellow and brown bullheads, warmouth, hickory shad, blue-backed
herring, alewife, and chain pickerel as breeding on the floodplain, which subsequently serves as
nursery habitat for their larvae and juveniles. The altered flow regime on the river during the
spawning season could negatively impact spawning and nursery habitat of the species enumerated
above. The annual drying of the floodplain is also critical to maintaining the system's integrity and
health. Drydown is necessary for adequate aeration and growth of tree roots, tree seed germination
and sapling establishment, and growth of emergent plants in order to maintain the system's
vegetation.
Deviation from historical patterns and magnitudes of seasonal discharge create imbalances within
the ecosystem. Petts (1984) notes that downstream changes due to upstream impoundments can
occur to both the physical and biological components of the river, floodplain, estuary, and delta.
Such changes may disrupt the life history cycles of organisms that co-evolved with the system.
Some evidence suggests that the lower basin is experiencing such imbalances. Prolonged duration
of flooding within the Roanoke system may eliminate the normal seasonal pattern of drydown and
prevent germination and establishment of young hardwoods, resulting in a gradual shift in the
system's vegetative composition and eliminating an important resource from both an economic and
wildlife management standpoint (Dr. Russ Lee, personal communication).
The decline in the Roanoke River striped bass population may have been partially attributable to the
discharge resulting from reservoir-regulated flows. Changes in seasonal discharge patterns may
result in less-than-adequate attractant flows; attractant flows which are too high; discharges during
spawning which flush eggs and larvae onto the floodplain; discharges which are insufficient for
suspending eggs and larvae; or combinations of these conditions. Hydropower peaking operations
that cause rapid hourly changes also may cause disruptions in spawning activity. A multi-agency
Roanoke River Water Flow Committee investigated the flow issues surrounding the decrease in
Roanoke River striped bass. The committee developed a river flow regime to enhance conditions
for striped bass spring spawning.
Specifically, the combination of managed stream flows and drainage canals in bottomland forests
exposes the forests to more frequent flooding and draining on the Roanoke River National Wildlife
Refuge.
The lower Roanoke River has three stream classifications: (1) Roanoke Rapids Dam downstream
to North Carolina Highway 48 - Class WS3; (2) North Carolina Highway 48 to River Mile 18 at
Jamesville - Class C; and (3) River Mile 18 to river mouth - Class CSw (C Swamp). Each
classification has separate standards. Appendix I contains classification standards for each.
Groundwater is in sequence of sand, clay, and limestone that lie under Bertie County and becomes
thicker from west to east. These beds are about 400 feet thick in the west and increase to about
1,900 feet in thickness in the east. The upper sandy aquifer makes up an average of about 100 feet
35
of these deposits. The limestone aquifer is in the southeastern part of the county and is only a few
inches thick. The lower sandy aquifer makes up the rest of the deposits. In the western third of the
county, these deposits contain only fresh water in all but a few areas. In the center of the county,
the depth to brackish water is about 600 feet. The depth decreases toward the east to a depth of
less than 300 feet in the vicinity of the Chowan River estuary.
FLUVIAL GEOMORPHOLOGY
Water not only plays a major role in determining what and how the flora and fauna is distributed over
the floodplain but is also the driving force in shaping the river channel and its banks. The altered
flow regime on the river has disrupted the natural rhythmic up and down movement of the river
within its channel. Flow regulation results in sustained higher than normal low flow and the
elimination of high peak flows. These sustained low flows have a stage elevation relatively high on
the banks that affect bank morphology. The prolonged stage contributes to extensive undercutting
and bank failure. Eroding banks are particularly evident along the middle reaches of the river along
the refuge’s Broadneck and Company Swamp Tracts and surrounding area. Refuge levee habitat
erodes at a high rate during these prolonged flows. River levee habitat contains the highest
diversity of plant and wildlife along the river. Stands of river cane provides nesting habitat for high
priority neotropical birds (Swainson’s warbler and Kentucky warbler), which are common along
these levees. Eroding levees methodically reduce the amount of cane (habitat) for these important
species. In addition, the undercutting facilitates the relatively rapid felling of large canopy trees into
the river. These trees are a key component in providing suitable nesting habitat for the rare
Cerulean warbler present in this reach.
WATER QUALITY
There are 29 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted sites on the
Roanoke River between the Roanoke Rapids Dam and Plymouth. The sites vary from small
domestic sewage treatment systems to pulp/paper mills. Eight involve domestic sewage systems
for cities and towns, the largest being Roanoke Rapids. The Cashie River has six NPDES permitted
sites. Several NPDES sites discharge into waters adjacent to or directly upstream from refuge
lands/waters. Some of the largest and their NPDES permit numbers are: International Paper,
NC0057657; Roanoke Rapids Sewage Discharge/Roanoke Rapids Waste Water Treatment Plant,
NC0024201; Weldon Waste Water Treatment Plant, NC0025721; Hamilton Waste Water Treatment
Plant, NC0044776; Williamston Waste Water Treatment Plant, NC0020044; United Organics,
NC0068187; Plymouth Waste Water Treatment Plant, NC0020028; and Weyerhaeuser
Company/Plymouth Plant, NC0000680.
In 1990 the North Carolina State Health Director, Dr. Ronald H. Levine, issued dioxin-related health
advisories concerning the consumption of fish from several North Carolina streams including the
Roanoke River and Welch Creek. The health advisories varied depending on the location. Tests
showed dioxin contamination in fish from Welch Creek to be 37.5 parts per trillion. The state
suggests advisories on fish with 3-30 parts per trillion of dioxin and no consumption above 30 parts
per trillion. Therefore, the state bans the consumption of fish from Welch Creek. The advisory
suggests a limit of one meal per month on fish from the Roanoke River below the Roanoke Rapids
Dam. The state has advised pregnant women and nursing mothers not to consume any fish from
the Roanoke River. The state has assigned good-fair bioclassifications from Lewiston-Woodville to
below Williamston based on benthic macroinvertebrate data, the biological community in the
Roanoke River. The state has listed a 28.5-mile stretch of river from Williamston down to the
Albemarle Sound as impaired waters due to the fish consumption advisory due to dioxin levels.
36
Since the 1950s, the Corps of Engineers has managed the flows on the Roanoke River as a flood
control project. Since the 1960s, Dominion Generation has further managed the flows with two
hydroelectric projects. The managed flow regime currently in place sometimes causes dissolved
oxygen levels to fall below the state standard of 5 milligrams/liter on the lower Roanoke River.
These conditions may occur during prolonged periods of low flow or after floodwaters impinged in the
extensive wooded wetlands adjacent Roanoke River lose dissolved oxygen and flow back into the
river. Preliminary investigations conducted by Dominion Generation and the Service also suggest that
hydropower peaking operations may contribute to wetland inundation, further impacting dissolved
oxygen levels in the Roanoke River. On April 1, 1998, the United States Geologic Survey established
five stations to monitor water quality continuously along the Roanoke River. The U.S. Geological
Survey operates the stations and records pH, dissolved oxygen, percent of dissolved oxygen, water
temperature, and specific conductivity every 15 minutes. These stations have documented numerous
episodes of hypoxic conditions on the Roanoke River, some of which lasted for days and weeks. Data
collected by Weyerhaeuser near Plymouth have documented periods of high salinity and low
dissolved oxygen associated with reverse flow in the Roanoke River. Because of natural and
manmade alterations to the flow of the Roanoke River, coupled with existing inputs of oxygen
consuming wastes, the river is unable to accommodate further loads of oxygen consuming materials
and still maintain water quality standards.
AIR QUALITY
Fires and paper pulp mills are the only significant source of air quality degradation in the region.
State law mandates that no source of air pollution shall cause any listed ambient air quality standard
(Section .0400) to be exceeded or contribute to a violation of any listed ambient air quality standard
(Section .0400) except as allowed by Rules .0531 or .0532 [.0401(c), NCAC, Title 15A, Subchapter
2D - Air Pollution Control Requirements (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources)].
Subchapter 2D lists ambient air quality standards for sulfur oxides (measured as sulfur dioxide), total
suspended particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and
particulate matter. Section .0508 enumerates control of particulates from pulp and paper mills.
Section 0.0520 (7) indicates that fires purposely set to forest lands for forest management practices
acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management
Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities
having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential
liabilities of burning even though permissible.
Pulp and paper mills on each end of the approved refuge acquisition boundary may have a negative
impact on air quality. There are two paper pulp mills below the dams at Roanoke Rapids. One mill
operated by International Paper Corporation is located 3-4 miles below the Roanoke Rapids Dam
(approximately 5 miles upstream or northwest of Mush Island). Weyerhaeuser Company owns and
operates the second mill in Plymouth, North Carolina, one-half mile south of Great Island.
VISUAL RESOURCES
The Roanoke River Refuge is part of an extensive bottomland hardwood conservation initiative
within the river basin’s coastal plain reach. The bottomland hardwood forests are the largest intact
and least disturbed bottomland hardwood forests remaining in the mid-Atlantic region. Visitors to
the refuge have the opportunity to experience the solitude, wildness, uninterrupted quiet, and spirit
and adventure with compass and map while observing natural processes on the floodplain. The
casual observer will see large expanses of cypress-gum swamps dominated by tupelo gum and an
37
o