Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

              Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
November 2008
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
SWANQUARTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
HYDE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southeast Region
Atlanta, Georgia
November 2008
Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Table of Contents i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
I. Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Purpose And Need For The Plan ................................................................................................. 3
Fish and Wildlife Service .............................................................................................................. 3
National Wildlife Refuge System .................................................................................................. 4
Legal and Policy Context .............................................................................................................. 5
National and International Conservation Plans and Initiatives ..................................................... 7
Relationship To State Wildlife Agency .......................................................................................... 8
II. Refuge Overview .............................................................................................................................. 9
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 9
Refuge History and Purposes ....................................................................................................... 9
Special Designations .................................................................................................................. 11
Ecosystem Context ..................................................................................................................... 13
Regional Conservation Plans and Initiatives .............................................................................. 13
Ecological Threats and Problems ............................................................................................... 15
Regional Habitat Loss and Fragmentation ........................................................................ 15
Regional Alterations To Hydrology .................................................................................... 16
Regional Siltation of Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................................... 16
Regional Proliferation of Invasive Aquatic Plants .............................................................. 17
Regional Conservation Priorities ....................................................................................... 17
Physical Resources .................................................................................................................... 18
Climate .............................................................................................................................. 18
Geology and Topography .................................................................................................. 19
Soils ................................................................................................................................. 20
Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 24
Water Quality .................................................................................................................... 24
Biological Resources .................................................................................................................. 25
Habitat ............................................................................................................................... 25
Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 29
Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 33
Socioeconomic Environment ...................................................................................................... 34
History ............................................................................................................................... 34
Land Use ........................................................................................................................... 35
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 35
Employment ...................................................................................................................... 35
Forestry ............................................................................................................................. 36
Outdoor Recreation In The Area ....................................................................................... 37
Outdoor Recreation Economics .................................................................................................. 39
Tourism ............................................................................................................................. 40
Transportation ................................................................................................................... 40
Cultural Environment ......................................................................................................... 41
ii Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Administration and Management ................................................................................... 41
Land Protection and Conservation ................................................................................... 41
Education and Visitor Services ......................................................................................... 41
Personnel, Operations, and Maintenance......................................................................... 44
III. Plan Development ......................................................................................................................... 47
Public Involvement and the Planning Process ........................................................................... 47
Summary of Issues, Concerns, and Opportunities ..................................................................... 48
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 48
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 49
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 50
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 50
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 51
Wilderness Review ........................................................................................................... 51
IV. Management Direction ................................................................................................................ 53
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 53
Vision ........................................................................................................................................ 53
Goals, Objectives, and Strategies .............................................................................................. 54
Fish and Wildlife Population Management........................................................................ 54
Habitat Management......................................................................................................... 55
Resource Protection ......................................................................................................... 57
Visitor Services ................................................................................................................. 58
Refuge Administration ...................................................................................................... 61
V. Plan Implementation .................................................................................................................... 65
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 65
Proposed Projects ...................................................................................................................... 65
Funding and Personnel .............................................................................................................. 69
Partnership/Volunteers Opportunities ........................................................................................ 70
Step-Down Management Plans .................................................................................................. 72
Monitoring and Adaptive Management ....................................................................................... 74
Plan Review and Revision.......................................................................................................... 74
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 75
Appendix B. References and Literature Citations ......................................................................... 87
Appendix C. Relevant Legal Mandates and Executive Orders ..................................................... 93
Appendix D. Public Involvement ................................................................................................... 107
Summary Of Public Scoping Comments .................................................................................. 107
Draft Plan Comments and Service Responses ........................................................................ 113
Appendix E. Appropriate Use Determinations ............................................................................. 117
Appendix F. Compatibility Determinations .................................................................................. 129
Table of Contents iii
Appendix G. Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation ........................................................ 147
Appendix H. Wilderness Review ................................................................................................... 155
Appendix I. Refuge Biota ............................................................................................................... 157
Appendix J. Budget Requests ....................................................................................................... 175
Appendix K. List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 181
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 181
Appendix L. Draft Coastal Zone Consistency Determination ..................................................... 185
Appendix M. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................... 191
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 191
Appendix N. Finding of No Significant Impact ............................................................................. 195
iv Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County, North Carolina ........... 10
Figure 2. Location of Wilderness Areas at Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge. ............................ 12
Figure 3. Swanquarter, Mattamuskeet, & Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuges in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain Ecosystem. ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Characteristics of Soils of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge ................................. 22
Figure 6. Current Boundary of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 42
Figure 7. Current staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge shared with Swanquarter Refuge .............. 71
Figure 8. Proposed future staffing chart of Mattamuskeet Refuge to be shared with Swanquarter
Refuge ................................................................................................................................. 71
Table of Contents v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Acquisition History of the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge .......................................... 11
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy Ranking of Vegetative Communities of Swanquarter National
Wildlife Refuge ....................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Animal Species of the
North Carolina Coastal Plain ................................................................................................. 16
Table 4. Characteristics of Soils of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge ......................................... 23
Table 5. Classifications of Water Bodies and Streams Surrounding the Swanquarter
National Wildlife Refuge ........................................................................................................ 25
Table 6. Acreage by Habitat or Land Use under Fee Title Ownership at Swanquarter National Wildlife
Refuge. ................................................................................................................................. 26
Table 7. Hyde County Agricultural Statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture ................. 36
Table 8. Commodity Production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997 USDA
Census of Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 37
Table 9. Economic and Population Data for Northeastern North Carolina Counties .......................... 38
Table 10. Staff of Mattamuskeet, Swanquarter, and Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuges - 2007 . 45
Table 11. Projects Supporting Wildlife Strategies. ............................................................................... 65
Table 12. Projects Supporting Habitat Strategies. ............................................................................... 66
Table 13. Projects Supporting Resource Protection Strategies ........................................................... 67
Table 14. Projects Supporting Visitor Services Strategies. .................................................................. 68
Table 15. Projects Supporting Refuge Administration Strategies ........................................................ 68
Table 16. Summary of Projects. ........................................................................................................... 69
Table 17. National Wildlife Refuge step-down management plans .................................................... 72
Table 18. Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Core Planning Team
Members. ............................................................................................................................. 191
Table 19. Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Biological Review
Team Members. ................................................................................................................... 192
Table 20. Expert Contributors to the Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and their Area(s) of Expertise. ............................................................... 193
vi Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Executive Summary 1
Executive Summary
The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared this Comprehensive Conservation Plan to guide the
management of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge in Hyde County, North Carolina. The plan
outlines programs and corresponding resource needs for the next 15 years, as mandated by the
National Wildlife Refuge System 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 refuge
staff held six public scoping meetings at five locations. A thirty day public review and comment period
of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment was provided.
The Service developed and analyzed three alternatives. Alternative A was a proposal to maintain the
status quo or current management. The staff would manage the refuge with prescribed fire
conducted by employees from other refuges according to the fire management plan. Staff from
Mattamuskeet Refuge would maintain the Bell Island Pier and Swanquarter Refuge’s grounds, clean
up dumpsites, and pick up litter. Staff from other refuges would survey waterfowl from the air on a
routine basis. The refuge would also monitor colonial nesting birds, wading birds, neotropical
migrating songbirds, shorebirds, and red wolves. The refuge would allow all six priority public use
activities: waterfowl hunting for 300 hunter days, fishing for 8,000 angler days, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, environmental education and interpretation. The refuge staff would not plan to
conduct environmental education and interpretation programs, but would allow others to conduct
programs at the refuge. The Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet Refuge located
ten miles from Swanquarter Refuge. The Mattamuskeet Refuge staff would handle peak workloads
at Swanquarter Refuge.
Alternative B proposed moderate program increases. The staff would manage the refuge with
prescribed fire conducted by employees from other refuges, but comprehensive monitoring of the
prescribed burning would be conducted and the fire management plan would be adapted as needed
based on monitoring results. Staff from Mattamuskeet Refuge would maintain the Bell Island Pier
and Swanquarter Refuge’s grounds, clean up dumpsites, and pick up litter. Staff from other refuges
would survey waterfowl from the air on a routine basis. The refuge would also monitor colonial
nesting birds, wading birds, neotropical migrating songbirds, shorebirds, red wolves, marsh birds,
reptiles, amphibians, and deer. The refuge would allow all six priority public use activities, and would
evaluate increasing waterfowl hunting to 400 hunter days, introducing deer hunting with archery
equipment for 100 hunter days, and fishing for 9,000 angler days. The refuge staff would conduct
two to ten environmental education programs, and would develop and maintain an interpretative trail
or boardwalk on the refuge. The refuge staff would plan to participate in two outreach events
annually. The Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet Refuge located ten miles from
Swanquarter Refuge. The Mattamuskeet Refuge staff would handle peak workloads at Swanquarter
Refuge and would have an annual goal of 300 hours of contributed volunteer work from college
interns and community residents.
Alternative C proposed a greater increase in refuge programs than Alternative B. The staff would
manage the refuge with prescribed fire conducted by employees from other refuges, followed by
comprehensive monitoring of the prescribed burning. Staff from Mattamuskeet Refuge would
maintain the Bell Island Pier and Swanquarter Refuge’s grounds, clean up dumpsites, and pick up
2 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
litter. Staff from other refuges would survey waterfowl from the air on a routine basis. The refuge
would also monitor colonial nesting birds, wading birds, neotropical migrating songbirds, shorebirds,
red wolves, marsh birds, reptiles, amphibians, deer, other mammals and invertebrates. The refuge
would allow all six priority public use activities, and would evaluate increasing waterfowl hunting to
400 hunter days, introducing deer hunting with archery equipment and primitive firearms for 200
hunter days, and fishing for 10,000 angler days. The refuge staff would conduct ten to fifteen
environmental education programs, and would develop and maintain an interpretative trail or
boardwalk and a canoe trail. The refuge staff would plan to participate in four outreach events
annually. The Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet Refuge located ten miles from
Swanquarter Refuge. The Mattamuskeet Refuge staff would handle peak workloads at Swanquarter
Refuge and would have an annual goal of 1,000 hours of contributed volunteer work from college
interns and community residents.
The Service selected Alternative B as its preferred alternative as reflected in this comprehensive
conservation plan. Alternative B addresses the refuge’s highest priorities with reasonable increases
in staffing, volunteers, and funding.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3
I. Background
INTRODUCTION
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was
prepared to guide management actions and direction for the refuge. Fish and wildlife conservation
will receive first priority in refuge management; wildlife-dependent recreation will be allowed and
encouraged as long as it is compatible with, and does not detract from, the mission of the refuge or
the purposes for which it was established.
A planning team developed a range of alternatives that best met the goals and objectives of the
refuge and that could be implemented within the 15-year planning period. The draft of this CCP was
made available to state and federal government agencies, conservation partners, and the general
public for review and comment. The comments from each entity were considered in the development
of this CCP, describing the Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) preferred plan.
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN
The purpose of the CCP is to develop a proposed action that best achieves the refuge purpose;
attains the vision and goals developed for the refuge; contributes to the National Wildlife Refuge
System (Refuge System) mission; addresses key problems, issues, and relevant mandates; and is
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management.
Specifically, the CCP is needed to:
􀁹􇤠 Provide a clear statement of refuge management direction;
􀁹􇤠 Provide refuge neighbors, visitors, and government officials with an understanding of Service
management actions on and around the refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that Service management actions, including land protection and recreation/education
programs, are consistent with the mandates of the Refuge System; and
􀁹􇤠 Provide a basis for the development of budget requests for operations, maintenance, and
capital improvement needs.
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
The Service traces its roots to 1871 and the establishment of the Commission of Fisheries involved
with research and fish culture. The once-independent commission was renamed the Bureau of
Fisheries and placed under the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903.
The Service also traces its roots to 1886 and the establishment of a Division of Economic Ornithology
and Mammalogy in the Department of Agriculture. Research on the relationship of birds and animals
to agriculture shifted to delineation of the range of plants and animals, so the name was changed to
the Division of the Biological Survey in 1896.
The Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries, was combined with the Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey, on June 30, 1940, and transferred to the Department of the
Interior as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The name was changed to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife in 1956 and finally to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1974.
4 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
The Service, working with others, is responsible for conserving, protecting, and enhancing fish and
wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people through federal programs
relating to migratory birds, endangered species, interjurisdictional fish and marine mammals, and
inland sport fisheries (142 DM 1.1).
As part of its mission, the Service manages more than 540 national wildlife refuges covering over 95
million acres. These areas comprise the National Wildlife Refuge System, the world’s largest
collection of lands set aside specifically for fish and wildlife. The majority of these lands, 77 million
acres, are in Alaska. The remaining acres are spread across the other 49 states and several United
States territories. In addition to refuges, the Service manages thousands of small wetlands, national
fish hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services field stations. The Service
enforces federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act, manages migratory bird
populations, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat, and helps
foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the Federal Aid program that
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing and hunting equipment to state
fish and wildlife agencies.
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
legislative mission of wildlife conservation for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Actions were
initiated in 1997 to comply with the direction of this new legislation, including an effort to complete
comprehensive conservation plans for all refuges. These plans, which are completed with full public
involvement, help guide the future management of refuges by establishing natural resources and
recreation/education programs. Consistent with this Act, approved plans will serve as the guidelines
for refuge management for the next 15 years. The Act states that each refuge shall be managed to:
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill the individual purposes of each refuge;
􀁹􇤠 Consider the needs of wildlife first;
􀁹􇤠 Fulfill requirements of comprehensive conservation plans that are prepared for each unit of
the refuge system;
􀁹􇤠 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; and allow refuge managers authority to determine
compatible public uses.
The following are just a few examples of your national network of conservation lands. Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge, the first refuge, was established in 1903 for the protection of colonial nesting
birds in Florida, such as the snowy egret and the brown pelican. Western refuges were established for
American bison (1906), elk (1912), prong-horned antelope (1931), and desert bighorn sheep (1936) after
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5
over-hunting, competition with cattle, and natural disasters decimated once-abundant herds. The drought
conditions of the 1930s Dust Bowl severely depleted breeding populations of ducks and geese. Refuges
established during the Great Depression focused on waterfowl production areas (i.e., protection of prairie
wetlands in America’s heartland). The emphasis on waterfowl continues today but also includes
protection of wintering habitat in response to a dramatic loss of bottomland hardwoods. By 1973, the
Service had begun to focus on establishing refuges for endangered species.
Approximately 38 million people visited national wildlife refuges in 2002, most to observe wildlife in
their natural habitats. As the number of visitors grows, there are significant economic benefits to local
communities. In 2001, 82 million people, 16 years and older, fished, hunted, or observed wildlife,
generating $108 billion. In a study completed in 2002 on 15 refuges, visitation had grown 36 percent
in seven years. At the same time, the number of jobs generated in surrounding communities grew to
120 per refuge, up from 87 jobs in 1995, pouring more than $2.2 million into local economies. The 15
refuges in the study were Chincoteague (Virginia); National Elk (Wyoming); Crab Orchard (Illinois);
Eufaula (Alabama); Charles M. Russell (Montana); Umatilla (Oregon); Quivira (Kansas);
Mattamuskeet (North Carolina); Upper Souris (North Dakota); San Francisco Bay (California); Laguna
Atacosa (Texas); Horicon (Wisconsin); Las Vegas (Nevada); Tule Lake (California); and Tensas River
(Louisiana), which are the same refuges identified for the 1995 study. Other findings also validate the
belief that communities near refuges benefit economically. Expenditures on food, lodging, and
transportation grew to $6.8 million per refuge, up 31 percent from $5.2 million in 1995. For each
dollar spent on the Refuge System, surrounding communities benefited with $4.43 in recreation
expenditures and $1.42 in job-related income (Caudill and Laughland, unpubl. data).
Volunteers continue to be a major contributor to the success of the Refuge System. In 2002,
volunteers contributed more than 1.5 million hours on refuges nationwide, a service valued at
more than $22 million.
The wildlife and habitat vision for national wildlife refuges stresses that wildlife comes first; that
ecosystems, biodiversity, and wilderness are vital concepts in refuge management; that refuges must
be healthy and growth must be strategic; and that the Refuge System serves as a model for habitat
management with broad participation from others.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) stipulates that
CCPs be prepared in consultation with adjoining federal, state, and private landowners and that the
Service develop and implement a process to ensure an opportunity for active public involvement in
the preparation and revision (every 15 years) of the plans.
All lands of the Refuge System will be managed in accordance with an approved CCP that will guide
management decisions and set forth strategies for achieving refuge unit purposes. The CCP will be
consistent with sound resource management principles, practices, and legal mandates, including Service
compatibility standards and other Service policies, guidelines, and planning documents (602 FW 1.1).
LEGAL AND POLICY CONTEXT
Legal Mandates, Administrative and Policy Guidelines, and Other Special Considerations
Administration of national wildlife refuges is guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, congressional legislation, executive orders, and international treaties. Policies for
management options of refuges are further refined by administrative guidelines established by the
6 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Secretary of the Interior and by policy guidelines established by the Director of the Fish and Wildlife
Service. Select legal summaries of treaties and laws relevant to administration of the Refuge System
and management of the Swanquarter NWR are provided in Appendix C.
Treaties, laws, administrative guidelines, and policy guidelines assist the refuge manager in making
decisions pertaining to soil, water, air, flora, fauna, and other natural resources; historical and cultural
resources; research and recreation on refuge lands; and provide a framework for cooperation between
Swanquarter NWR and other partners, such as the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and private
landowners, etc. Projects that affect coastal resources will be submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of Coastal Management, individually, for consistency and
concurrence as they are proposed for execution.
Lands within the Refuge System are closed to public use unless specifically and legally opened. No
refuge use may be allowed unless it is determined to be compatible. A compatible use is a use that,
in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, will not materially interfere with or detract
from the fulfillment of the mission of the Refuge System or the purposes of the refuge. All programs
and uses must be evaluated based on mandates set forth in the Improvement Act. Those mandates
are to:
􀁹􇤠 Contribute to ecosystem goals, as well as refuge purposes and goals;
􀁹􇤠 Conserve, manage, and restore fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats;
􀁹􇤠 Monitor the trends of fish, wildlife, and plants;
􀁹􇤠 Manage and ensure appropriate visitor uses as those uses that benefit the conservation of
fish and wildlife resources and contribute to the enjoyment of the public; and
􀁹􇤠 Ensure that visitor activities are compatible with refuge purposes.
The Improvement Act further identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses. These uses
are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. As priority public uses of the Refuge System, they receive priority consideration over
other public uses in planning and management.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
The Improvement Act directs the Service to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future
generations of Americans. The policy is an additional directive for refuge managers to follow while
achieving refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It provides for the consideration and
protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found on refuges and
associated ecosystems. When evaluating the appropriate management direction for refuges,
refuge managers will use sound professional judgment to determine their refuges’ contribution to
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health at multiple landscape scales. Sound
professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, the refuge's
role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, and best available science, including consultation with
others both inside and outside the Service.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Multiple partnerships have been developed among government and private entities to address the
environmental problems affecting regions. There is a large amount of conservation and protection
information that defines the role of the refuge at the local, national, international, and ecosystem
levels. Conservation initiatives include broad-scale planning and cooperation between affected
parties to address declining trends of natural, physical, social, and economic environments. The
conservation guidance described below, along with issues, problems, and trends, was reviewed and
integrated where appropriate into this CCP.
This CCP supports, among others, the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, and the National Wetlands
Priority Conservation Plan.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative. Started in 1999, the North American Bird
Conservation Initiative is a coalition of government agencies, private organizations, academic
institutions, and private industry leaders in the United States, Canada, and Mexico, working to ensure
the long-term health of North America's native bird populations by fostering an integrated approach to
bird conservation to benefit all birds in all habitats. The four international and national bird initiatives
include the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Partners-in-Flight, Waterbird Conservation
for the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
is an international action plan to conserve migratory birds throughout the continent. The plan's goal is
to return waterfowl populations to their 1970s levels by conserving wetland and upland habitat.
Canada and the United States signed the plan in 1986 in reaction to critically low numbers of
waterfowl. Mexico joined in 1994, making it a truly continental effort. The plan is a partnership of
federal, provincial/state and municipal governments, non-governmental organizations, private
companies, and many individuals, all working towards achieving better wetland habitat for the benefit
of migratory birds, other wetland-associated species and people. Plan projects are international in
scope, but implemented at regional levels. These projects contribute to the protection of habitat and
wildlife species across the North American landscape.
Partners-in-Flight Bird Conservation Plan. Managed as part of the Partners-in-Flight Plan, the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic area represents a scientifically based land bird
conservation planning effort that ensures long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native land
birds, primarily non-game land birds. Non-game land birds have been vastly under-represented in
conservation efforts, and many are exhibiting significant declines. This plan is voluntary and non-regulatory,
and focuses on relatively common species in areas where conservation actions can be
most effective, rather than the frequent local emphasis on rare and peripheral populations.
U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a partnership effort
throughout the United States to ensure that stable and self-sustaining populations of shorebird
species are restored and protected. The plan was developed by a wide range of agencies,
organizations, and shorebird experts for separate regions of the country, and identifies conservation
goals, critical habitat conservation needs, key research needs, and proposed education and outreach
programs to increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats they face.
Northern American Waterbird Conservation Plan. This plan provides a framework for the
conservation and management of 210 species of waterbirds in 29 nations. Threats to waterbird
populations include destruction of inland and coastal wetlands, introduced predators and invasive
8 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
species, pollutants, mortality from fisheries and industries, disturbance, and conflicts arising from
abundant species. Particularly important habitats of the southeast region include pelagic areas,
marshes, forested wetlands, and barrier and sea island complexes. Fifteen species of waterbirds are
federally listed, including breeding populations of wood storks, Mississippi sandhill cranes, whooping
cranes, interior least terns, and Gulf Coast populations of brown pelicans. A key objective of this plan
is the standardization of data collection efforts to better recommend effective conservation measures.
RELATIONSHIP TO STATE WILDLIFE AGENCY
A provision of the Improvement Act, and subsequent agency policy, is that the Service shall ensure
timely and effective cooperation and collaboration with other state fish and game agencies and tribal
governments during the course of acquiring and managing refuges. State wildlife management areas
and national wildlife refuges provide the foundation for the protection of species, and contribute to the
overall health and sustenance of fish and wildlife species in the State of North Carolina.
The NCWRC provides 1.8 million acres of public hunting, fishing, and trapping through the Game
Lands Program. The NCWRC manages the state’s freshwater fisheries through research, fisheries
management, operation of six fish hatcheries, and habitat conservation to protect the resources and
provide diverse fishing experiences. It also manages and monitors the health and status of the
state’s wildlife populations in a manner which will assure a diverse wildlife resource for future
generations of North Carolinians. The NCWRC administers educational programs designed to
facilitate conservation of the state’s wildlife and other interrelated natural resources and the
environment people share with them. It has the responsibility for administrating the sale of hunting
and fishing licenses and the registration and titling of vessels to the public. The NCWRC is also
charged with enforcing state rules and regulations and maintaining over 1,200 buoys and navigational
aids statewide.
The state’s participation and contribution throughout this planning process will provide for ongoing
opportunities and open dialogue to improve the ecological sustenance of fish and wildlife in the State
of North Carolina. An essential part of comprehensive conservation planning is integrating common
mission objectives where appropriate.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9
II. Refuge Overview
INTRODUCTION
Swanquarter NWR is located on the Pamlico Sound in Hyde County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The
refuge is located at the southern end of a broad, flat and swampy peninsula in northeastern North
Carolina, and is surrounded by brackish marsh and cropland. The Service named the refuge for the
nearby village of Swan Quarter, the county seat of Hyde County. The village of Swan Quarter
(population of 275 in the year 2000) is located at the northern boundary of the refuge, and the village
of Engelhard (population of 1,561 in the year 2000) is fifteen miles east of the eastern boundary of
the refuge. The major metropolitan area of Raleigh – Durham – Chapel Hill, North Carolina
(population of 1,038,703 in the year 2000) is 180 miles west of the refuge, and Norfolk – Virginia
Beach – Hampton Roads, Virginia (population of 1,569,541 in the year 2000) is 150 miles north of the
refuge. The Pamlico Sound borders the southern boundary of the refuge. This region is part of the
physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain and the Service’s administrative
ecosystem known as the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear Ecosystem.
REFUGE HISTORY AND PURPOSES
The refuge was established by presidential order on June 23, 1932 under the authority of the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act, which prescribes the following purpose to the refuge:
“. . . for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 16
U.S.C. Sec. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 prescribed the following purpose to the refuge:
“. . .for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and
wildlife resources . . . for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its
activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative
covenant or condition of servitude….” 16 U.S.C. Sec. 742f (b)(1) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).
In addition, because a portion of the refuge (54 percent) was designated a Wilderness Area
on October 19, 1976, the purposes of the Wilderness Act of 1964 are supplemental purposes
of the refuge:
“Wilderness areas . . . shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people in
such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to
provide for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness….”
16 U.S.C. 1 1 21.
Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered the refuge area’s
landscape. All of the Swanquarter NWR lands and a 27,082-acre portion of the Pamlico Sound
adjacent to the refuge were closed to hunting, taking, or molesting of game birds by Executive Order
2129 on July 18, 1935. The Order was amended on September 5, 1977, to allow hunting on specific
tracts of the refuge. The Service approved an acquisition boundary of 16,411.09 acres and has
acquired this land over seven decades (Table 1).
10 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
US−264
NC−94
US−264
􀀀 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Miles
Swanquarter NWR Boundary
Swanquarter NWR Proclamation Boundary
Roads
Open Water
County Boundaries
To Engelhard
HYDE COUNTY
Swan Quarter
New Holland
To Belhaven
PAMLICO
COUNTY
Rose Bay
Deep Bay
Swanquarter Bay
Deep Cove
Caffee Bay
PAMLICO SOUND
Juniper Bay
Judith Island
Swanquarter Island
Great
Island
Figure 1. Location of Swanquarter NWR in Hyde County, North Carolina
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11
Table 1. Acquisition history of the Swanquarter NWR
DATE TRACTS ACRES COST
COST
PER
ACRE
TOTAL
ACREAGE
CUMULATIVE
COST
1932 2 11,830.19 $47,320.84 $4.00 11,830.19 $47,320.84
1933 2 3,519.15 $13,074.41 $3.71 15,350.34 $60,394.25
1935 1 151.42 $605.68 $4.00 15,501.76 $61,000.93
1980 1 142.33 $0.00 $0.00 15,644.09 $61,000.93
1992 1 768,00 $0.00 $0.00 16,411.09 $61,000.93
Total 16,411.09 $61,000.93
SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Approximately 8,800 acres of the refuge have been designated a Wilderness Area under the National
Wilderness Preservation System (Figure 2). Most of the Wilderness Area is brackish marsh.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program has designated most of the refuge, with the exception
of the roads, as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. The Nature Conservancy ranks certain
vegetative communities as imperiled or rare (Table 2).
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality has designated several water bodies in the vicinity of
Swanquarter NWR as outstanding resource waters or high-quality waters. (See Table 5 in the
Chapter II Physical Resources, Water Quality Section.)
Table 2. The Nature Conservancy ranking of vegetative communities of Swanquarter NWR
Vegetative Community State Rank Global Rank
Low Pocosin S2 G3
Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest S3 G3
Cypress – Gum Swamp S3 G4
S1 = Critically imperiled in North Carolina because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to
extirpation in the state.
S2 = Imperiled in North Carolina because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extirpation in the state.
S3 = Rare or uncommon in North Carolina.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction
throughout its range.
G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise very vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range, or found locally in a restricted area.
G4 = Apparently secure globally, although it may be quite rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
12 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
US−264
NC−94
US−264
􀀀 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
Miles
Swanquarter NWR Boundary
Wilderness Areas
Swanquarter NWR Proclamation Boundary
Roads
Open Water
County Boundaries
To Engelhard
HYDE COUNTY
Swan Quarter
New Holland
To Belhaven
PAMLICO
COUNTY
Rose Bay
Deep Bay
Swanquarter Bay
Deep Cove
Caffee Bay
PAMLICO SOUND
Juniper Bay
Judith Island
Swanquarter Island
Great
Island
Figure 2. Location of wilderness areas at Swanquarter NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13
ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
Swanquarter NWR lies within a physiographic area known as the South Atlantic Coastal Plain (Figure
3). The South Atlantic Coastal Plain was once a 25-million-hectare (62-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.
The refuge is one of the ten national wildlife refuges in eastern North Carolina. Those ten national
wildlife refuges (Alligator River, Pea Island, Cedar Island, Currituck, Great Dismal Swamp, Mackay
Island, Mattamuskeet, Roanoke River, Pocosin Lakes, and Swanquarter) and the Back Bay NWR in
Virginia are all located in the watersheds of the Roanoke, Tar, Neuse, and Cape Fear Rivers, which
have collectively been designated as Ecosystem Unit # 34, the Roanoke – Tar – Neuse – Cape Fear
Ecosystem, by the Service.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PLANS AND INITIATIVES
Along with the Service’s legal mandates and initiatives, other planning activities directly influence the
development of the CCP. Various groups and agencies develop and coordinate planning initiatives
involving regional, state, and local agencies; local communities; non-governmental organizations; and
private individuals 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 CCP reflects the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, which includes the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, the Joint Venture
between NCWRC and the Service, Partners-in-Flight Plan, and the South Atlantic Migratory Bird
Initiative (SAMBI).
The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture focus is that of the middle and upper Atlantic coast. Within the
Atlantic Coast Joint Venture was the joint venture formed among the NCWRC, the Service, and
private conservation organizations. The South Atlantic Coastal Plain serves as a primary migration
habitat for migratory songbirds returning from Central and South America. It also provides wintering,
breeding, and migrating habitat for mid-continental wood duck and colonial bird populations.
Restoration of migratory songbird populations is a high priority of the Partners-in-Flight Plan for the
South Atlantic Physiographic Region.
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 from local offices of the Service, the NCWRC, and
conservation organizations such as the Audubon Society and Nature Conservancy have identified
focal species for each habitat type from which they will determine population and habitat objectives
and conservation actions. This list of focal species, objectives, and conservation actions will aid
migratory bird management on the refuge.
The Farm Bill programs, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have state level plans
and priority ranking systems in which the Service has input. The Service also utilizes these programs
to assist private landowners in the vicinity of national wildlife refuges to manage habitat for wildlife or
to protect their land with easements.
14 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Florida
Georgia
Virginia
Alabama
Kentucky
North Carolina
Ohio
Tennessee
South Carolina
West Virginia
Maryland
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
District of Columbia Delaware
􀀀    
     

   
   
         
      
0 60 120 240 􀀀
Miles
Indiana
            

   
   
         
                 

   
   
         
      
Figure 3. Swanquarter, Mattamuskeet, and Cedar Island NWRs in the South Atlantic Coastal
Plain Ecosystem
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15
The NCWRC has its own Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy to help direct the state’s
allocation of funds from the federally funded State Working Grants Program. The Service has
provided input to the development and execution of the strategy. The Service, in conjunction with the
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, and in particular the North Carolina Coastal Reserve
Program, will ensure the proposed activities of this plan are consistent with the state’s coastal
management program.
ECOLOGICAL THREATS AND PROBLEMS
REGIONAL HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION
The South Atlantic Coastal Plain has changed markedly over the last 100 years as civilization spread
throughout the area. Scientists have 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 negative effect on biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health of the
South Atlantic Coastal Plain. The changes have reduced vast areas of forests, pocosins, marshes,
and coastal dunes to fragments, ranging in size from very small tracts of limited functional value to a
few large areas that have maintained many of the original functions and values of forested habitat.
Severe fragmentation has resulted in a substantial decline in biological diversity and integrity.
Species endemic to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain that are now extinct, endangered, or threatened
include the piping plover, sea turtle, red wolf, and red-cockaded woodpecker (Table 3).
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 (e.g., those dependent on
large continuous blocks of hardwood forest); those that depend on forest interiors; those that depend on
special habitat requirements (e.g., mature forests or a particular food source); and/or those that depend
on good water quality. Habitat loss in general has affected species dependent on coastal marshes, and
exposed sandy areas on beaches, sandbars, and within dune ecosystems.
More than 300 species of breeding migratory songbirds inhabit the region. Some of the inland species,
including Swainson’s warbler, prothonotary warbler, swallow-tailed kites, wood thrush, and cerulean
warbler, have declined substantially and need the benefits of large forested blocks to recover and sustain
their existence. On the Outer Coastal Plain, songbirds, such as seaside sparrow, saltmarsh sharp-tailed
sparrow, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, depend on declining marsh habitat. The secretive
marshbirds—black rail and yellow rail—require brackish marsh. The threatened piping plovers, red knots,
least terns, black skimmers, and American oystercatchers are shorebirds that nest on the decreasing
acreage of unvegetated sand along beaches and among coastal dunes.
Fragmentation of bottomland hardwood forests in the interior areas of the coastal plain 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. Restoring the connections to allow gene flow and reestablish travel
corridors is particularly important for some wide-ranging species such as the black bear.
16 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Table 3. Federally listed threatened and endangered animal species of the North Carolina
Coastal Plain
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 Sturgeon, Shortnose Acipenser brevirostrum
Endangered Wolf, Red* Canis rufus
Endangered Woodpecker, Red-cockaded** Picoides borealis
Threatened*** Alligator, American* Alligator mississippiensis
Threatened Plover, Piping** Charadrius melodus
Threatened Sea Turtle, Green Chelonia mydas
Threatened Sea Turtle, Loggerhead** Caretta caretta
* Presence Documented on Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
** Other Species Listed in Hyde County, North Carolina
*** Listed by Similarity of Appearance
Habitat loss on the Outer Coastal Plain is more permanent than in the interior. Conversion of
marshes for commercial development is irreversible. Conversion of pocosins and nonriverine
hardwood forests for agriculture results in the oxidation of the organic soils on which those plant
communities evolved.
REGIONAL ALTERATIONS TO HYDROLOGY
In addition to the loss of vast acreages of marshes and bottomland forested wetlands, there have
been substantial alterations to the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s hydrology. The changes are the
result of construction of flood control and hydroelectric power generation reservoirs/dams, river
channel modifications, creation of drainage ditches, installation of flood control levees, deforestation,
degradation of aquatic systems due to excessive sedimentation and contamination, and urban
development. The natural hydrology of a region is directly responsible for the connectedness of
wetlands and indirectly responsible for the complexity and diversity of habitats through its effects on
topography and soils. Natural resource managers recognize the importance of dynamic hydrology to
wetlands and waterfowl-habitat relationships (Fredrickson and Heitmeyer 1988).
REGIONAL SILTATION OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
Deforestation and hydrologic alteration have degraded aquatic systems, including lakes, rivers,
sloughs, bays, and sounds. 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. Non-point source runoff of excess nutrients
and contaminants is also threatening the area’s aquatic resources. Increased turbidity, caused by the
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17
sediment influx, limits light penetration in the water column which consequently limits the growth of
submerged aquatic vegetation. The federally listed threatened and endangered animal species
include four species of aquatic organisms as threatened and ten species as endangered that inhabit
the coastal plain of North Carolina (Table 3).
Drainage ditches in coastal marsh habitats expose more areas of the marshes to fluctuations in water
levels with tidal cycles. As the tides come into the marsh, water saturates more soil on ditch banks.
As the tide goes out, the banks erode and the tides carry sediments into the bays and sounds. Over
the years, this erosion results in a loss of wetland acreage.
REGIONAL PROLIFERATION OF INVASIVE AQUATIC PLANTS
Compounding the problems faced by aquatic systems is the growing threat from invasive aquatic
vegetation. Static water levels caused by the lack of annual flooding and reduced water depths
resulting from excessive sedimentation have created conditions favorable for the establishment and
proliferation of several species of invasive aquatic plants. Additionally, the introduction of exotic (non-native)
vegetation capable of aggressive growth is further threatening viability of aquatic systems.
These invasive aquatic species threaten the natural aquatic vegetation important to aquatic systems,
and choke waterways to a degree that limits biodiversity and often prevents recreational use.
Common reed (Phragmites australis) is the most dominant of these plants on the Outer Banks and
the refuge, and it has a negative impact on the marshes in the area.
REGIONAL CONSERVATION PRIORITIES
The declines in the area of 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. These areas are of particular concern as habitat for neotropical migratory
songbirds that only breed in the interior of large forested areas. They also provide habitat for fish-eating
raptors that require forested habitat close to water in which to perch and from which to fish.
The forests protect the aquatic habitat for interjurisdictional fish and other aquatic organisms. Much
of the development has been for crop production and these areas may have potential for restoration.
Many government habitat restoration programs focus on bottomland forests.
In the Outer Coastal Plain, the loss of marshes, pocosins, and nonriverine hardwood forests has not been
as great in acreage or percentage of habitat lost, but there was originally much less of these habitat types.
Although wetland protection legislation regulates development in marshes, the public desires to live and
recreate in these areas and destruction thus continues. Pocosins and nonriverine hardwood forests have
been logged, cleared, and drained for crop production. The fish and wildlife species associated with
these habitats are in much greater jeopardy than those associated with bottomland hardwood forests.
This is because the potential for restoring these habitats is lower than it is for bottomland forests since the
habitat loss is due to land use conversion to residential, commercial, and agricultural development.
Conservationists must mitigate habitat loss by intensive management of the habitat that remains with
practices such as prescribed fire and water management.
A collaborative effort involving private, state, and federal conservation partners is now underway to
implement a variety of tools to restore the functions and values of wetlands in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain. The goal is to prioritize and manage wetlands to most effectively maintain and
possibly restore the biological diversity in the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Through cooperative
efforts, apportioning resources, and the focusing of available programs, conservationists can improve
the South Atlantic Coastal Plain’s biological diversity.
18 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Conservationists have initiated several coordinated efforts to set priorities and establish focus areas
to overcome the impacts of hydrologic changes and forest fragmentation. Conservation
organizations and agencies established a cooperative private-state-federal partnership, known as the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, in 1988 to help provide
sufficient wintering waterfowl habitat throughout the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
The initial Atlantic Coast Joint Venture effort for waterfowl has expanded to also establish breeding
bird objectives for shorebirds and neotropical migratory 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 birds.
One of the biggest challenges to the management and restoration efforts underway in the South Atlantic
Coastal Plain, and one that affects refuges in particular, is the need to meet long-term management
objectives that address comprehensive ecosystem needs. These needs include those of wintering
migratory waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, shorebirds, large mammals, and other wide-ranging
species. Often management for one species or species group conflicts with the management objectives
for another species or species group. Biologists must exercise caution to avoid 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. As an example, management of
Swanquarter NWR for herbaceous wetlands to increase waterfowl diversity may overlook the critical
habitat needs of neotropical migratory songbirds that prefer a shrubby habitat.
Active management of wetlands, moist-soil areas, and croplands on both public and private land is
necessary to meet the habitat goals of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (Reinecke and Baxter 1996).
The management (i.e., vegetation manipulation and hydrology restoration) helps compensate for the
spatial and temporal habitat changes that deforestation and hydrologic alterations have caused
throughout the South Atlantic Coastal Plain. Appropriately managed, Swanquarter NWR will make a
substantial 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 looks at the big picture and enables managers to plan and provide habitat for a diversity of
species throughout their range.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
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, which is true to a degree.
Temperatures on the coast are typically warmer in winter months and cooler during summer months
than mainland Hyde County due to the temperature of surrounding waters.
Lows sometimes reform along the coast as "Cape Hatteras lows" and then move north along the
coast. Winter's low-pressure storms are usually more intense because of the large north-to-south
contrasts. Winter's storms bring prolonged periods of steady rain and are responsible for most of the
winter precipitation. The forms of precipitation in spring begin to change from these steady rains to
occasional thunderstorms. The Gulf of Mexico's warm, moist air produces warm, humid weather
throughout the summer. Rainfall comes from occasional thunderstorms. Autumn, North Carolina's
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19
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. Winter is cool and has brief occasional
cold spells. Snowfall is not common.
The average annual precipitation is 52.50 inches. Rainfall is evenly distributed throughout the year:
average monthly rainfall ranges from 3.24 inches in April to 6.50 inches in August. The average
seasonal snowfall is about 0.7 inches. The record snowfall was 4.0 inches at New Holland on
January 8, 1973. Twelve inches fell on the Outer Banks on January 23, 2003. Twenty-five inches is
the record at Elizabeth City, North Carolina.
Of the total annual precipitation, about 26 inches usually falls in May through September. The
growing season for most crops falls within this period. Thunderstorms occur on about 43 days
each year. Every few years, a hurricane or tropical storm crosses the county, bringing 1 to 3
days of intensive rainfall.
The average relative humidity in mid-afternoon is about 65 percent. Humidity is higher at night, and
the average at dawn is about 80 percent. The sun shines 65 percent of the time in summer and 50
percent of the time in winter. The prevailing wind is from the north to northeast. Average wind speed
is highest, 12 miles per hour, in winter.
The average daily maximum temperature at the New Holland weather station from 1971-2000 was
71.5 degrees F, and the average daily minimum is 51.2 degrees.
In January, the average temperature is 42.9 degrees, the average daily maximum is 53.0 degrees,
and the average daily minimum temperature is 32.7 degrees. The lowest temperature on record,
which occurred at New Holland on January 21, 1985, is 12 degrees below zero. In July, the average
temperature is 79.4 degrees, the average daily maximum temperature is 88.2 degrees, and the
average daily minimum temperature is 70.5 degrees. The highest recorded temperature, which
occurred on July 20, 1977, is 100 degrees.
The average last freezing temperature in spring is March 24. The average first freezing temperature
in the fall is November 21. The average growing season is 241 days.
GEOLOGY AND TOPOGRAPHY
Swanquarter NWR is the product of wetland community development following the Wisconsin Ice Age
15,000 years ago. Prior to this Ice Age, the level of the Atlantic Ocean in the southeast was higher than it
is presently. During the Ice Age, the sea level dropped to its current level and exposed large areas of the
continental shelf. As a result, fast flowing rivers cut through the coastal plain terrace to the Atlantic
Ocean. During the next several thousand years, as the ice receded, sea levels gradually rose. During
this period it is believed river flows were slowed and organic sediment loads were deposited in the
interstream areas as flowing systems shifted to slow-moving streams (Daniel 1981). Aquatic plants began
to grow in these shallow bodies of water, adding to the accumulation of sediment and aquatic debris.
Simultaneous with this buildup of organic sediments, a climatic warming trend accompanied the end of
the Ice Age (Whitehead 1972). This warming trend helped to eliminate the cooler climate boreal forests
and replace them with swamps, bogs, marshes, and pocosin habitats. Logging and land clearing
activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types.
20 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
The refuge lies in the Pamlico Terrace, an extensive low flat plain lying east of the Suffolk Scarp, a
prehistoric Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The terrace slopes from 10- to 16-foot elevations at the base of
the scarp gently eastward to 1 to 2 feet at the end of the land peninsulas. The Suffolk Scarp
separates the Pamlico Terrace of the main estuarine region from the higher Inland Coastal Plain
around the western-most segment of the Albemarle Sound system.
Streams in this area have relatively small sediment loading. Suspended sediments are mixed with
organic sediments from swamp forests and marshes. This mixture of sediments produces the
dominant bottom sediment of the area sounds. This sediment contains up to 15 percent organic
matter (Griese et al., 1979) and is deposited within the standing waters of the estuaries.
Brown to black, organic-rich muds predominate in the surrounding sounds, but grade laterally into a thin
apron of fine sand in the shallow waters around the perimeter of the estuaries. The sand apron usually
occurs landward of the main break in the bottom slope at a depth of about 3 feet, and extends to the
shoreline. The sediments in front of the marshes generally have little sand. They are characterized by
high organic contents and contain peat blocks, logs, and stumps (Copeland et al., 1982).
SOILS
Soil types identified on the refuge are Argent loam*, Backbay mucky peat*, Belhaven muck*,
Brookman loam*, Delway muck*, Dorovan muck*, Hyde silt loam*, Longshoal muck*, Pungo muck*,
Roper muck*, Scuppernong muck*, Stockade sandy loam*, Udorthents, and Yonges loam*
(USDA Soil Conservation Service 2001) (Table 4). Soils with an asterisk are listed as hydric in
“Hydric Soils of the United States” (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985) (Figure 4). 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
hydrophilic (water loving) vegetation" (USDA Soil Conservation Service 1985). These soils have
seasonally high water tables within a foot of the surface of the soil.
The wetlands typical of the area are characterized by deep organic soils known as mucks or
peats. The depth of organic soil depth over mineral soil, though not evident at the surface, has a
tremendous influence on the potential uses of the land. Typically, the deeper the muck surface
layer, the shorter the vegetation in the native plant community growing on the soil. The dominant
species in the plant communities are dense shrubs tolerant of the wet, acid soils. Tall trees are
unable to establish their deep root systems on the deep organic soils. Wind easily topples trees
that do grow on the deep organic soils. Over the years, evolution has selected trees that are
shorter. Formation of peat is an ongoing process in areas sufficiently wet to prevent oxidation of
organic matter deposited by plants.
There are 9,200 acres of soils with more than 51 inches of muck over mineral soil identified on the refuge:
Pungo (1,200 acres, 7 percent of the land area of the refuge), Longshoal (7,900 acres, 5 percent), Dorovan
(100 acres, 1 percent). These soils are excessively wet. Longshoal and Dorovan flood frequently; Pungo
rarely floods. They are characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for
agriculture (Skaggs et al., 1980; Lilly 1981). Marshes and low pocosins dominate these soils.
The following soils have surface layers of 16 to 51 inches of muck: Belhaven (1,300 acres, 8
percent), Delway (3,000 acres, 18 percent), and Scuppernong (500 acres, 3 percent). These soils
are also excessively wet. Delway floods frequently; Belhaven and Scuppernong rarely flood. They
are also characterized by layers of peat over mineral soil, and are mostly unsuitable for agriculture
(Skaggs et al., 1980, Lilly 1981). The productivity of the maple, gum, and bald cypress forests is
lower on these soils compared to mineral soils with less than 16 inches of organic soil. With
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21
appropriate drainage and bedding, productivity can be increased. However, the refuge would not
likely engage extensively in such practices on these deep organic soils owing to accelerated
oxidation of peat and release of nitrogen and mercury – a negative impact on water quality.
Backbay (1,500 Acres, 9 percent) and Roper (200 acres, 1 percent) have less than 16 inches of muck
over mineral soil. The native vegetation on these soils is the maple, gum, and bald cypress forest
typical of that on wet mineral soils and the productivity of the soils are similar to mineral soils. When
drained, these soils are among the most productive agricultural soils in the area. The USDA, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, classifies Scuppernong as a prime farmland soil.
Mineral soils make up 711 acres (4 percent) of the land area of the refuge. Brookman loam, Argent
loam, and Stockade sandy loam each have approximately 200 acres. Hyde silt loam and Yonges
loam each have 50 acres. Most mineral soils are more productive than organic soils for crops as well
as forest trees. Most on the refuge are poorly drained and rarely flood. They would grow loblolly
pine, bald cypress, swamp black gum, red maple, sweet gum, water oak, willow oak, and swamp
white oak. The USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, classifies Argent, Brookman, Hyde,
Stockade, and Yonges as prime farmland soils if drained.
The Udorthent soils are well-drained to droughty as are the soils under the refuge roads. Udorthents
are the dredge spoils from canals and ditches.
Hydrology
Swanquarter NWR is within the Tar Pamlico River Basin. Freshwater creeks and streams drain to
Rose Bay, Swanquarter Bay, Juniper Bay, and other smaller bays within the proclamation boundary.
Groundwater provides the freshwater resources for the area. Studies have shown that the
groundwater reservoir consists of two types of aquifers: a water table aquifer which extends from the
land surface to the first confining beds of silt and clay, and a confined, or semi-confined aquifer
beneath and between the silt and clay beds. The water table aquifer ranges in thickness from ten to
fifty feet and averages fifteen feet. The water table itself averages three feet above mean sea level.
Maintenance of the fresh groundwater depends on the amount of rainfall. Due to the sandy nature of
the soils, rainfall enters the water table aquifer with little or no surface runoff. However, after the
ground has become saturated during periods of intensive rainfall, some runoff occurs in roadside
ditches and small intermittent freshwater ponds.
The deeper confined aquifers are as much as thirty feet thick and are below the first confining beds
whose thickness ranges from five to twenty feet. Exact thicknesses are difficult to determine due to
the gradational nature of sediments below the water table aquifer.
The fresh groundwater is best described as a lens-shaped mass floating on top of denser salt water.
The amount of fresh water in this lens varies depending on the amount of recharge and discharge.
Between the freshwater and saltwater, a zone of brackish water occurs. This zone periodically
changes due to flooding, tidal movement, and rainfall.
22 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Figure 4. Characteristics of soils of the Swanquarter NWR
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23
Table 4. Characteristics of soils of Swanquarter NWR
Series Approximate
Acreage
Surface
Texture
Muck
Depth
Water Table
Depth
Flooding
Frequency
Pungo 1,200 Muck 80” 0-1.0’ Rare
Longshoal 7,900 Muck 72” 0-0.5’’ Very Frequently
Dorovan 100 Muck 70” 0-0.5’ Frequent
Belhaven 1,300 Muck 40” 0-1.0’ Rare
Delway 3,000 Muck 36” 0-0.5’ Very Frequent
Scuppernong 500 Muck 33” 0-1.0’ Rare
Backbay 1,500 Mucky Peat 14” 0-0.5’ Very Frequent
Roper 200 Muck 13” 0-1.0’ Rare
Hyde 50 Silt Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare
Yonges 50 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare
Brookman 200 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare
Argent 200 Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare
Stockade 200 Sandy Loam None 0-1.0’ Rare
Udorthents 11 Sand None 0-6.0’ Rare
Total 16,411
24 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Most of the refuge lies within a few feet of sea level, and marshes cover the majority of the refuge.
Flooding resulting from sea level rising could be a long-term problem for the Swanquarter NWR.
Over the last 100 years the sea level has risen approximately one foot. Experts agree that the sea
level will rise another two feet over the next 100 years, with a maximum increase of as much as four
to seven feet. (Source: The Probability of Sea Level Rise. James G. Titus and Vijay Narayanan.
1995. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 186 pp. EPA 230-R95-008). A rise
in sea level would alter the habitat, changing marshes into open water areas, and upland areas into
marshes. As the habitat changes, the wildlife will also change. The fresh groundwater aquifer would
be even more susceptible to saltwater intrusion because of the expected sea level rise. The refuge
can do little to affect this issue, but can realize that it is occurring and adapt management as
hydrology and plant communities change.
AIR QUALITY
The area closest to the refuge that an environmental agency monitors is the Virginia Beach-Norfolk,
Virginia metropolitan area. The Environmental Protection Agency monitors carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulates in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Hampton, Newport
News, Suffolk, and Chesapeake. Despite the large population, industry, traffic, and power plants, the
area exceeded only ozone level standards in 2002. Monitoring has indicated unhealthy levels only
twice and unhealthy levels for sensitive groups thirteen times. The relatively good air quality is due to
the breezes blowing through the area from the ocean.
Prescribed burning on the refuge has the potential to have an impact on air quality. The State of
North Carolina specifies that prescribed fires purposely set to marshes for management practices
acceptable to the North Carolina Division of Forestry and the Environmental Management
Commission are permissible if not prohibited by ordinances and regulations of governmental entities
having jurisdiction. The regulation also includes a disclaimer that addresses certain potential
liabilities of burning even though permissible.
WATER QUALITY
The state has classified the water bodies and streams according to their water quality and the uses
that quality supports. All of the waters in and around Swanquarter NWR are Outstanding Resource
Waters or High Quality Waters. The classifications of waters surrounding the refuge are listed in
Table 5. According to the North Carolina Draft 2008 303(d) List, some of these waterbodies are
impaired. Portions of Rose Bay and Oyster Creek are listed for shellfish harvesting due to fecal
coliform, and a portion of Swanquarter Bay is listed for recreation due to enterrococcus.
There is one National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitted facility that
discharges into waters adjacent to the refuge. The Rose Bay Oyster Company discharges to Rose
Bay Creek on the western perimeter of the refuge.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25
Table 5. Classifications of water bodies and streams surrounding Swanquarter NWR
Water Body or Stream Classification Best Uses
Rose Bay
Rose Bay Creek
Deep Bay
Old Haulover
Bernice Creek
Middle Creek
The Haulover
Tributaries to Juniper Bay:
Northwest Creek
Rattlesnake Creek
Old Haulover
HQW – High Quality
Waters
SA – Shellfishing Waters
Shellfishing, and Primary and Secondary
Recreation
Pamlico Sound
Swanquarter Bay
Shingle Creek
Cowpen Creek
Oyster Creek
Juniper Bay
Doe Creek
Buck Creek
Laurel Creek
Great Island Narrows
Shell Bay
Shell Narrows
ORW – Outstanding
Resource Waters
SA – Shellfishing Waters
Shellfishing, and Primary and Secondary
Recreation
Juniper Bay Creek ORW – Outstanding
Resource Waters
SC – Protected for
Secondary Recreation
Secondary Recreation (Not Swimming)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
HABITAT
Human development activities have affected plant communities on the refuge over time. Some of
these activities occurred before the Service established the refuge and some have occurred since.
Logging and land clearing activities over the last 300 years have greatly altered all habitat types.
Most notable today are the roads and the former site of the administration building near the Bell
Island Pier. However, the refuge’s undisturbed saltmarsh islands and forested wetlands interspersed
with potholes, creeks, and drains contain many important wildlife and ecological resources. Since
clear-cutting, peat mining, and agricultural conversion have developed much of the Albemarle-
Pamlico peninsula, this area remains as important wildlife habitat in eastern North Carolina. Over half
of the refuge is marsh land included in the National Wilderness Preservation System. Marsh
26 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
vegetation on the refuge is dominated by black needlerush and sawgrass while the mainland is
forested by loblolly pine, pond pine, and bald cypress. An additional 27,082 acres of adjacent, non-refuge
open water are closed by Presidential Proclamation to the taking of migratory birds.
Swanquarter Refuge is an important estuarine and wilderness resource; together with the
surrounding proclamation waters it provides winter sanctuary for black ducks and canvasbacks,
redheads and scaup. Additionally, it provides habitat for nesting osprey and colonial waterbirds. It
also supports one of the northernmost populations of the American alligator. Hyde County, in which
Swanquarter NWR lies, is a stronghold for the black bear in North Carolina and the mid-Atlantic
coast. The refuge also has the potential for habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker,
currently hosts bald eagles, and is located within the red wolf reintroduction area.
In recent years, the staff has utilized prescribed fire to maintain plant communities and successional
stages on part of the refuge. There are eight habitat types/land uses found on the refuge (Table 6
and Figure 5), which are described subsequently. There are no known threatened or endangered
plants on Swanquarter NWR. However, the Sensitive Joint Vetch has been documented as occurring
in mainland Hyde County within the last 20 years near Swanquarter NWR.
Table 6. Acreage by habitat or land use under fee title ownership at Swanquarter NWR
Habitat Acreage
Brackish Marsh 13,000
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 1,300
High Pocosin 750
Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine Forest 500
Nonriverine Swamp Forest 400
Pond Pine Pocosin 300
Open Water 150
Administrative Areas 11
Total Acres 16,411
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27
Figure 5. Vegetative habitat types of the Swanquarter NWR
28 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Brackish Marsh
The brackish marsh community is found along the margins of sounds and estuaries in areas not
subjected to regular flooding by saltwater. This community is often referred to as "high marsh" and is
subjected to irregular flooding mostly from wind tides along the Pamlico Sound. Salinity in the brackish
marsh is generally low due to distance from a salt-water source and freshwater inflow, but can be mid-range
for brief periods. If a brackish marsh occurs in an area subjected to regular flooding with low
salinity water, mineral deposition can result in mud flats. Vegetation in the brackish marsh community
is strongly dominated by black needlerush (Juncus roemerianus), but patches of saltmeadow grass
(Spartina patens) and salt grass (Distichlis spicata) can be found. In some areas, patches of giant
cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides) and common reed (Phragmites australis) occur and can be
extensive in a few areas. Sawgrass (Cladium jamaiciense) is the dominant species in large tracts of
marsh on the north side of the refuge and can be found throughout. One may also find cattails (Typha
spp.), wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), and spikerushes
(Eleocharis spp.). As salinity increases, this community can grade into salt marsh on the edge of the
Sound; if salinity decreases, it grades into freshwater marsh on the northern edge of the refuge.
Brackish marsh occupies 13,000 acres on organic soils throughout the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5). On
2,000 acres, shrubs make up a substantial portion of the marsh due to the exclusion of fire.
Estuarine Fringe Loblolly Pine
This plant community features an overstory of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and an understory that
varies with fire frequency. In the absence of fire, the understory is dominated by wax myrtle (Morella
cerifera) and inkberry (Ilex glabra). With regular natural or prescribed fire, the understory is
saltmeadow cordgrass (Spartina patens). The habitat occurs on saturated mineral or organic soils
that rarely flood. The stand on the refuge has been damaged extensively by the wind and salt spray
from Hurricane Isabel in September 2003. Estuarine fringe loblolly pine occupies 500 acres, mostly
on mineral soils on the western edge of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5).
High Pocosin
The high pocosin community is associated with deep to intermediate depth organic soils, primarily in a
transitional zone between low pocosin and the pond pine pocosin. The shrub layer is the dominant feature
of this community. However, shrubs tend to be taller (ten to fifteen feet) than those in low pocosins and
trees, mostly pond pine (Pinus serotina), may grow up to thirty to forty feet. Bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra) and
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) dominate this shrub layer with Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica) being the
most abundant herbaceous plant. Other shrub species may include wax myrtle (Morella cerifera) and
groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia), especially on edges and in areas of disturbance. Red bay (Persea
borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) may be found, but are uncommon. High pocosin occupies
750 acres, mostly on deep organic soils on the eastern edge of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5).
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest
Hardwood/mixed pine is found in scattered areas throughout the refuge. Red maple (Acer rubrum), red
bay (Persea borbonia), and swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora) are dominant hardwood trees with an average
height of 50 to 60 feet. Pond pine (Pinus serotina) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) are the pine species
present. Dominant shrubs are fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra), and sweet bay
(Magnolia virginiana). Typically little or no herbaceous vegetation is present. River cane (Arundinaria
gigantea) may be found in some locations. A mixed pine hardwood forest occupies 1,300 acres, mostly
on organic soils of intermediate depth in the northwestern part of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5).
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
This habitat type occurs on shallow organic soils found primarily in the flats of the refuge between
streams. These areas occur mostly on the margins of peatlands, grading into cypress-gum swamps,
Atlantic white cedar forests, or pond pine pocosin habitat types. Various soft mast-producing
hardwood trees typical of bottomland hardwoods dominate this forest. A long history of poor logging
practices has further degraded this habitat type. However, a tree canopy of swamp tupelo (Nyssa
biflora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinux
pennsylvanica), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) dominate the forest in the natural state. Tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipfera), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and
serviceberry (Amelanchier canadensis) may also be found. Dominant understory vegetation includes
American holly (Ilex opaca), deciduous holly (Ilex decidua), blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),
sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), sweet and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra and coriacea), and
fetterbush (Lyonia lucida). The ground layer may have cane, netted and Virginia chain fern,
(Woodwardia virginica), royal fern (Osmunda regalis), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
and partridgeberry (Mitchella repens). Common woody vines are greenbrier (Smilax spp.), grape
(Vitis spp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and
cross vine (Bigninia capreolata). Nonriverine swamp forest occupies 400 acres, mostly on organic
soils of intermediate depth in the north central part of the refuge (Table 6, Figure 5).
Pond Pine Pocosin
Pond pine pocosin is very similar to the high shrub pocosin, but contains more pond pine (Pinus
serotina), bays (Persea spp., Gordonia spp., Magnolia spp.), and red maple (Acer rubrum). Red bay
(Persea borbonia) and loblolly bay (Gordonia lasianthus) also reach heights greater than twenty feet
in this cover type. Mature tree heights, including red maple (Acer rubrum), may vary from thirty to
forty feet. Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida) and bitter gallberry (Ilex glabra) are the dominant shrubs with
Virginia chain-fern (Woodwardia virginica) as the dominant herbaceous plant where openings occur.
Grasses, sedges, and other herbaceous species are rarely present due to the dense shrub
understory. Pond pine occupies 300 acres, mostly on deep organic soils on the eastern edge of the
refuge (Table 6, Figure 5).
Administrative Areas
The site of the former administrative buildings near the Bell Island Pier, the entry road and gravel spur road,
the Bell Island Pier parking area, and roadsides make up the administrative areas of the refuge. Very little
maintenance is required of these areas. The vegetated roadsides are mowed frequently enough to
maintain visibility along roads, but not intensively enough to threaten vegetative cover. Roadsides do
fragment natural habitat and create corridors along which exotic and invasive plants thrive and spread.
WILDLIFE
General
Swanquarter NWR and its surrounding waters support many species of resident and migratory fish
and wildlife. Of these, 48 species are fish (Hester and Copeland 1975, Johnson et. al 1980), 253 are
birds, 68 are reptiles and amphibians, and 41 are mammals. The refuge supports wildlife species
that are important from both a regional and a national standpoint. Its large size and vegetative
diversity make the refuge a haven for species that require aquatic and wetland habitats.
30 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Birds
Swanquarter NWR provides habitat for a wide variety of birds. Because of the refuge's large size and
plant community diversity, habitat is provided for forest dwelling species as well as marsh dwelling
species. This somewhat unique complex of various wetland habitat types results in the presence of
some unique avian forms, such the Wayne’s black-throated green warbler, a distinct form of prairie
warbler, and an unusually dense population of worm-eating warblers (Watts and Paxton 2002).
There are approximately 250 species of birds that visit regularly with about forty to fifty additional
species considered accidental visitors.
The area is roughly at midpoint in the Atlantic Flyway and is a much used and valuable feeding and
resting area for numerous species of wintering waterfowl. Tundra swans, coots, and more than
twenty-five species of ducks winter either on the refuge or in the sounds and rivers adjacent to the
refuge. Populations of migratory waterfowl peak during the months of November through February.
In addition to waterfowl, large numbers of hawks, owls, and many species of passerine birds may be
seen. Avian species composition changes throughout the year since most are migratory.
Waterfowl. Pamlico Sound provides open water for resting, feeding, and escape cover. The wood
duck is a common year-round species and is most often associated with the shorelines, wooded
swamps, and ditches. Black ducks nest on the numerous ponds found throughout the extensive
marshes on the refuge and are part of an important regional breeding population. The most prevalent
wintering species residing in refuge marshes include pintail, green-winged teal, gadwall, widgeon,
mallard, and black duck. Large “rafts” of black scoter and lesser scaup are commonly observed on
the open waters adjacent to the refuge. Other species wintering or migrating on the refuge and
surrounding waters may include blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, shovelor, canvasback, ruddy
duck, red head, bufflehead, hooded merganser, and red-breasted merganser. Both migratory
Canada geese and snow geese use the refuge.
Breeding Birds. The species that breed on the refuge are characteristic of species that inhabit other
coastal plain communities. They include warblers, nuthatches, thrashers, and blue-gray
gnatcatchers. Wading birds, such as the great blue heron, are common and breeding has been
documented in at least one rookery on the refuge. Bald eagles and ospreys have also historically
nested on the refuge and viable nests remain.
Wintering Birds. The most common winter species are the American robin, yellow-rumped
warbler, the red-winged blackbird, and sparrows. Robins feed heavily on berries of redbay and
greenbrier and roost in large concentrations along the ditches. Myrtle warblers use vegetated
ditch banks, and forest edges. They feed heavily on wax myrtle berries. The northern harrier
may be observed hunting over the marshes.
Transient Species. Swanquarter NWR lies in the path of the Atlantic Flyway, a major migration route.
The refuge provides resting and foraging areas for many migratory species which winter farther
south. Species which migrate through the refuge during the fall include: blue-winged teal; raptors,
such as the broad-winged hawk and merlin; shore birds; and a variety of perching birds, such as the
western kingbird, bank swallow, Swainson's thrush, warblers (yellow, magnolia, Cape May, black-throated
blue, blackpoll and palm), bobolink, northern oriole, and rose-breasted grosbeak.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31
Mammals
Of the 47 species of mammals commonly occurring in the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, 41
occur on the refuge. The most common land mammals are the black bear; opossum; and rodents,
such as the hispid cotton rat. Semi-aquatic furbearers, such as the muskrat, nutria, and river otter,
are also common. Numbers of beaver are increasing. The white-tailed deer population has
remained relatively constant at low numbers in recent years. However, deer herd health checks at
five-year intervals show that the population is at or very near carrying capacity for pocosin habitat.
The black bear population is among the highest density populations in the southeast. Numerous
sightings of eastern cougar have been reported but none have been confirmed.
American Black Bear. Today, the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula has what is believed to be one of the
largest concentrations of black bear found in the southeastern United States. The population had
declined in this and other areas due to human disturbance and habitat destruction (Hamilton 1978).
According to Hamilton and Marchiuto (1977 and 1978), protection of major wetland forest types is
critical to the continued maintenance of the Coastal Plain bear population.
Little information is known on the numbers and characteristics of the refuge's black bear population.
In 1974, Hardy suggested a Dare County bear population of 25 to 35 individuals of which 13 to 20
were adult males, 4 to 8 were adult females, and 5 to 9 were juveniles. There was very little evidence
of reproductive success. The population imbalance probably resulted from selective mortality
engendered by excessive hunting.
High hunting pressure associated with increased access through road construction was the apparent
mechanism that reduced the bear population on and off the refuge. In the 1970s, state legislation
made it illegal to hunt black bear in the Coastal Plain. The population has increased steadily since
then. The state legislature re-established a hunting season in 1992, but the season was not opened
on the refuge due to insufficient population data. A research project on Alligator River NWR by the
University of Tennessee from 1992 to 1996 resulted in good information on habitat use, food habits,
and reproduction. During the same study, an attempt to estimate the population size was not
successful due to low recapture numbers (Allen 1998). An effort to estimate the population through
genetic analysis of hair samples on Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes NWRs began during 2001 by
Virginia Tech and data collection continued through 2004. That study concluded that the bear
populations on the refuges were well above levels that are considered optimum in good habitat.
Limiting factors on black bear on the refuge have been identified as blackgum mast, disturbance, and
availability of escape cover. Although blackgum fruit has been identified as limiting, the diet of the
black bear varies with the seasons and availability of food. Spring foraging appears to be largely
opportunistic with a high occurrence of ants and leaves in the diet. Blueberries and switchcane
stems are preferred through the summer. Fall feeding shifts to blackgum, with winter diets consisting
mainly of greenbrier, sumac, and gallberry (NCSU 1974).
White-tailed Deer. The white-tailed deer is probably the most sought after game species on the
refuge. Hunters make extensive use of the area around the refuge for deer hunting. White-tailed
deer are considered to be browsers because they primarily consume woody vegetation. However,
whitetails will eat almost any available form of plant life. Because of this adaptability, it is impossible
to single out one habitat as greatly superior to others. Interaction of deer and habitat is a combination
of food preference and utilization, quantity and quality of food, and availability of cover (Halls 1984,
Halls and Ripley 1961). However, best estimates suggest a much lower carrying capacity for pocosin
habitat than other habitat types. For example, Monschein (1981) reported the best estimate for
32 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
pocosin habitat is about 6 deer per-square-mile; about 18 deer per-square-mile along pocosin
borders; and 35-40 deer per-square-mile for coastal bottomland hardwoods. Basic differences
involve the quantity, quality, and availability of food.
Since establishment of the refuges on the Albemarle-Pamlico Peninsula, periodic abomasal parasite
counts, necropsy findings, laboratory tests, and general physical condition indicate that the health of
the deer population is fair-to-good. It was concluded in 1985, 1992, and 1998 by the Southeastern
Cooperative Wildlife Study that the Swanquarter NWR deer were within an optimal stocking density
for the nutritional capacity of the habitat.
Furbearers. Swanquarter NWR provides habitat for fur-bearing species such as bobcat, otter, mink,
gray fox, muskrat, nutria, and raccoon. Raccoon, nutria, muskrat, otter, and mink make use of the
ditches and streams that run through the refuge. The gray fox makes use of the edges feeding on
small mammals as well as blackberries and other fruits. Bobcats are common predators on the
refuge and are most commonly observed around the farm unit, along the edges of pocosin areas, and
in swamp forests. They may be found throughout the refuge because of the presence of the marsh
rabbit, the bobcat's main prey.
In addition to the mammals already mentioned, the refuge supports populations of the gray squirrel,
cottontail rabbit, opossum, and several rodent and insectivore species.
Reptiles and Amphibians
There are 61 species of reptiles and amphibians reported for the refuge. Reptiles and amphibians
are most numerous and diverse around permanent and semi-permanent open water, marshes,
creeks, lakes, and ditches. They also thrive in disturbed or modified and transitional areas. Some of
the species that inhabit the area are the brown, banded, and plain-bellied water snakes; common
snapping, red-bellied and eastern painted turtles; and the southern leopard frog. Three venomous
snake species have been documented on the refuge. They are the cottonmouth, canebrake (timber)
rattlesnake, and copperhead. The pygmy rattlesnake has been documented in Hyde County but,
even though the refuge is in Hyde County, none have been documented on the refuge.
American Alligator. The refuge is near the northern extent of the American alligator's natural range in
North America. This endangered reptile occurs in refuge marshes, slow-moving streams, and man-made
ditches. They prefer areas where water turbidity is low, water quality is high, and an adequate
food source is present. The refuge’s drainage ditches provide prime alligator habitat.
Fish
Fisheries on and surrounding Swanquarter NWR are diverse and productive. The refuge's potholes,
creeks, and drains support species characteristic of blackwater or oligohaline systems. Fish that
inhabit the refuge include resident species, migratory species, anadromous species, and one
catadromous species.
Resident species, such as gar, pickerel, white and yellow perch, a variety of sunfish, and catfish,
inhabit the blackwater portions of the refuge. Spotted sea trout and redfish are commonly found in
the shallow open waters of Pamlico Sound. Migratory species use the refuge's estuaries as
spawning grounds and its surrounding waters as a nursery area. Migratory species that use the
refuge include Atlantic croaker, spot, Atlantic menhaden, and the southern and summer flounders.
Most of these species are commercially harvested elsewhere.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33
Anadromous species are those that spawn in the refuge's freshwater streams and estuaries, inhabit
these areas as juveniles, mature offshore, and return to these streams to spawn as adults. These
species use Pamlico Sound and the refuge’s drainage ditches heavily. They include striped bass,
alewife, and blueback herring.
Insect and Disease Pests
The gypsy moth is now well established as far south as northeastern North Carolina. The North
Carolina Division of Plant Industry and the USDA Forest Service closely monitor gypsy moth
populations. They use pheromone traps located throughout the Hyde County mainland and barrier
islands, including refuge lands. When they detect large-scale outbreaks, they use integrated pest
management techniques to suppress the outbreak, but not necessarily eliminate the species from the
area. Although the refuge is within the quarantine area of northeastern North Carolina, there have
not been any outbreaks of the gypsy moth requiring treatment at the refuge.
Since the mid-1990s, southern pine beetle outbreaks and cutting controlling buffers resulted in the
conversion of more than 5,000 acres of mostly pond pine habitat to shrub habitat. Without prescribed fire,
this acreage will most likely remain as shrub habitat unless pond pine is planted after site preparation.
During 2002 and 2003, the spread of southern pine beetle infestations was greatly diminished.
Exotic Organisms
At the present time, little is known about exotic organisms on the refuge. Feral cats and dogs can be
found on the refuge but there is uncertainty as to numbers and extent of impact on wildlife.
Fire ants are an increasing problem but current control methods using pesticides are impractical and
undesirable in a large roadless landscape such as the refuge.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Several federally listed species occur in the area. Among them are the red-cockaded woodpecker,
red wolf, and American alligator. All species, except for the red-cockaded woodpecker, occur
throughout the refuge.
The Service first reintroduced the red wolf in the region in 1987. Since the initial releases, wolves
have reproduced in the wild and may be found throughout the refuge and four surrounding counties.
Depending upon circumstances within and between packs, there can be from two-to-five packs of
wolves on the refuge at a given point in time. An estimated 100 wolves now inhabit a 1.7-million-acre
area in eastern North Carolina.
The American alligator is listed as threatened by similarity of appearance in North Carolina and is
found in aquatic habitat throughout the refuge.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
There have been limited archaeological investigations within the refuge. The staff conducts
management activities so as to avoid compromising sensitive sites and requests an investigation
before they plan any development.
34 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Swanquarter NWR lies within Hyde County, North Carolina. Recently made more accessible to the
mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by tourism, coastal Hyde and Dare Counties
have seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents over the last few decades. This considerable
population growth and development of the barrier islands has brought substantial economic benefit to a
region historically rural and impoverished. The mainland part of the county has not developed due the
fact that 99 percent of the soil is hydric and 33 percent of it is organic and will not support structures.
Despite the growth on the coast and with its location just south of U.S. Highway 264, the refuge has not
seen greater recreational and public use. The Bell Island Pier does attract visitors when it is open for use,
but hurricanes have damaged it often and the Service has closed it for extended periods of time after
each storm. Much of the county has been cleared for agriculture. As one of the few remaining tracts of
intact natural land, the refuge and, consequently, its management considerations, have become even
more critical to the nature-based tourism in the county.
Swanquarter NWR and Hyde County are located in the northeastern part of North Carolina and are
bounded by the Tyrrell County and Albemarle Sound to the north, Beaufort County to the west, and
the Pamlico Sound to the south.
For many decades, Hyde County’s Ocracoke Island has been in the forefront of economic growth and
development in the State of North Carolina, and historically, unemployment has been lower than the
state average. Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde Counties
every year. The next closest areas of economic growth and social life are Greenville, North Carolina,
100 miles west of the refuge and Virginia Beach, Virginia, 100 miles north of the refuge.
Despite the growth on the Outer Banks, Hyde County is still predominantly rural, with the largest town
being Engelhard (2000 population 1,561). Like other rural areas throughout the country, outdoor activities
are both popular and necessary. Hunting, recreational fishing, and bird watching are popular pastimes
and commercial fishing is an important element of the economy. The importance of Swanquarter NWR
and its appropriate management is, therefore, easily understood.
HISTORY
The inhabitants of Hyde County at the time of European settlement were also Coastal Algonkians
called the Machapungo and Mattamuskeets. By the early 1700s, most of the Indians lived on a
reservation in the eastern part of the county. In 1711, the number of Indians was about 30, and by
1761, only 6 remained.
English explorers first arrived in the county in 1585. The early history of the county was dominated by
maritime trade and featured the exploits of Edward Teach, also known as Blackbeard the Pirate. The
first settlers were castaways from ships.
The North Carolina General Assembly formed Hyde County from Bath County in 1705, and originally
named it Wickam County. It changed the name to Hyde County in 1712 in honor of Edward Hyde,
the first governor of North Carolina.
In the 1800s, residents built many plantation homes in the county. The best known is the Octagon
House in the eastern part of the county. Due to its rich soil with an organic topsoil layer, Hyde County
has always had a good reputation for agricultural production, especially in corn. People once
traveled to the county from across the state for corn.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35
Agriculture has remained the most important part of the county’s economy and lifestyle. The acreage in
cropland increased dramatically in the 1970s when soybean prices increased substantially. Much of that
land was difficult to drain and maintain water levels necessary for production, and has been abandoned.
In the later part of the twentieth century, conservation agencies and organizations began to purchase
areas less suited for agriculture and production forestry due to the deep organic soils. They manage
those areas for wildlife habitat, the protection of unique ecological communities, and outdoor
recreation. In 1932, Swanquarter NWR was established by presidential order. Recreation based on
natural and cultural resources is a growing part of the local lifestyle.
LAND USE
Today Hyde County is 60 percent forested (235,800 acres), 24 percent cropland (95,327 acres), and
11 percent marsh (44,729 acres).
From 1997 to 2002, the land in farms increased 8 percent from 95,327 acres to 103,089 acres; the
average size of farms decreased 25 percent from 953 acres to 716 acres; full-time farm operators
increased 22 percent from 74 farms to 90 farms; total market value of agricultural products sold
decreased slightly from $32,996,000 to $32,868,000; and average market value of agricultural
products sold per farm decreased 31 percent from $329,965 to $228,251 (Table 7).
In 2002, corn and soybeans accounted for 31,059 and 30,013 acres of cropland, the largest crops in the
county. Cotton and wheat have also been important crops in Hyde County (Table 8) (USDA, 2002).
DEMOGRAPHICS
Hyde County is primarily rural with a total estimated population of 5,826 in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau
2000). The county population increased 7.7 percent between 1990 and 2000 (U.S Census Bureau
2000). Swan Quarter is the county seat, but the population is widely dispersed throughout the
unincorporated areas of the county.
The population is 62.7 percent White, 35.1 percent Black, 2.2 percent Hispanic, 0.3 percent Native
American, and 0.4 percent Asian (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In 2000, the mean family income was
$23,568, substantially below the state average of $35,320. The poverty rate was 24.8 percent of the
population, well above the state average of 12.6 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). The average
unemployment rate in 2004 was 7.2 percent, well above the state’s unemployment rate of 5.5 percent
(North Carolina Employment Security Commission 2004) (Table 9).
EMPLOYMENT
Lodging and food service and retail trade are the largest employers in Hyde County, employing 277
and 223 of the county’s 1,044 employees with an annual payroll of $22.4 million in 2000 (U.S.
Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns 2000). This is due in large part to the tourists
attracted to the Outer Banks of Hyde County (North Carolina Economic Security Commission 2002).
In 2000, the sectors employing the largest numbers of persons were in decreasing order as follows:
lodging and food service, retail trade, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, wholesale trade,
health care, finance, forestry and fishing, real estate, administrative and support services, and
recreation (U.S. Census Bureau, Economic Census 2000).
36 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
FORESTRY
Timber has always been a source of wealth for Hyde County. However, much of the timber was
cleared in order to cultivate the land for corn, soybeans, and other crops.
Today, Hyde County is approximately 60 percent forested, with 235,800 acres of forestland. In
comparison, 60 percent of North Carolina is forested. Fifty-two percent of the county’s forest is in
pine, 32 percent is in oak-gum-cypress, 11 percent is in oak-hickory, and 5 percent is in oak-pine
(USDA Forest Service 2002).
In 2000, private landowners were the largest forest landowners with 55 percent of the county’s
forestland. The federal government owned 28 percent, the forest industry owned 15 percent, and the
state government owned 2 percent (USDA Forest Service 2002).
Table 7. Hyde County agricultural statistics from the 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture
Number of Farms 144
Acres in Farms 103,089
Average Size of Farms (Acres) 716
Market Value of Land Per Farm $1,264,802
Market Value of Land Per Acre $1,819
Market Value of Equipment Per Farm $208,106
Total Cropland (Acres) 91,524
Market Value of All Products Sold $32,868,000
Market Value of Products Sold Per Farm $228,251
Market Value of Crops Sold $32,151,000
Market Value of Livestock Sold $717,000
Operators with Farm as Principal Occupation 90
Operators with Another Occupation as Principal Occupation 54
Hogs in Inventory 3,300
Hogs Sold 7,160
Beef Cows in Inventory 180
Beef Cows Sold 99
Land in Corn (Acres) 31,059
Land in Soybeans (Acres) 30,013
Land in Cotton (Acres) 22,906
Land in Wheat (Acres) 10,614
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37
Table 8. Commodity production in Hyde County in 2002 and 1997 from the 2002 and 1997
USDA Census of Agriculture
Commodity 2002 Production 1997 Production 1992-1997 Change
Corn (acres) 31,059 31,990 Decreased 3%
Soybeans (acres) 30,013 36,381 Decreased 17%
Cotton (acres) 22,906 4,212 Increased 444%
Wheat (acres) 10,614 18,989 Decreased 44%
Hog Inventory 3,300 9,890 Decreased 67%
Hogs Sold 7,160 25,059 Decreased 71%
Cattle Inventory 180 427 Decreased 58%
Cattle Sold 99 142 Decreased 30%
OUTDOOR RECREATION IN THE AREA
Fish and wildlife resources have had a profound effect on recreation in the area. Hyde County has
always had an abundance of fish and game, due to its diversity of lands and waters. Early in the
twentieth century, sportsmen established clubs to protect game and wildlife. Later, as part of a
comprehensive wildlife management program, the Service established Swanquarter NWR to conserve
and restore habitat for native wildlife and migratory birds. The Service also manages the Mattamuskeet,
Pocosin Lakes, and Alligator River NWRs, and the NCWRC manages the Gullrock Game Lands and the
Dare County Bombing Range as Game Lands to provide hunting opportunities in the area.
Recreation in the area is also based on the water in the ocean, sounds, bays, rivers, and lakes.
Swimming in the ocean and sunbathing on the beach are the anchors of recreation on the Outer
Banks of Hyde and Dare Counties. Boat ramps provide access to the rivers and sounds. Numerous
outfitters provide boats and guided tours. Many vendors sell and rent canoes, kayaks, sailboats,
surfboards, and sailboards. There are numerous opportunities to fish in the surf, from piers, in small
boats in the sounds and streams, and from large boats in the ocean.
A variety of agencies and organizations provide environmental education and interpretation
opportunities: the Service at Alligator River and Pocosin Lakes NWRs; the National Park Service
at the Cape Hatteras National Seashore; the State of North Carolina at Pettigrew, Goose Creek,
and Jockey’s Ridge State Parks and the State Aquarium; the Partnership for the Sounds at the
Estuarium in Washington; the town of Manteo at Roanoke Island Festival Park; and the Nature
Conservancy at Nags Head Woods.
Many of the festivals in the area are focused on natural resources including Wings over Water
throughout the county and Wildfest in Manteo. There is at least one fishing tournament every
month from May to November. The Nature Conservancy at Nags Head Woods holds weeklong
ecocamps throughout the summer.
38 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Table 9. Economic and population data for northeastern North Carolina counties
County Average
Income1
Poverty
Rate (%)1
Average 2004
Unemployment
Rate (%)2
2000
Population1 Population Trend1
N. Carolina $35,320 12.6 5.5 +21% since 1990
Counties in the Vicinity of Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
Hyde $23,568 24.8 7.2 5,826 -37% since 1900
Other Northeastern North Carolina Counties
Beaufort $28,614 17.4 6.9 44,958 +6% since 1990
Bertie $22,816 12.6 8.2 19,773 Same as 1990
Camden $35,423 12.2 3.8 6,885 +16% since 1990
Carteret $34,348 11.8 4.7 59,383 +13% since 1990
Chowan $27,900 18.7 4.9 14,526 +7% since 1990
Craven $33,214 13.8 4.9 91,436 +12% since 1990
Currituck $36,287 10.8 2.8 18,190 +32% since 1990
Dare $35,258 8.1 5.1 29,967 +32% since 1990
Gates $30,087 15.4 4.2 10,516 Same as 1900
Halifax $24,471 23.6 8.1 57,370 Same as 1950
Hertford $23,724 23.1 8.0 22,601 Same as 1960
Martin $26,058 20.1 7.1 25,593 Same as 1940
Northampton $24,218 23.1 7.3 22,086 Same as 1980
Pamlico $28,629 16.8 4.7 12,934 +14% since 1990
Pasquotank $29,305 19.0 4.7 34,897 +11% since 1990
Perquimens $26,489 19.5 4.8 11,368 Same as 1920
Tyrrell $21,616 25.7 7.8 4,149 -17% since 1900
Washington $27,726 20.5 7.3 13,723 Same as 1960
1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of the United States
2 North Carolina Economic Security Commission, December, 2004
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39
OUTDOOR RECREATION ECONOMICS
Fish and wildlife are the focus of the refuge, but they are also important to the local economy. First, a
considerable commercial fishery is present in area streams, lakes, and sounds. Striped bass, red
drum, flounder, speckled trout, and gray trout are the major species harvested. Secondly, hunting
and fishing are economically important to local businesses, both directly as the local population
spends money and indirectly as an attraction that draws sportsmen from outside the county.
Unfortunately, water pollution, channel dredging, and wetland clearing and draining has led to the
loss of valuable fishery spawning grounds and the loss of habitat for many wildlife species. In the
attempt to protect and restore some of these resources, Swanquarter NWR serves an important role,
not only by providing habitat for a diversity of plant and wildlife species, but also as a place where
people can go to enjoy these resources through wildlife observation, wildlife photography, or more
directly through fishing and hunting.
There have been no studies performed on Swanquarter NWR or any other refuges in North Carolina
on which to estimate the economic impact of outdoor recreation. The Service has surveyed all
wildlife-dependent recreation participants in North Carolina. There has been a study of visitors to the
interpretive facilities of a non-government organization in northeastern North Carolina. There are
also numerous studies of ecotourists and birdwatchers on national wildlife refuges and other areas
throughout the United States.
The Fish and Wildlife Service surveyed participants in wildlife dependent recreation in North Carolina in
2001. The survey documented an average expenditure of $69 per day by anglers, $74 per day by
hunters, and $199 per day by wildlife observers and photographers (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
The Partnership for the Sounds sponsored a study of the economic impact of their facilities. The study
demonstrated that the average visitor spent $108 per visit, with a range of $63.70 to $332.55 per day
(Vogelsong 2001). A similar study of visitors at the Chincoteague NWR in Virginia also showed a range
of expenditures from $62 to $101 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997).
A study commissioned by the State of New Jersey demonstrated that the average visitor to the
shorebird migration spent $130 per day (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2000).
Birdwatchers on eight national wildlife refuges in New Jersey reported a range of expenditures from
$25 to $41 per day (Kerlinger 1994).
Ecotourists on Dauphin Island, Alabama, spent an average of $60 per visitor per day (Kerlinger 1999).
Bird watchers on High Island, Texas, from the local area reported an average expenditure of $46 per
day: and non-residents reported $693 per trip (Eubanks, Kerlinger, Payne 1993). The average visitor
to the Great Texas Coastal Birding Trail spent $78 per day (Eubanks and Stoll 1999).
Studies at the Santa Ana NWR in south Texas demonstrated a range of expenditures from $88 to
$145 per day on nature-based tourist activities. The Laguna Atascosa NWR in south Texas reported
a range of $83 to $117 per day (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1997).
Bird watchers to the Salton Sea NWR in California spent an average of $57 per day (National
Audubon Society 1998).
40 Swanquarter National Wildlife Refuge
With improved facilities and staffing, Swanquarter NWR can continue to serve as an important
commodity in the economic life of the community. Eco-tourism, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable industry.
As the population increases and the number of places left to enjoy wildlife decreases, the refuge may
become even more important to the local community. It can benefit the community directly by
providing recreational opportunities for the local population, and indirectly by attracting tourists from
outside the county to generate additional dollars to the local economy.
TOURISM
Seven million tourists visit the Outer Banks of Dare, Currituck, and Hyde Counties every year.
Tourism in the area is based on the outdoor recreation opportunities described above and the
cultural attractions in the area. Roanoke Island, on which Manteo is located, was the birthplace
of Virginia Dare, the first English child born in America. The state legislature named the county
in her honor. The county seat in Manteo has a historic district featuring old homes and limited
development along the streams and the sound. Manteo also features Roanoke Island Festival
Park, with a historic visitor’s center and a replica of the Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabethan
Gardens managed by the National Park Service as a replica of a formal English garden, and
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, the site of the first settlement.
Other cultural attractions include the National Park Service’s Wright Brothers Memorial, Bodie Island
Lighthouse, and Cape Hatteras Lighthouse; North Carolina Maritime Museum, the Frisco Native
American Museum; and the Chicamocomico Lifesaving Station.
Cultural resources are the basis of many events that attract tourists: historical workshops,
lectures, and programs at the North Carolina Maritime Museum; tours of historic homes and their
gardens; readings of books on historical themes; Virginia Dare’s Birthday; National Aviation Day
and Week at the Wright Brothers Memorial; Freedman’s Colony Celebration at Festival Park; and
an Antique Fair at Festival Park.
Swanquarter NWR, and the other nearby refuges serve as additional attractions to tourists visiting the
area at least seasonally. If the refuge had more facilities and staffing, tourists might stay longer in the
area to enjoy the opportunities provided for wildlife-dependent recreation and interpretation. This
could generate more income for the local economy.
TRANSPORTATION
In its early days, residents of the area relied on water transportation. The rivers and streams
that crisscross and border the county served as a means for transportation, trade, and
communication between almost every community in the area. Some of the important
waterways in the area were the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds and the Alligator River. While
today these waterways are no longer necessary for most transportation needs of the county,
they are still important as sources of income and for recreation. Ferries still provide access
across the sounds. A ferry connects Swan Quarter to the outer banks where millions of tourists
spend their vacations.
In the twentieth century with the popularity of automobiles, the state and federal governments
developed a network of highways connecting Hyde County to all areas in the eastern United
States. U.S Highway 264 runs just north of the refuge and connects population centers in
central North Carolina and Interstate