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

              U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Roanoke River
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
&
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
Yellow-crowned
Night-Heron
USFWS Photo
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long-term guidance for
management decisions; set forth goals, objectives, and strategies
needed to accomplish refuge purposes; and identify the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail
program planning levels that are sometimes substantially above
current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans
do not constitute a commitment for staffing increases, operational
and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
October, 2005
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ROANOKE RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Bertie County, North Carolina
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Regional Office
1875 Century Boulevard
Atlanta, Georgia 30345
October 2005
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND
FINAL 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 ..............................................5
Decisions to be Made ..........................................................................................................5
Planning Study Area............................................................................................................5
Other Relevant Activities and Plans ....................................................................................6
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ......................................................................................6
National Wildlife Refuge System................................................................................7
Relationship to State Wildlife Agency ........................................................................8
South Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecosystem..............................................................................8
Overview ....................................................................................................................8
Conservation Priorities .............................................................................................13
Challenges ...............................................................................................................14
The Refuge........................................................................................................................14
Location....................................................................................................................14
Introduction and History ...........................................................................................14
Administration ..........................................................................................................17
Purposes and Ecosystem Context ...........................................................................17
Refuge Vision Statement .........................................................................................18
Refuge Goals ...........................................................................................................18
Step-down Management Plans ................................................................................18
Legal Policy..............................................................................................................20
The Planning Process .......................................................................................................21
Plan Review and Revision.................................................................................................22
Planning Issues and Concerns..........................................................................................22
Hydrology .................................................................................................................22
Fish and Wildlife Populations ...................................................................................25
Habitats ....................................................................................................................26
Public Use ................................................................................................................26
General Administration.............................................................................................27
Resource Protection.................................................................................................28
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 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Fluvial Geomorphology............................................................................................ 35
Water Quality ........................................................................................................... 35
Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 36
Visual Resources..................................................................................................... 36
Biological Environment...................................................................................................... 37
Vegetative Communities.......................................................................................... 37
Fire in Bottomland Hardwoods................................................................................. 39
Wildlife ..................................................................................................................... 40
Insects and Diseases............................................................................................... 42
Exotic Organisms..................................................................................................... 43
Threatened and Endangered Species ..................................................................... 43
Socioeconomic Conditions and Land Use ............................................................... 43
Demographics.......................................................................................................... 44
Land Use ................................................................................................................. 45
Forestry.................................................................................................................... 45
Employment............................................................................................................. 45
Outdoor Recreation ................................................................................................. 45
Outdoor Recreation Economics............................................................................... 49
Tourism.................................................................................................................... 50
Transportation.......................................................................................................... 51
Cultural Environment ............................................................................................... 51
Recreational Uses of the Refuge ...................................................................................... 51
Hunting .................................................................................................................... 51
Fishing ..................................................................................................................... 51
Environmental Education......................................................................................... 52
Interpretation............................................................................................................ 52
Wildlife Observation................................................................................................. 52
Wildlife Photography................................................................................................ 52
Other Recreational Activities.................................................................................... 52
Refuge Infrastructure......................................................................................................... 52
Roads and Trails...................................................................................................... 52
Utility Corridors and Distribution .............................................................................. 53
CommunicationS System........................................................................................ 53
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal ....................................................................... 53
III. ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................... 57
Formulation Of Alternatives............................................................................................... 57
Description of Management Alternatives........................................................................... 57
Alternative 1 - No Action .......................................................................................... 57
Alternative 2 - Moderate Program Improvement...................................................... 60
Alternative 3 - Comprehensive Program Improvement............................................ 61
Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................... 62
Comprehensive Conservation Plan................................................................................... 63
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies ..................................................................................... 64
Alternative 3 - Preferred Alternative .................................................................................. 64
Goal 1. Fish and Wildlife Populations ..................................................................... 64
Goal 2. Habitats ...................................................................................................... 74
Goal 3. Public Use .................................................................................................. 81
Goal 4. Resource Protection................................................................................... 89
Goal 5. Refuge Administration................................................................................ 97
Table of Contents iii
Staffing And Funding ..........................................................................................................118
Partnership Opportunities................................................................................................118
Management Common To All Alternatives ......................................................................120
Compatible Uses....................................................................................................120
Other Management ................................................................................................120
Land Acquisition.....................................................................................................120
Refuge Revenue Sharing.......................................................................................121
Education And Visitor Services ..............................................................................121
Refuge Administration............................................................................................121
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.............................................................................123
Comparison Of Effects Among Management Alternatives ..............................................123
Overview ................................................................................................................123
Biological Environment...........................................................................................123
Physical Environment.............................................................................................126
Social Environment ................................................................................................127
Economic Environment ..........................................................................................128
Effects Common To All Management Alternatives ..........................................................129
Health and Safety Effects.......................................................................................129
Regulatory Effects..................................................................................................129
Cultural and Historic Resources Effects.................................................................129
Uncertainty of Future Action Effects.......................................................................130
Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................130
Mitigation Measures ...............................................................................................132
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION...........................................................................135
SECTION B. APPENDICES
I. GLOSSARY ..........................................................................................................................139
II. REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED.........................................................................145
III. RELEVANT LEGAL MANDATES .......................................................................................153
IV. REFUGE ACQUISITION ....................................................................................................161
V. REFUGE BIOTA..................................................................................................................163
VI. HISTORY OF THE COUNTIES IN THE LOWER ROANOKE RIVER VALLEY .................177
VII. AGRICULTURAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICS ....................................................183
VIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................................................191
IX. DECISIONS AND APPROVALS ........................................................................................201
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ..................................................................201
Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Compatibility Determination ............................207
X. MANAGEMENT METHODS AND PRIORITIES..................................................................223
iv Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
XI. REFUGE OPERATION NEEDS SYSTEM (RONS) PROJECTS....................................... 231
XII. MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MMS) PROJECTS...................................... 247
XIII. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE SERVICE’S RESPONSES.................. 253
Table of Contents v
List of Figures
Figure 1. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain Physiographic
Area .....................................................................................................................................10
Figure 2. Location and Tracts of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in Bertie County, North
Carolina ...............................................................................................................................16
Figure 3: Hydrographs of river flow before and after dam construction at Roanoke Rapids. Arrows
indicate periods of prolonged flooding during the growing season.......................................24
Figure 4. Hydric and Non-hydric Soils of Roanoke River Floodplain Area..........................................33
Figure 5. Vegetative habitat types of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. .................................38
Figure 6. Current Visitor Facilities at the Roanoke River National Wildlife Rfuge (Askew and Conine
Island Tracts). .......................................................................................................................54
Figure 7. Current Visitor Facilities at the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge (Company Swamp,
Broadneck Swamp, Town Swamp Tracts),...........................................................................55
Figure 8. Existing acquisition boundary expansion, Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge............59
Figure 9. Proposed staffing plan for the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge............................118
List of Tables
Table 1. Threatened and endangered species of North Carolina. ......................................................11
Table 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 3. Known ranges of priority birds at Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. .........................41
Table 4. Species of concern on the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. ...................................44
Table 5. Demographic data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley. ......................................................46
Table 6. Land use data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley..............................................................47
Table 7. Forestry data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley in 2000. .................................................48
Table 8. Employment data for the Lower Roanoke River Valley. .......................................................48
Table 9. Projects supporting wildlife strategies....................................................................................73
Table 10. Projects supporting habitat strategies.................................................................................80
Table 11. Projects supporting public use strategies. ..........................................................................88
Table 12. Projects supporting resource protection. .............................................................................95
Table 13. Projects supporting refuge administration strategies. .......................................................100
Table 14. Summary of strategies proposed in each wildlife alternative. ...........................................102
Table 15. Summary of strategies proposed in each habitat alternative. ...........................................104
Table 16. Summary of strategies proposed in each public use alternative.......................................105
Table 17. Summary of strategies proposed in each protection alternative. ......................................107
Table 18. Summary of strategies proposed in each administration alternative.................................109
Table 19. Summary of projects proposed in each alternative...........................................................110
Table 20. Summary of costs of projects proposed in all alternatives................................................112
Table 21. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 1. .......................................................................113
Table 22. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 2. .......................................................................114
Table 23. Cost of projects proposed in Alternative 3. .......................................................................116
Table 24. Comparison of the effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 to Alternative 1. ..................................131
Table 25. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge comprehensive conservation planning team
members.........................................................................................................................135
Table 26. Biological Review Team members....................................................................................136
Table 27. Expert contributors to the Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and their area(s) of expertise. ...........................................................137
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 1
Executive Summary
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement to guide the management of 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 nongovernmental organizations that have an interest in the refuge. The staff held
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 by a private power company for hydroelectric power generation is the major issue affecting the
refuge. The managed flows extend the duration of flooding on 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 is the status quo alternative.
The staff does not currently actively manage habitat on the refuge. The staff surveys populations of
neotropical migratory songbirds and the forest health and regeneration of 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 and supervises the law enforcement officers on other area
refuges. Six staff members are stationed in Windsor, North Carolina.
Alternative 2 proposes moderate program increases. The refuge would survey all habitat types, and
develop and implement a management plan for all refuge habitats. The staff would survey most
major wildlife groups 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 be11 staff members stationed at
Roanoke River, including a law enforcement officer and public use specialist.
Alternative 3 proposes substantial program increases. The refuge would survey all habitat types, and
develop and implement a management plan for all habitats on the refuge and on selected easements
large enough to warrant consideration. The staff would survey a wide range of 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 22 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 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 3
SECTION A. COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed this 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 situated 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 hydroelectric power generation by a private
power company. The timing, frequency, and duration of these managed flows are not similar to the
natural flows under which the ecosystem evolved. The controlled flooding events often occur during
the growing season, in contrast to natural flooding which 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.
Since the establishment of the refuge, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been engaged with
stakeholders affected by the managed river flows. These stakeholders represent a variety of views
on water management in the Roanoke River Valley. Their concerns include ecosystem integrity; the
economic impact of recreational opportunities on the reservoirs; flood control; water supply; and
hydroelectric power generation. Refuge staff and representatives from the Service’s Ecological
Services Office and Fisheries Coordination Office have been active participants in the development of
a relicensing agreement with Dominion Power. 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 hydroelectric power generation on
downstream terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The first five years of the agreement term is a period
of baseline data collection. After the initial five-year period, those impacts will be assessed and the
flow releases will be adapted to minimize impacts.
Concurrently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized to study its flood control
operations on the Roanoke River under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. Refuge staff
and representatives from the Service’s Ecological Services Office and Fisheries Coordination Office,
other federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernmental organizations are all active participants
in the study. Several issues have been identified, including impacts on terrestrial wildlife and habitat;
aquatic resources; channel geomorphology; sedimentation dynamics; water quality; and recreation on
and below the reservoirs. The outcomes of these studies may result in a change of flood control
operations. These changes may bring a more natural flow regime to the downstream ecosystem.
Over the next 15 years, the refuge staff will review this comprehensive conservation plan to consider
any adaptations in releases for both hydroelectric power generation and flood control. The Service
will continue to support a more natural river flow regime that will sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems.
4 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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 the Divisions of Refuges; Fisheries; Ecological Services; Realty;
and Migratory Birds. In developing the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Impact Statement, the planning team and refuge staff incorporated the input of local citizens and the
general public through a series of stakeholder and public scoping meetings. Additional comments
were then received from public review of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement, and have been incorporated in this final plan.
The Comprehensive Conservation Plan represents the Service’s proposed alternative and is being
put forward after considering three alternatives. 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 future management of the refuge, and
is the basis for this comprehensive conservation plan.
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 5
with the Service to advance the goals of the National Wildlife 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
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 considered comments
from other agencies, organizations, and the public on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement for Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. The Service has
included these comments, along with consideration of the refuge’s purpose, the Service’s mission,
and other relevant factors in its decision to identify Alternative 3 as the preferred management
alternative to guide the refuge for the next 15 years. The refuge will then implement the selected
alternative, monitor the responses 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. Greenville and Rocky Mount,
the nearest major cities, 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
6 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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; nongovernmental 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 focus of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
is on the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture is the joint venture
formed between the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the Fish and Wildlife Service,
and private conservation organizations. This joint venture has designated the Roanoke River system
as its primary black duck focus area.
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as primary migration habitat for migratory songbirds returning
from Central and South America. It also provides wintering, breeding, and migration habitat for
midcontinental 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,
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 7
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 National Wildlife Refuge 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;
• 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, significant economic
benefits are generated 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 their growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for
habitat management with broad participation from others.
8 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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. It
is 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. 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 Roanoke River
floodplain. Not only has the Commission participated in 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 the
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 the South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic
region (Figure 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 the 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. These
fragments range in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a few large areas that
have maintained many of the forest’s original functions and values. Severe fragmentation has
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 9
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 warbler, Carolina parakeet, and passenger pigeon. The cerulean warbler is a candidate
for listing as a federally threatened species. Table 1 provides a complete list of the threatened and
endangered animals in North Carolina.
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 the Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kite, wood thrush, and
cerulean warbler, have declined significantly and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover
and sustain their existence.
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.
10 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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. Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain
Physiographic Area
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 11
Table 1. Threatened and endangered species of North Carolina.
Region Status Common name Scientific Name
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
Threatened Silverside, Waccamaw Menidia extensa
Coastal
Plain
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
Endangered Wedgemussel, Dwarf Alasmidonta heterodon
Piedmont
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
12 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Alterations to Hydrology
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of bottomland forested wetlands, significant alterations in the
region’s hydrology have occurred due to managed stream flows from flood control and hydroelectric
power generation reservoirs; drainage ditches; river channel modifications; 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 is 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 12 species as endangered in North
Carolina (Table 1).
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
(nonnative) vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening the 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 13
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 of 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 nonforest-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. Management for one species or species group often 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 prairie warblers that do not tolerate mature
forests, but instead require big gap openings.
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
14 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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 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 the forested wetland alterations and
hydrological functions, is the refuge’s biggest challenge. In the interim, as 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 9,875 square miles of drainage area in North Carolina
and Virginia. The refuge’s 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 southeast end of the refuge. The city of Windsor (population 2,056) is 10 miles northeast of the
refuge, and the city of Williamston (population 5,503) lies just southwest of the refuge (Figure 2). The
refuge covers a total of 20,978 acres, and its southeastern end is at the outlet of the Roanoke River
into Albemarle Sound. This region is part of the physiographic area known as the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain and the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 15
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 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
directed 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 be given 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 for 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).
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, and the 2,000-acre Broadneck Tract in 1992; the Great Island, Goodman Island, and
Sunken Marsh tracts (4,993 acres) and the 554-acre Rhodes Tract in 1997; and the 3,001-acre Town
Swamp Tract in 2003 (Figure 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).
16 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 2. Location and tracts of Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in Bertie County,
North Carolina
PITTPITT
BERTIE
MARTIN
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
NC−45
NC−308
US−17
NC−308
􀀀       􀀀  

   
   􀀀  

Albemarle
Sound
Chowan
River
􀀀
0 2 4 8
Miles
Refuge Ownership
Primary Roads
County Boundaries
Major Cities
Open Water
􀀀     
   
 
􀀀   
 

   
 
  
   

  
 
     
 
   
 
     
     
  
  
  
   
 
     
    
   
 
   

   
 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 17
ADMINISTRATION
The refuge’s administrative office is located in Windsor along the Cashie River. The refuge staff
administers 20,978 acres of fee title land in Bertie County; two satellite fee title tracts acquired by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Services Agency (174 acres in two counties); and 98
conservation easements acquired by the Farm Services Agency (2,870 acres in 19 counties)
throughout eastern North Carolina. The refuge’s current staff includes a Project Leader, a Deputy
Project Leader, a Wildlife Biologist, an Office Assistant, a Biological Science Technician, and an
Engineering Equipment Operator.
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);
“...for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife
resources…” (6 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 that 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.
18 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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.
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 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 19
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.
Table 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
20 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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.
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, the National
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 21
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, and the 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 developing the
plan, identified their issues and concerns, and compiled a mailing list of likely interested government
agencies, nongovernmental 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 locations, dates, and times for the public meetings in the
Federal Register and in legal notices in local newspapers. The staff also sent press releases to local
newspapers and public service announcements to television and radio stations. In addition, the
planning staff placed 50 posters announcing the meetings 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.
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 locations, dates, and times for the public meetings as legal notices in local newspapers.
They also sent press releases to local newspapers and public service announcements to television
and radio stations. The staff placed 75 posters announcing the meetings in local post offices, local
government buildings, and stores.
After considering and evaluating the issues, concerns, comments, and suggestions received from the
aforementioned public meetings, the planning staff developed the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. This draft was completed and distributed to the public for
review and comment from March 30 to July 18, 2005. A Notice of Availability for public review of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement was published in the
Federal Register on March 30, 2005. Press releases and public service announcements were also
sent to local newspapers and television and radio stations to inform the public of the availability of the
draft for review and comment.
During this public review period, the refuge and planning staffs hosted two public forums on May 15
and 16, 2005. One was held at the Windsor, North Carolina, community building (the town in which
the refuge headquarters is located); and the other was held at the Halifax County Agricultural Center
(located near the northern end of the refuge’s approved acquisition boundary). Each forum was held
from 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The forums started as an open house with the refuge staff available to
discuss the draft plan and refuge operations with the audience. A 30-minute formal presentation on
the draft plan was then made, followed by a facilitated discussion to solicit open-floor comments on
the plan. A recorder wrote the comments on a flip chart, and the comments were then transcribed
after the forums.
22 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
A total of 15 individuals submitted comments on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement, either in writing or at the two public forums. Some of these
comments have been incorporated in this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement. A summary of the comments and the Service’s responses to them
are provided in Appendix XIII.
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 five years of the
agreement term is a period of baseline data collection. After the initial five-year period, those impacts
will be assessed and flow releases will be adapted to minimize impacts.
Concurrently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been authorized to study its flood control
operations on the Roanoke River under Section 216 of the Flood Control Act of 1970. This study
may also result in a change of floodwater releases on the downstream ecosystem. Over the next 15
years, the staff will consider those adaptations in its annual reviews of this comprehensive
conservation plan.
The staff will augment the final plan by developing 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 25, Chapter V) 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 Roanoke River’s surface hydrology dominates management of the refuge and affects all of its
resources. The flows of the river are managed by dam operators upstream of the refuge, primarily for
flood control and hydroelectric power generation. This managed flow regime has resulted in 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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 23
moderate floods in the spring and summer months (Figure 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 the river’s water quality
to deteriorate, resulting in waters with low dissolved oxygen levels 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 also affect terrestrial resources by inhibiting plant regeneration and natural plant
successional stages, and the actual killing of viable hardwoods. The 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, although there is little documentation of the effects of managed river flows on the
Roanoke River ecosystem, documented science supports the conclusion that managed flow regimes
have disrupted and are continuing to disrupt the normal evolutionary ecological successional
processes of floodplains, and will significantly alter or destroy the ecological balances normally
associated with free-flowing, hardwood river bottom floodplain systems over time (Beasley and
Hightower 2000; Boon et al. 1992; Collier et al. 1996; Fontaine and Bartell 1983; Hunt 1988; Jackson
and Marmulla 1999; Ligon et al. 1995; Merona et al. 2001; Petts 1984; Poff and Hart 2002; Pringle et
al. 2000; Ruane et al. 1986; Trush et al. 2000; Vaughn and Taylor 1999).
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise
The downstream end of the refuge is at sea level. Seasonally flooded bald cypress 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 bald
cypress and swamp tupelo trees. Bald cypress 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 lose 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 lose 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 bald cypress - swamp tupelo forests
will provide habitat for species of songbirds and waterfowl not currently inhabiting the refuge.
Drainage
Before the refuge became established, previous land managers dug drainage ditches to facilitate
timber harvest and access for hunting. These canals still exist on the refuge today. They effectively
lower the water table, draining subsurface water during periods of low water. They allow an
increased rate of surface water flow from the river to flood areas behind the natural river levees at
moderate river flows. This drainage affects the refuge’s plant community by providing habitat for
24 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 3: Hydrographs of river flow before and after dam construction at Roanoke Rapids.
Arrows indicate 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)
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)
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.
The combination of managed stream flows and drainage canals in the bottomland forests exposes
the forests to more frequent flooding and draining, as documented on the Roanoke River National
Wildlife Refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 25
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 gill net 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 U.S. 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 35 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 U.S. 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.
Neotropical migratory birds are also a major focus of the refuge’s wildlife observation program, as
many birders visit the refuge to observe them.
Data Needs
Wildlife data collection on the refuge has focused on neotropical migratory birds in one habitat.
Cooperating federal and state agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the public have all
encouraged the Service to continue that data collection and expand it to include all the wildlife
26 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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. Maintenance and stabilization of the area’s forested wetland
patches is an important goal of cooperative private-state-federal partnerships under the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners in Flight, and the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
These partnerships recommend the protection and management of forested patches in the following
quantities and sizes: 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 refuge 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, nongovernmental 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). Several local initiatives work to promote nature-based
tourism in northeastern North Carolina. Two nonprofit 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 recreational opportunities
that refuge visitors expect.
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
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 27
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 limited and will continue to limit road
access, regardless of construction type or location. Future road access improvements will be
appropriately sensitive to the refuge’s 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. The general lack of improved access to the
refuge does not limit travel by foot or canoe, however. Development of seasonal habitat
management roads following acquisition of rights-of-way through some private holdings will provide
improved seasonal public access. 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. One tract, located in Sampson County, is part of North Carolina’s State Game
Lands program, and is open to public hunting managed by the State of North Carolina. Public access
is limited. 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.
28 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are present on Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge. Although the number of
archaeological investigations has been limited, two archaeological sites have been located (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, north of Buffalo, New York. 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. A number of state and federal
agencies and nongovernmental organizations are undertaking a concerted effort 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 this 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 nongovernmental 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 Regulations
In the past, the refuge has enforced 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 one zone law enforcement officer to enforce laws and regulations, and the
amount of time that can be devoted to this effort is limited. This is particularly evident during the
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
Other threats to refuge resources require closer monitoring and management. Pest plants and
animals and wildlife disease are all concerns to which the refuge should be paying closer attention.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 29
II. Affected Environment
GEOGRAPHIC ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The refuge is one of the 10 national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those 10 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 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 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.
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; the average monthly rainfall ranges
from 2.75 in November to 5.87 in July.
30 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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 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 Fahrenheit, 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 is 88.
The highest recorded temperature, which occurred on August 1, 1980, is 105 degrees.
The last freezing temperature in spring is: one year in 10, May 5; two years in 10, April 29; and five
years in 10, April 16. The first freezing temperature in the fall is: one year in 10, October 8; two years
in 10, October 13; and five years in 10, 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
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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 31
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 the 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 mineral 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 is unknown; additional deed research needs to
be done.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Two archaeological sites are documented 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) vegetation"
(USDA, Soil Conservation Service 1985). (See Figure 4 for the hydric and non-hydric soil locations of
the Roanoke River floodplain area.)
32 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
Soils of the refuge floodplains are predominately of the Wehadkee and Chewacla series, which 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 Tract 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.
In addition to the Roanoke River, the lower portion streams included in the system that drain, run
through, flood, or potentially affect refuge lands 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 the 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 peaks 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.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 33
Figure 4. Hydric and Non-hydric Soils of Roanoke River Floodplain Area
BERTIE
MARTIN
WASHINGTON
CHOWANCHOWAN
Plymouth
Williamston
Windsor
Jamesville
Lewiston−Woodville
Everetts
Askewville
Hamilton
NC−45
US−64
NC−308
US−17
NC−171
NC−32
US−17
NC−308
NC−45
NC−308
􀀀       􀀀  

   
   􀀀  

Albemarle
Sound
Chowan
River
0 1 2 4
Miles
Primary Roads
County Boundaries
Major Cities
Refuge Ownership
Open Water
Farmland
Hydric
Nonhydric
􀀀
34 Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
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 and reproduction habitat for fish and waterfowl, which forage and depend on the abundant
emergent growth, mast (acorns), and macroinvertebrates. Accessibility to and foraging upon
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. 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) noted 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’s 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 multiagency
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 the 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
of these deposits. The limestone aquifer is in the southeastern part of the county and is only a few
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 35
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 flows 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 provide 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 warblers 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.